I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness. All opinions expressed here are solely my own.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Hill Times: WHO is leading the Liberal Party?
The Hill Times made a MAJOR faux pas today in this article...
"As Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (Toronto Centre, Ont.) pressed Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) again in Question Period..."
Really? The Liberal Leader is the MP from TORONTO CENTRE, you say? Well, just WHO might the MP for Toronto Centre be, you might ask?
Toronto Star publishes false story, but are we even surprised anymore?
Today, the Toronto Star (aka - The Red Star) got caught red handed publishing a completely false story about adding strippers and escort jobs on Canada's Job Bank listings.
I'm not normally one for posting the "Talking Points", but I got a copy of these forwarded to me, and figured I'd post them as is for your consumption:
Toronto Star story completely false
A story in today's Toronto Star, under the byline ‘Richard J. Brennan’ states our government is changing the policy on what careers will be posted on the federal government’s Job Bank website. The story makes the completely false claim that “the Conservative government wants to help unemployed Canadians find careers as strippers and for-hire escorts.”
This story is completely and utterly false. In fact, the “draft note” cited by the reporter has not been seen by Minister Finley’s office, nor would it ever have been a policy under consideration by our government.
Even more shocking, despite citing several reactions from opposition and stakeholders in the erroneous story, the reporter did not even call Minister Finley’s office for a response.
If he had, he would have learned that there is absolutely no basis in fact to claim this is government policy.
It is the height of irresponsible journalism to accuse the government of changing a policy without contacting the government itself for confirmation or comment.
It is sad that Canadians are subjected to such a lack of journalistic integrity, and that a major Canadian newspaper would give a story such prominence without first verifying the facts.
Because of this blatant lack of journalistic standards, Minister Finley’s office will be registering a formal complaint with the Ontario Press Council, the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Public Editor of the Toronto Star.
TorStar BUSTED making "edits" to Rob Ford's Wiki page
What that? The left-wing media getting actively involved in trashing a right-wing candidate? Say it ain't so... oops, looks like it is so.
Someone at The Toronto Star has been busted making a number of edits to Rob Ford's personal Wikipedia page, adding a link to a satirical website that posted obscene content mocking the Toronto mayoral front-runner.
Not that I see this as anything new... they just got caught this time.
TorSun, NP, CTV, CBC all reporting on Ignatieff's GAFFE, approaching "GATE" status
It's official... with most of the major MSM players reporting on Ignatieff's "devilish" GAFFE at the Calgary Stampede, what was initially a low-blow attack on the Prime Minister has now worked it's way up to a "GATE" status... which is it folks? "Devil-gate", "Satan-gate", or "Sulphur-gate"?
Credit goes to the first out of the gate Toronto Sun on this one, can't wait for SunTV News. Second was the National Post, who had "the quote" on their front page today. As a result, CTV was forced to question him on it when he appeared on Canada AM (see video), where he tried to simply dismiss the comments as "a joke". (Canadians aren't laughing at your negative, attacking, Republican-style humour, Mr. Ignatieff). With many of the major players having commented on it, the CBC was, of course, left to play catchup, unable to defend Ignatieff's gaffe by simply ignoring it any longer.
Let's review what we've seen so far... first was the Toronto Sun:
"Ignatieff kicked off his summer tour in Calgary by touting the Liberal’s “positive message” and then compared Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the devil, "You know you smell the whiff of sulfur coming off the guy.” In literature, the whiff of sulfur is often used to describe the devil and someone as well read as Ignatieff should know to choose his words more carefully."
Political rhetoric burns with fire and brimstone
Joe O'Connor, National Post · Tuesday, Jul. 13, 2010
There will be no retraction, no apology offered and no backing down for Michael Ignatieff, who kicked off a cross-Canada tour in Calgary by likening Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the devil.
Speaking to an audience of Liberal supporters at a Stampede breakfast on Saturday the official leader of the Opposition let fly, saying Canadians "can smell the whiff of sulphur" coming off the Conservative PM, a putrid scent most often associated with rotten eggs and — in Christian theology — Satan himself.
Michael O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Ignatieff's press secretary, stuck by his boss's verbal blast on Monday when pressed to elaborate. In an email, he said that the whiff of sulphur is "quite evident when one faces the Conservative government on a daily basis."
CTV - Video only, in which he tries to simply dismiss his blunder, can be accessed here.
However, political observers say Ignatieff's 2010 bus trip might not move his poll numbers much and come with risks, such as gaffes by the leader or, even worse, no one showing up.
