Ed. here. Since the blog belongs to me today, my words will appear in Roman letters, not italics. [Italics are mine. Walt.] Ahem... The blog is mine because the topic is proper English, knowledge of which seems to be lacking even at venerable publishing houses such as Random House Canada, part of the vast [or half-vast] organization known simply as Random House, "the world's largest English language trade publisher".
Things being a little slow here, I checked Random House's Canadian and international websites under "careers", thinking perhaps they would be looking for editors or at least proofreaders. Apparently not.
But why would I think there might be such a vacancy? Because I have just finished reading Peter Newman's When the Gods Changed: the Death of Liberal Canada (RHC, 2011) which appears to have been published without any proofing beyond what might have been done by a spell-check utility.
The quality of the output is, frankly, shocking. Errors of vocabulary, grammar, spelling and even punctuation abound. Here are some of them, shown in bold, with page numbers so you can check for yourself.
Before the "Introduction", there are two untitled pages which I suppose might be called a preface. On p. xii we find "This incidence of non-recognition..." Arrrggghhhh. Didn't we just post "'Incidents' vs 'incidence' -- what's the difference?". Oh wait, that was just this past July -- too late for Mr. Newman. [But he's even older than I am. He should know better! Walt]
Page 71 - "each new wave of Grits hot off the grittle" - I'm hoping this is not a spelling error, but an intentional neologism, a play on "Grits" which is slang for (Canadian) Liberals.
Page 80 - "until the midfifties" - "mid-fifties", surely, or possibly "mid-50s".
Page 102 - "waking a spectacular international decision" - How do you "wake" a decision? Perhaps Mr. Newman writes in longhand and the typesetter can't tell his M's from his W's.
Page 164 - "humming 'Il a perdu son epaulettes'" - Should be either "ses épaulettes" or "son épaulette". If you don't speak French, don't try to write it and expect an anglophone proofreader to fix it for you.
Page 224 - "'We're looking at a growing gap between the successive previous generation of immigrants like my dad, and the generation coming in from Africa and Asia.'" - Supposedly quoting Michael Ignatieff. What is a "successive previous generation"? Did Iggy actually say "successful"?
Page 236 - "...to send the matters to their respective parliamentary committees for consideration; he committees found..." - Missing a T there, but the spell-checker wouldn't catch that.
Page 242 - "After the first week of the campaign, Ignatieff's approval rating jump from nineteen percent to twenty-five percent..." - Tense trouble.
Page 256 - "[The Conservatives]...came under the leadership of nineteen individuals, many of whom gave anonymity of big boost." - What does this mean?
Page 264 - "To shift the burden of justified criticism on to his shoulders..." - Should be "onto", and yes, there is such a preposition.
Page 266 - "aimed at demoralizing Michael Ignatieff" - Supposedly from a "partial transcript" of an interview with Peter Donolo. My guess is Donolo said "demonizing", not "demoralizing", although Ignatieff probably was demoralized.
Noted twice - a member of a municipal council would be a "councilor" in the USA, but a "councillor" in Canada.
And finally, the piece of resistance (as Mr. Newman might have said)... Page 218 - "There has been a hard edge in the Conservative's pursuit of national competitiveness..." GAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! Does he really mean just one Conservative? No, this is clearly an apostrophe error, committed by Mr. Newman [who should know better. Walt] or an editor or proofreader who doesn't know how to construct a plural as opposed to a possessive.
Those at Random House or elsewhere large who weren't paying attention in Grade 8 English should read "Apostrophe Catastrophe" and "Let's kill the apostrophe ???". You're welcome.
Short book review from Walt: Leaving aside the problems with English usage noted by Ed., is When the Gods Changed worth reading? No. Fifty years ago, when he wrote for Maclean's and authored Renegade in Power (about the Diefenbaker years), Peter Newman was a crackerjack political commentator.
His last opus was supposed to be about the making of a prime minister. Such was the working title. Sadly for him (and RHC) Ignatieff led the Liberals to the worst defeat in their history, and quickly resigned. Mr. Newman was left with under 300 pages (including generous leading) of shoulda/woulda/coulda. The book is proof positive that even a skilled writer can't make something out of nothing.