Ignatieff already generated controversy over the weekend at the Calgary Stampede when he was quoted as comparing Harper to the devil, saying "Canadians can smell the whiff of sulphur coming off this guy."
And if he's just apologized on Sunday, when it was first reported, it would have been a non-issue... but now we're into DAY THREE of reporting on this gaffe, and the chorus is only growing louder.
Way to draw attention to your bus tour Mr. Ignatieff... making absolutely sure that everyone knows you blew it right out of the gate. Just issue an apology, (or a typical political "non-apology" apology) and get it over with.
"The Liberal leader’s latest boneheaded move — comparing Stephen Harper to Satan — is more than just a stupid remark. It’s the umpteenth stupid remark, uttered just as he’s setting off on his umpteenth effort to remake his image and win over Canadians. The whole point of the Liberal bus tour, which set off today from Ottawa, was to expose voters to the real, informal, ordinary-guy Ignatieff in hopes they’d warm to him. “Hey look, our leader isn’t really the stiff-assed academic snob he appears to be in Ottawa — that’s all spin invented by the mainstream media and their corporate backers. Mike’s a nice guy when you get to know him! Really.”
So what’s he do? Before he even gets on the bus he heads off to Calgary — Calgary! — and informs everyone who voted for Harper (i.e. all of Alberta) that they’re such total dunderheads they cast their votes for the Prince of Darkness. Here he is in the heartland of Conservatism, Stephen Harper’s adopted home town, trying to lure just a few voters to his party, and the best tactic he can think of is to insult the entire province. What next: Head off to St. John’s and suggest that everyone who votes Tory is a dumb Newfie?
It’s hard to figure this guy. He’s made mistake after mistake after mistake. He signs the coalition pact, insists he’s on side, then repudiates the whole thing later. He stokes a phony election threat, insists he means it despite all common sense, then retreats in embarrassment when it falls flat. He raises issue after issue as a line in the sand, then does nothing when the Tories step over the line and kick sand in his face to boot. His own caucus ignores him, his supposed pal Bob Rae embarrasses him, he fires his advisers to get better advice, and then makes the same dumb mistakes under the new advisers.
Okay folks, here's my two cents on CTV's announcement... they've made a poor choice, because I lost all respect for Lisa Laflamme due to her blatantly biased reporting at a Paul Martin event during the 2006 Federal Election... an event which I posted on that very evening.
I was outside a Liberal event one evening, where a small crowd of left-wing protesters had gathered to criticize the Martin Government. They had gathered on the sidewalk, blocking his path from the campaign bus to the pub where he was going to make a speech. The RCMP kept him on the bus for a few minutes, and then had to push through the protesters to make a path to get him in.
In the ensuing melee, CTV's Lisa Lafaemme was nearly knocked over by the protesters. In fact, I recall that someone had to catch her so she didn't fall on her butt on the sidewalk. (she managed to duck into an entryway to avoid being trampled)
With such bedlam having occurred, I looked forward to seeing the report that evening. However, giving her report on the air that evening, NOT A WORD WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE PROTEST. And why was that, I asked myself? I think it was because it would have looked bad for the Liberals, naturally. Sorry, but if she refused to report the REAL news that night, then I simply can't trust her to deliver the REAL news to the nation.
As such, I have come to the conclusion that CTV has made a poor choice in selecting Liberal Laflamme for Lloyd's post.
It's kinda both funny and sad to watch the left foaming at the mouth over the announcement of SunTVNews. Check this pic I snagged from their Facebook group today...
Make sure you submit your two cents on the issue... and tell the CRTC that "Freedom of the Press" is still important here in Canada, despite the left's fervent desire to maintain a Stalinistic-like control over it.
Liberal MP: "The prorogation rallies were hijacked by the NDP"
Well, thanks to Liberal MP John Cannis (Scarborough Centre) for confirming today in the House what I'd said quite some time ago... that the "grassroots" anti-prorogation rallies were nothing more than a partisan SHAM.
His quote today, as relayed by a friend on the Hill:
"The prorogation rallies were hijacked by the NDP... the rallies DID NOT represent the will of Canadians."
(exact quote from Hansard to be posted when available)
And the media fell for it... hook, line, and sinker. One of the many reasons Canadians want a new media outlet like SunTVNews!
Looks like today's Opposition Day motion from the Liberals has gone and opened up a whole can of worms for themselves... that's the second Opposition Day in a row that's gone badly for them... I'm sure we all recall their pro-abortion motion fiasco?
Congrats guys... good job on reminding Canadians that you're not even close to being ready for prime time.
The National Post's Jonathan Kay put out a GREAT blog post yesterday, advocating a position that I've been advocating for years... that the Liberal Party of Canada MUST DIE.
I've long said that for the sake of the nation, the Liberal Party must be destroyed. They are the single greatest roadblock to any real political discussion, debate, and dialogue in this great nation. Any time a real idea is brought forward by any other Party, they're always the first to spin it negatively for their own political gain. We can't even talk about a lot of issues here in Canada, because we know the Liberals will do everything in their power to paint us with the "Scary Conservative" mantra.
I've also advocated this position because I've noticed, over the years, the same thing as Mr. Kay... that when you ask a Liberal WHY they're a Liberal, you'll get some fluffy pie-in-the-sky answer, or a bogus "my family has always been Liberals" response, as opposed to any real statement on policy. Or something along the lines of "I vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives". I have ONLY EVER ONCE had a real policy discussion with one Liberal supporter (with a guy who's not even a Liberal member) on why he supports the Liberal Party of Canada. (that would be you, Mr. J.A... aka "Sir L") But most of the time, it's just some nonsensical, vague and useless answer... much like the Liberal Party itself, I suppose.
Anyway, fantastic piece of journalism... I highly recommend giving it a read.
Four and a half years ago, in the run-up to the 2006 federal election, then-Senator Jerry Grafstein wrote a letter to this newspaper declaring as follows: “The Grafstein family has voted in every federal election for the Liberal party in the last 75 years, and we intend to so again with renewed enthusiasm in this election.”
Think about that for a moment. At various times over the last 75 years, depending on who has been in charge, the Liberal Party has been the party of protectionism, of free trade, of war, of peace, of indulging Quebec, of confronting Quebec, of Bay Street, of the poor, of Washington, of anti-Americanism, of Trudeauvian socialism, of ruthless 1990s-era austerity. Yet throughout it all, the Grafstein clan has mechanically checked the box for the Liberal Party. The Liberals could run a monkey draped with a Liberal sash, apparently, and the Grafsteins would just keep ticking the box so long as the monkey endorsed monkey bilingualism and monkey equalization.
Grafstein is hardly alone. There are many others like him scattered around Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and points in between — veteran Liberal grandees who simply could never imagine voting for any other party. For these people, the Liberal Party isn’t a set of people and policies, it’s a cherished flag you salute.
This Liberal fetish for self-veneration has been around so long in this country that we have lost track of how weird it is. When justifying their party affiliation, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc Québécois and even Greens typically will recite a set of reasonably specific policy positions and values. The same is true, in the United States, of Democrats and Republicans. With Liberals, on the other hand, you tend to get empty clichés and historical references built around the tautology that the Liberals are great because they are the party of greatness.
The most common is the one about the Liberals being “the party of Laurier” — as if the party affiliation of someone who’s been dead for almost a century should have the slightest bearing on how anyone today should vote. It’s the equivalent of an American Republican describing the GOP as “the party of Taft,” or a Democrat declaring his fealty to the “Party of Wilson.”
The Liberals’ treacly love affair with themselves wasn’t a problem in the Trudeau era, when the country truly did hunger for the sort of large-scale national projects that played to the party’s grandiose sense of holy ordainment. Nor was it a problem in the 1990s, when the opposition had fractured into regional constituencies, and the Liberals could declare themselves a “natural governing party.” But now that the right has united, and the taste for Trudeuvia has evaporated, Liberal self-love has sabotaged the party in two major ways:
1. It has made Liberals existentially incompetent at the act of opposition, since the role itself is seen as an insult to the natural order of the universe. Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom (with whom I normally disagree) nailed this point when he recently wrote that “the Liberals don’t take the role of opposition seriously. Desperate for power, they are unwilling to do anything to spark an election until they are reasonably sure of winning it.”
2. Like a college football coach who believes he can plug any quarterback into a pre-existing offensive “system,” Liberals have come to believe that any stiff — even Stéphane Dion — can ride to victory on the strength of the Liberal brand. In this regard, the selection of Michael Ignatieff — a man who hadn’t lived in Canada since 1978, the era of the Bee Gees and Grease— was an act of stunning arrogance that would be unimaginable for any other major Western political party.