Showing posts with label Ignatieff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ignatieff. Show all posts
Friday, January 10, 2014
Friday, December 3, 2010
Conversing about immigration
The Globe and Mail -- Canada's answer to the New York Times -- thinks Canadians should have a "conversation" about matters of importance for the future of the country. The Glob's politically correct editorial staff made up a list of the Top Ten Topics. Immigration did not appear on the list. Neither did racism or culture clash or anything which wasn't 100% politically correct.
This is more than passing strange, considering that immigration, bogus refugee claims, black crime, and the stubborn refusal of south Asians to adapt to Canadian society are the topics one overhears being discussed anywhere real Canucks gather. Anywhere outside of Starbucks and the drawing rooms of Rosedale, that is.
The Tory government of "Call me Steve" Harper, showing that it is only half-deaf to the wishes of ordinary Canadians, has introduced Bill C-49, which would curb human trafficking -- the smuggling into the country of illegal aliens.
The socialist NDP and leftish Bloc Québecois have announced that they will oppose the bill. So, in the current minority parliament, the bill's fate rests in the hands of the opposition Liberals.
The Liberals, led [after a fashion. Ed.] by Count Michael Ignatieff, hold a large number of seats in the Toronto and Vancouver areas, including some which are East Indian ghettos. The voters there are Sikh, Sikh, Sikh.
On the other hand, the Glibs are never going to return to their position as Canada's Natural Governing Party unless they can win back a goodly number of white bread ridings in TROC -- The Rest Of Canada outside the hotbeds of multicult. They are in danger of losing their grip even on Toronto's suburbs, as witness this week's by-election in the largely Italian-Canadian riding of Vaughan.
So if you're Count Iggula, what do you do? Pander to the racists or pander to the vizmins? Count on Mikey to make the wrong decision. Yep, he announced a couple of days ago -- apparently without consulting his caucus -- that his party will also oppose the government's bill.
Just another demonstration of how out of touch Iggy and the puppeteers who pull his strings are with the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Canadians.
That's not just Walt's opinion. Click here to read Michael Den Tandt's column in the Sun/QMI papers today. Here's the main point:
"Earth to Liberals: You are offside with most Canadians, including Liberal Canadians, on this issue.
"Ending the abuse of our immigration and refugee system is not contrary to the interests of immigrant communities, or of refugees. The opposite is true.
"If the abuse continues, as we have seen in Europe, the popular pressure against immigration will only grow."
This is more than passing strange, considering that immigration, bogus refugee claims, black crime, and the stubborn refusal of south Asians to adapt to Canadian society are the topics one overhears being discussed anywhere real Canucks gather. Anywhere outside of Starbucks and the drawing rooms of Rosedale, that is.
The Tory government of "Call me Steve" Harper, showing that it is only half-deaf to the wishes of ordinary Canadians, has introduced Bill C-49, which would curb human trafficking -- the smuggling into the country of illegal aliens.
The socialist NDP and leftish Bloc Québecois have announced that they will oppose the bill. So, in the current minority parliament, the bill's fate rests in the hands of the opposition Liberals.
The Liberals, led [after a fashion. Ed.] by Count Michael Ignatieff, hold a large number of seats in the Toronto and Vancouver areas, including some which are East Indian ghettos. The voters there are Sikh, Sikh, Sikh.
On the other hand, the Glibs are never going to return to their position as Canada's Natural Governing Party unless they can win back a goodly number of white bread ridings in TROC -- The Rest Of Canada outside the hotbeds of multicult. They are in danger of losing their grip even on Toronto's suburbs, as witness this week's by-election in the largely Italian-Canadian riding of Vaughan.
So if you're Count Iggula, what do you do? Pander to the racists or pander to the vizmins? Count on Mikey to make the wrong decision. Yep, he announced a couple of days ago -- apparently without consulting his caucus -- that his party will also oppose the government's bill.
Just another demonstration of how out of touch Iggy and the puppeteers who pull his strings are with the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Canadians.
That's not just Walt's opinion. Click here to read Michael Den Tandt's column in the Sun/QMI papers today. Here's the main point:
"Earth to Liberals: You are offside with most Canadians, including Liberal Canadians, on this issue.
"Ending the abuse of our immigration and refugee system is not contrary to the interests of immigrant communities, or of refugees. The opposite is true.