Many Liberals who want to dump Ignatieff speak of passing the torch to a new generation of young Liberals. The problem with this is that most young Liberals I know already have internalized their party’s trademark self-regard as God’s Chosen Party. It’s what drew these student-council types into the party in the first place, in fact: the promise of running the country without the hard work of proposing new ideas.
All of which brings me to the prospect of a Liberal-NDP merger. The move makes sense from a purely arithmetic perspective: One party is better than two. But more importantly, destroying the Liberal brand also would be a great strategy for saving the party’s grandees from their own self-destructive hubris. It doesn’t matter what you call the new entity — just make sure that, at the end of the day, something called the “Liberal party” no longer exists as a vessel for vapid self-hagiography.
Liberals should welcome their own party’s funeral. As things stand, many of the lifelong Liberals I know walk around in a state of unspoken shame because their party isn’t fulfilling the divine destiny of the “party of Laurier.” Surely it must be someone’s fault, they suppose — and so they cast about for internal enemies, attacking one another in a whirlwind of panic and bickering. Getting rid of the Liberal brand actually would be liberating for these people: They could finally reawaken to the idea of politics as an exchange of ideas, rather than a sentimental, backward-looking marketing exercise.
Looks like "Fox News North" (we need a better more neutral nickname guys) has snagged their first media star... Parliamentary reporter David Akin announced his resignation from CanWest this morning, and will be joining the Sun Media group, the parent company for this new 24-hour news channel venture.
It's about time that there was another voice in the Canadian market... one that seeks to bring some balance back.
Iffy hits "Magic 25%"... will Liberals pull the plug on the professor from Harvard?
I didn't think it was possible, but "Iffy" has gone and done what many thought was impossible... he's hit the "Magic 25%"in the polls... back firmly in sub-Dion territory, a full point below Dion's 2008 election result. (And the numbers are from EKOS, as we all know, a pro-Liberal pollster)
If you recall from earlier this week, the "Magic 25%" is apparently a number circulating amongst some Liberals... the magic number that could trigger another leadership revolt, and could spell the beginning of the end of Ignatieff's leadership.
Although many Liberals believe that Ignatieff will not lead them back to power, they aren’t planning to try to dump him before the next election. But there is a magic number circulating among Liberals these days: 25 per cent. If their party sinks to this number in the polls, then all bets are off.
Liberals are resigned to another defeat, as long as the Conservatives don’t win a majority government. But if their party sits at 25 per cent, there is a chance of Prime Minister Stephen Harper winning a majority, which would keep the Liberals out of government for at least another four years. This scares many of them because Liberals out of power are like fish out of water. If they perceive that Harper can get a majority, the Grits would like to get rid of Ignatieff, regroup around a new leader and go to the polls trying to defeat the Conservatives.
With all the negative stuff that's been thrown at the Tories in the last few weeks, I didn't think it was even possible. But Ignatieff has somehow managed to do it once again... to find a new depth for his party to sink to.
Of course, we all knew the outcome was a foregone conclusion... but I thought they'd at least try to make a show of "going through the motions" by taking a bit longer to do their "review".
CBC clears pollster, criticizes 'paranoia-tinged' Tories
Jane Taber - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:33 AM
1. Culture-war report. Stephen Harper’s chief election strategist deliberately used the CBC complaints process and “paranoia-tinged” language to raise money for the Conservatives and to “overwhelm” and “intimidate” the office, the public broadcaster’s ombudsman says in a report that completely exonerates EKOS pollster Frank Graves.
In his seven-page report, released late yesterday, Vince Carlin examines the 800 notes received by his office concerning Mr. Graves, who many Conservatives charge is a Liberal partisan providing tainted polls to the CBC.
Add to that the most recent set of polls, where both EKOS and Nanos note an upswing for the Tories, and a continuing slide for the Liberals... which, considering that the Conservatives had a pretty rotten month of April, ought to be causing plenty of worry amongst Liberals ranks.
You can almost picture him saying "Whaa haaappened???"
(that one's for you "kiddo")
It's been a full year since Iggy's coronation guys... and he's STILL polling in Dion territory. You've been swinging away at us, and we're still well ahead of you in the polls. Add to that the fact that the Canadian economy is well on it's way to recovery, and I'd say that you're quickly running out of options to take back power anytime soon.
Scratch that... getting back to power has been WAY off the table for you since 2005.
UPDATE: Spoke too soon... Nanos has released the full numbers, and it looks even BETTER for the Tories... 39.5%. With the current political situation, that would likely translate into a majority.
In an effort to stick it to PM Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff tried to pressure Harper to renew Governor General Jean's term, which is set to expire in September. However, once again, his partisan efforts have blown up in his face.
Let's take a look at the media coverage on the issue today, shall we? I must say, I can't recall seeing such a uniform opinion from the MSM on ANY issue in recent memory... and none of it's good for the Professor from Harvard.
FANTASTIC article called "The End of the Liberal Empire" written by Maclean's Andrew Coyne. A MUST READ for any political junkie in Canada... of all stripes.
Here's to real reform our our democratic system... DEATH TO THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA!!!
Gotta LOVE the media spin, eh? Oh, the heartless right-winger insults a Muslim girl. Anyone care for some context?
Several friends of mine were at the London event, and I had a chance to talk to one of them this evening. And he shed some very interesting light on what really went down that night.
First of all, there's the "UNCUT" version of what actually happened... see it for yourself. Notes follow:
First observation... looks like this girl is reading her question off a Blackberry. Was perhaps she "fed" the question, I wonder?
Second of all, just listen to her tone... she wasn't looking for an answer, she was looking for an argument. The fact of which is backed up thanks to my friend's eye witness account. Apparently this young Muslim girl only showed up for the Q&A; session, and didn't even listen to what Ann had to say. Futhermore, I'm told she left immediately after her "camel" comment, and made a bee-line for the cameras. Yea, I'm thinking it was a setup from the get-go... to which of course, Ann was happy to oblige.
Thirdly, it would appear that the "camel" comment wasn't so much directed at her, as it was directed at the rude hecklers who were trying taunt her by shouting "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!" Interestingly, she in fact WAS taking the time to answer the questions asked by this young woman, but she was doing so in her own particular manner... deconstructing them bit by bit, and dealing with the incorrect root issues underlying the questions.
For example, the first question was in regards to her comment "we should convert them to Christianity", made shortly after 9/11. She began her answer by correcting the questioner, and giving the full and exact quote, which was "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". She then methodically detailed her rational for that answer, using the examples of American intervention in Japan at the end of WWII, and in South Korea after the Korean War. She detailed how during the reconstruction phases, a call was made to the Christian church for missionaries, who are well known the world over for our humaitarian work. In fact, many well known and respected aid organizations in the world are in fact Christian founded organizations, who's original (and for some, still is) goal was to spread the Gospel of the love of God for mankind, as expressed in our Lord Jesus Christ.
She then made the second and vitally important statement that defines "genuine" Christian faith... we don't "force" conversions. (and those who do, I submit to you, don't know the Lord whom they claim to profess) This is an important detail to remember in the context of her quote... we OFFER Christianity, we don't "enforce" it. So when she said we should "convert them to Christianity", she wasn't talking about forced conversions. For the record, and to answer a comment from a reader earlier today, I submit to you that THAT is one of the best ways to tell the genuineness of someone's supposed "Christian" faith... we do the preaching and aid part, not the bombing and killing part.
I'll interject here and correct a misconception that many have... the USA and Christianity are NOT synomymous. No matter how much "America" thinks of itself as a "Christian" nation, I've got a news flash for ya... IT'S NOT. So, for the likes of far left readers like Jerry, DON'T go assuming that I link the two together. (I'm actually rather sick and tired of that incorrect linkage, thank you very much... but that's Liberal "hidden agenda" fear and smear for ya, I guess)
Anyway, back to the main point of what she was talking about... she was attempting to tell the audience of the incredible success stories that are today's Japan and Korea. Which were accomplished, in both cases, when the United States "bombed their countries, killed their leaders, and converted (some of) them to Christianity".
Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot... I'm not saying I agree with her premise. I don't, when viewed through the lens of my faith. However, from a strictly "secular" perspective, I can see why some people might agree with it. (now aren't you GLAD that I'm a Christian? LOL...)
While she was continuing to "answer the question", or at least the first part of it, several of the "left" who were in attendance, who only wanted the sound byte I assume, got tired of the history lesson and started shouting "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!" After about a dozen similarly ideologically aligned detractors in the audience chimed in as well, rudely demanding that she hurry up and fit her answer into a single soundbyte that would fit into their obviously limited attention span, (funny, I thought they were all for logical and reasoned answers... my mistake I guess) she decided to honour their request... she skipped the rest of her answer to the first question, and crafted a witty response directed instead at the hecklers in lieu of a second answer... "What mode of transportation? TAKE A CAMEL."