"If the abuse continues, as we have seen in Europe, the popular pressure against immigration will only grow."
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Is there a Tea Party brewing in Canada?
Some time ago Walt wondered if a Tea Party movement wouldn't be a good thing for Canada. Apparently some Canadians have been thinking along the same lines. You'll find them at that great Canadian institution -- Tim Hortons!
Just drop in at your local Tim's -- you'll find them in the northeastern USA too, even in NYC -- and eavesdrop on the conversations about the issues of the day: immigration; foolish government spending; health care; multiculturalism.... You'll hear a lot of those supposedly mild-mannered and middle-of-the-road Canadians saying things that would embarrass even the handful of red Tories in Steve Harpoon's government.
Politicians are listening! On his bus ride across Canada this summer Count Michael Ignatieff made it a point to stop nearly every day and be photographed holding a Tim Hortons cup. (The cup is full of tea though; no coffee addict he!)
And a year ago Call Me Steve skipped a United Nations assembly meeting in favour of a photo-op at a Tim Hortons in a suburb of Toronto, welcoming the doughnut chain back as a Canadian public company. (Steve's no coffee drinker either; he quaffed hot chocolate.)
Why this sudden interest in "the Tim Hortons nation"? According to Susan Delacourt, writing in the Toronto Star, it's because Harper and Ignatieff "really like the eople who drink Tim Hortons coffee. They want their votes and their affection." Of course!
Ms Delacourt's article quotes the head of an Ottawa think tank as saying "In terms of the politics of symbolism, clearly the Tim Hortons connection symbolizes being in touch with ordinary people, drinking what they drink. It's not the place where anyone knows the price of arugula."
So, she says, the USA has its Tea Party movement, and Canada has its Tim Hortons. "What's bubbling in the political kettle here, so to speak, is populism, of two very different but related sorts."
Just so, and the difference has to do with the temperament of the people. Americans are much more inclined than Canadians to take to the streets and wave placards. Canadians don't like to do that, especially when it's cold outside. They just sit in Tim's, sip their coffee and complain to each other. (Walt wonders if the national bird of Canada shouldn't be the grouse!)
But Canadians do vote, although in recent years they do so in declining numbers. Probably they feel that voting doesn't matter because there's no real alternative to the centre-right Tories or the centre-left Liberals.
As CNN pointed out a few weeks ago, there was, in the 1980s, a more conversative option, the Reform Party. But the Reform got co-opted by the red (or paler blue) Tories who valued winning more than ideology.
However, new movements and new parties keep springing up. There's the Wild Rose Party in Alberta -- Reform redux -- and there are stirrings even in Ontario and Québec. There's bound to be an election sometime between now and 2012. Let's see if the simmering discontent with the mainstream Canadian parties comes to a boil.
Just drop in at your local Tim's -- you'll find them in the northeastern USA too, even in NYC -- and eavesdrop on the conversations about the issues of the day: immigration; foolish government spending; health care; multiculturalism.... You'll hear a lot of those supposedly mild-mannered and middle-of-the-road Canadians saying things that would embarrass even the handful of red Tories in Steve Harpoon's government.
Politicians are listening! On his bus ride across Canada this summer Count Michael Ignatieff made it a point to stop nearly every day and be photographed holding a Tim Hortons cup. (The cup is full of tea though; no coffee addict he!)
And a year ago Call Me Steve skipped a United Nations assembly meeting in favour of a photo-op at a Tim Hortons in a suburb of Toronto, welcoming the doughnut chain back as a Canadian public company. (Steve's no coffee drinker either; he quaffed hot chocolate.)
Why this sudden interest in "the Tim Hortons nation"? According to Susan Delacourt, writing in the Toronto Star, it's because Harper and Ignatieff "really like the eople who drink Tim Hortons coffee. They want their votes and their affection." Of course!
Ms Delacourt's article quotes the head of an Ottawa think tank as saying "In terms of the politics of symbolism, clearly the Tim Hortons connection symbolizes being in touch with ordinary people, drinking what they drink. It's not the place where anyone knows the price of arugula."
So, she says, the USA has its Tea Party movement, and Canada has its Tim Hortons. "What's bubbling in the political kettle here, so to speak, is populism, of two very different but related sorts."