And of course, at that point, that's the ONLY thing that any of the already ideologically entrenched detractors heard that evening. Who, of course, were more than happy to plead their "offendedness" to the waiting cameras. You know, "Offendedness"... it's a lot like "Truthiness". Whereas Colbert's "Truthiness" is for the Right, likewise "Offendedness" is the bastion of the Left.
So you see? It's all about the context. If it wasn't for the rude appearence of the ever present and easily offended species of "Interruptist Protestest Professionalis", that poor Muslim girl might of gotten an actual answer from the right-wing "hater". Oh well... too bad for them.
Oh, and while we're on that topic... did you know she hates Israel? Not Ann... I mean the other girl.
Ottawa Citizen: "The thuggery of student activists"
Great editorial over at the Ottawa Citizen, commenting on a major growing problem that few in the media dare to tackle... the thuggish tactics being employed more frequently, and more successfully, by the far left in Canada.
Ann Coulter's opinions can be obnoxious, offensive and just plain wrong. But she's spot-on about one thing: that the University of Ottawa has shown itself to be a "bush-league" school.
The thuggery of student activists is a growing problem at Canadian campuses, but the spectacle at the University of Ottawa was truly a colossal embarrassment, for both the university and the city. Ottawa is the capital of a G8 country, yet our premier research university is evidently so insecure and insular that a talk-TV pundit from the U.S. represented an intolerable intellectual threat.
We wish we could blame only the students for shaming the university. But the administration was complicit in the successful campaign to shut down Coulter's much publicized talk on campus.
It began when the university's vice-president academic and provost, François Houle, sent Coulter a bizarre e-mail, in which he made it perfectly clear that he detests her polemical style and that she should watch her back, lest she find herself facing "criminal" or "defamation" laws. He told Coulter -- in the most condescending of tones -- that the University of Ottawa has a tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration" and therefore that is why he feels it is necessary to invoke what "may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression."
Can anyone imagine an academic leader from Princeton University writing to a TV personality and saying, essentially: "You know, our students are very sensitive, so please when you visit don't say anything that will make them uncomfortable"? Would the vice-president of Harvard do this? Of course not.
The principal effect of Houle's foolish letter was to empower, albeit unwittingly, the student mob who came out Tuesday night to chase Coulter from campus. After all, Houle in so many words called Coulter a hatemonger and made it plain that her kind was not welcome.
The humiliating episode is a giant gift for a publicity-hound like Coulter. In an interview with a U.S. newspaper that had got wind of the incident, Coulter noted that students at serious universities are too "intellectually proud" to shut down speakers they don't agree with. She visits liberal campuses all the time without fearing for her safety. But at the University of Ottawa, she quipped, "their IQ points-to-teeth ratio must be about 1-to-1."
That smarts, but the University of Ottawa deserves the rebuke.
The shutting down of Ann Coulter is only the latest example of totalitarianism on Canadian campuses. At Concordia University in Montreal, thugs famously prevented Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking. At many campuses, pro-life student groups are harassed and denied official club status. When pro-choice student leaders at Toronto's York University learned that other students had organized a debate over the ethics of abortion, they promptly cancelled it, even though the event had been booked and the flyers printed.
Notice that this ongoing, organized effort to eliminate speech deemed politically unacceptable comes exclusively from the campus left. No one hears of conservative student groups physically interfering with left-wing speakers. A lot of conservative-minded students (and others) were unhappy with the recent Israel Apartheid Week, for example, but no one threatened to assault the organizers or disrupt the event.
We have no love for a buffoonish provocateur like Ann Coulter. It says something about the maturity and calibre of some University of Ottawa students that Coulter is the dignified party in this dispute.
While I absolutely DESPISE the title, (pretty sure they picked it just to boost sales, and it'll work) I think Paul Wells has written perhaps THE BEST ARTICLE I'VE READ IN AGES regarding the political realignment that's occuring in Canadian politics. Give it a read... NOW.
So based on that article, here's a message to all the fiscally conservative "nervous nellies" that I've seen recently, bemoaning Harper's seemingly non-fiscally-conservative moves, and to those who've been taking pot-shots at the "So Cons"... have patience. This article sums up what I've been trying to say for a while, but haven't been able to find the words. We're NOT trying to foist our views on people... we're trying, just like you, to make a better country FOR EVERYONE.
Harper is pulling Canadian politics back to where the PEOPLE are, slowly, one step at a time. THAT'S why we're winning... because we're winning the "hearts and minds" of Canadians by showing them a vision for Canada that's more in line with their own way of thinking. We're working together as Conservatives for the benefit of those Canadians "who work hard, pay our taxes, and play by the rules". (And of course, I might add, to make sure we help those who can't help themselves... kinda sad that I have to make a special mention of that to all the lefties who think I'm "mean spirited" just because I'm a Conservative)
Yes, my dear Liberals, there always was a "hidden agenda", but it's not what you thought it was, and you've completely missed it by focusing on the little things. You see, we've been seeking to bring Canadian politics back into the mainstream, back into line with the thinking of the "average Canadian", and out of the hands of all the special interest groups that you've relied on for all these years. And we're forcing you further off to the left... which is helping more and more Canadians to realize that you DON'T speak for them anymore.
And guess what? We're succeeding. I think one of your own, Warren Kinsella, put it best, when speaking of Harper... "The longer he's Prime Minister, the longer he's Prime Minister."
UPDATE: I should also mention that it's a fairly timely article from Wells, considering some posts that have been on the Blogging Tories in the last few days. For the record, go easy on RightChick folks... I've seen some rather "Liberal-esque" insults thrown at her, and that's totally NOT COOL. She has SOME valid points, I encourage you to DISCUSS, rather than insult.
Now this is a surprise... a former Bush hater, Jack Cafferty of CNN's "Situation Room", lambasted the Obama Administration and the Democrats for their manouvers in trying to get their Health Care bill passed behind closed doors, thereby shutting out the GOP, and regular Americans, from the process.
See it for yourself, from his rant back in early January... especially where he calls Obama a bold faced "LIAR". (check the 0:33-0:42 marks)
QUOTE: "President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in Government. It was all just another LIE that was told in order to get elected."
There's lots of talk these days about papers starting to charge for their articles, AGAIN, seeking to make up for "lost revenues" and such. Here's my take on the issue, which I think it reflected by a lot of bloggers... if it ain't free, we'll just get our news elsewhere. And when we post our stories, we'll just refer our readers to the free version, instead of yours.
It's really that simple. Media organizations have clearly not gotten the message, as many are considering putting up firewalls once again. A big part of the problem is, however, that they're spending MILLIONS of dollars on website redevelopment projects, trying to make their sites the slickest, integrating tons of features and extra content. Quite frankly, that's not what I'm interested in. When I hit a newspaper website, all I want is the article in question. THAT'S IT. I don't go there for the "extras". If I want the "extras", I'll go to somewhere like the CBC's or CTV's websites.
Just to break it down and make it easier for the execs... it's strictly your CONTENT that I want, based on the writing of your particular writers. You pick good journalists who put forward an interesting take on a major story, and I'll likely pick up and re-broadcast YOUR content... instead of the other guys. Or, quite frankly, maybe your idiot of an author, who's moronic screeds I'll forward too. But I'm not interested in any of the other stuff you're trying to provide, SO DON'T BOTHER WASTING YOUR/MY MONEY!!!
As you can see, it's clearly not worked... so just stick to what you're good at. Investigative stores. Series on a particular issue of interest. REPORTING THE NEWS. Opinion and analysis. You know, the kind of thing you did in "the good old days" before the internet. If you stick to that, keep your websites simple, AND KEEP THEM FREE, then your current online ad revenues should at least keep your web operations going. But will it ENHANCE your bottom line? I don't think so... but I pretty much assure you that charging online for your content WILL hurt your bottom line, as readers/bloggers tune you out, and start looking for content elsewhere.
My rant/screed on this one, take it or leave it. But know that if you ignore it, you'll likely be hurting yourself in the long term. That's because today's youth DEMAND that content online be "FREE", and will en mass ignore media organizations that don't follow that dictum. And today's youth WILL be your future subscribers... or your competitors subscribers. You choose.
I'm a Born-Again Christian, redeemed by the shed blood of the risen and eternal Lord Jesus Christ. My wife and I are both active in our local church, where our life's focus is on giving all Glory to Jesus Christ, on missions, the preservation of Biblical truth, and the strengthening believers everywhere.
Christian "Independent"
Really? The Liberal Leader is the MP from TORONTO CENTRE, you say? Well, just WHO might the MP for Toronto Centre be, you might ask?