Just so, and the difference has to do with the temperament of the people. Americans are much more inclined than Canadians to take to the streets and wave placards. Canadians don't like to do that, especially when it's cold outside. They just sit in Tim's, sip their coffee and complain to each other. (Walt wonders if the national bird of Canada shouldn't be the grouse!)
But Canadians do vote, although in recent years they do so in declining numbers. Probably they feel that voting doesn't matter because there's no real alternative to the centre-right Tories or the centre-left Liberals.
As CNN pointed out a few weeks ago, there was, in the 1980s, a more conversative option, the Reform Party. But the Reform got co-opted by the red (or paler blue) Tories who valued winning more than ideology.
However, new movements and new parties keep springing up. There's the Wild Rose Party in Alberta -- Reform redux -- and there are stirrings even in Ontario and Québec. There's bound to be an election sometime between now and 2012. Let's see if the simmering discontent with the mainstream Canadian parties comes to a boil.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Firing the first shot of the Canadian culture wars
In his book Open and Shut (see Walt, passim), John Ibbotson talks about the differences between American and Canadian political culture and society. Keeping the book short, Mr. Ibbotson did not explore the significance of the "culture wars" that now divide the USA.
To paint with a very broad brush, Americans divide into two camps: the Christian right vs the secular left. The Democrats tend to line up with the latter. The Republicans tend to waffle becauase the former are a minority...a very vocal minority to be sure...and the Republicans need some of the non-religious voters to get back in office.
And now we have the Tea Partiers, the cranky old white men (and women) like Walt who are against the nanny state and in favour of individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities. A few weeks ago Walt said Canada needs a Tea Party. Just recently Sarah Palin spoke to a sell-out crowd in Hamilton, Ontario -- Canada's answer to Bethlehem PA. Believe me, there are lots of disgruntled Canadians out there.
Now Frank Graves of Ekos Research, a sometime adviser to Canada's Liberal Party, has told the Grits that the "wedge politics" of the Conservatives provide the Liberals with a chance to present a "stark alternative".
In other words, he recommends that the Libs throw the conservative wing of their party under the big red bus and pin their hopes on winning a majority of the "progressives" who reside in the genteel areas of Toronto and Montréal. "Forget about the yokels. Win Westmount and Rosedale and all will be well."
Bring on the polarizing debate, says Mr. Graves. It worked for Jean Chrétien against Preston Manning and Stockwell Day, so why wouldn't it work for the Iggster?
"I told them," Mr. Graves confides to a reporter, "that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin."
Wow! Strong stuff! Walt doesn't live in Alberta, but hopes most fervently that the Liberals will take Mr. Grave's advice and BRING IT ON!
To paint with a very broad brush, Americans divide into two camps: the Christian right vs the secular left. The Democrats tend to line up with the latter. The Republicans tend to waffle becauase the former are a minority...a very vocal minority to be sure...and the Republicans need some of the non-religious voters to get back in office.
And now we have the Tea Partiers, the cranky old white men (and women) like Walt who are against the nanny state and in favour of individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities. A few weeks ago Walt said Canada needs a Tea Party. Just recently Sarah Palin spoke to a sell-out crowd in Hamilton, Ontario -- Canada's answer to Bethlehem PA. Believe me, there are lots of disgruntled Canadians out there.
Now Frank Graves of Ekos Research, a sometime adviser to Canada's Liberal Party, has told the Grits that the "wedge politics" of the Conservatives provide the Liberals with a chance to present a "stark alternative".
In other words, he recommends that the Libs throw the conservative wing of their party under the big red bus and pin their hopes on winning a majority of the "progressives" who reside in the genteel areas of Toronto and Montréal. "Forget about the yokels. Win Westmount and Rosedale and all will be well."
Bring on the polarizing debate, says Mr. Graves. It worked for Jean Chrétien against Preston Manning and Stockwell Day, so why wouldn't it work for the Iggster?
"I told them," Mr. Graves confides to a reporter, "that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin."
Wow! Strong stuff! Walt doesn't live in Alberta, but hopes most fervently that the Liberals will take Mr. Grave's advice and BRING IT ON!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Mr. Harper's arrogance has not gone unnoticed
Canadians, who are thought to be so uninterested in politics as to be capable of sleeping through a military coup, seem to have taken some note of the arrogant and dictatorial action of their prime minister in proroguing Parliament.
According to a report by EKOS released yesterday, most Canadians say they are aware of Mr Harpoon's decision to prorogue Parliament so as to be able to rule without having to account to anyone. Roughly two-thirds of those who understand what Harper has done say they disapprove.
Even in American and Britain, where little attention is paid to Canadian politics, eyebrows have been raised. Yesterday I pointed you towards articles in the Guardian and the New York Times. Today I recommend "Harper goes prorogue" (geddit?), an editorial in The Economist.
"Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious," the writer says, "but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it." Just so.
For a longer and fuller treatment of this theme, consider an op-ed piece by Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Make fun, if you will, of the Iggster's questionable abilities as a political leader, but you have to give him credit for being a thinker.
Here's the nub of Mr. Ignatieff's argument: This shutting down of Parliament is not a rash or impetuous act. It is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Harper’s government. Whenever Stephen Harper gets into political trouble, his first impulse is to steamroll over democratic institutions that get in his way.
If you agree that Harper's bypassing of Parliament so as to rule directly and without impediment is bad for democracy and bad for Canada, let your voice be heard. And remember it come the next federal election.
According to a report by EKOS released yesterday, most Canadians say they are aware of Mr Harpoon's decision to prorogue Parliament so as to be able to rule without having to account to anyone. Roughly two-thirds of those who understand what Harper has done say they disapprove.
Even in American and Britain, where little attention is paid to Canadian politics, eyebrows have been raised. Yesterday I pointed you towards articles in the Guardian and the New York Times. Today I recommend "Harper goes prorogue" (geddit?), an editorial in The Economist.
"Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious," the writer says, "but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it." Just so.
For a longer and fuller treatment of this theme, consider an op-ed piece by Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Make fun, if you will, of the Iggster's questionable abilities as a political leader, but you have to give him credit for being a thinker.
Here's the nub of Mr. Ignatieff's argument: This shutting down of Parliament is not a rash or impetuous act. It is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Harper’s government. Whenever Stephen Harper gets into political trouble, his first impulse is to steamroll over democratic institutions that get in his way.
If you agree that Harper's bypassing of Parliament so as to rule directly and without impediment is bad for democracy and bad for Canada, let your voice be heard. And remember it come the next federal election.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
This time next year
Wednesday, September 2, 2009Fall election after all?
Walt's prediction: December 31st will see Harpoon still in office, thanks to the fecklessness of the gutless Grits.
Now, four months later, you can chalk up another bang-on prediction for Walt. Lifetime percentage .994.
After a lot of sabre-rattling in the fall, Ignatieff and his ever-changing team of advisers discovered -- surprise, surprise! -- that the Canadian people really didn't want an election, even if it meant being stuck for the rest of the year with Smarmy Steve Harper and his coterie of toadies.
Through a mix of Liberal weakness, Tory brutishness and sheer luck, Mr. Harpoon seems at the moment to have power grasped firmly in his talons. He has steamrollered the opposition. Run right over them. Harper's coercing the Governor-General into proroguing Parliament -- he didn't even bother to go and see Her Jeanness, just phoned -- is merely the latest bruising bodycheck.
Indeed, Harper looks to be on course to become the most successful Conservative prime minister since Sir John Eh. But wait. As John Diefenbaker said, "It's a long road that has no ashcans." [What does that mean? ed.]
Walt fearlessly predicts that by this time next year, someone else will be Prime Minister of Canada. It may not be Afghanistan that does him in, although it should be. Perhaps the opposition can succeed in pinning the blame for the HST on the federal government. Or it could be the Tories' desire to change leaders before another election, in hopes of finding someone who can lead them to a majority.
But hear me, Harper is neither invulnerable nor invincible. Look for his authoritarian regime to fall by this time next year. Then and only then will I wish Canadians a happy new year!
Footnote 1: Click here to read "Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy" , excellent analysis of the Harper regime by James Travers, national affairs columnist for the Toronto Star.
Footnote 2: Am I the only one who really hates the official portrait of Call Me Steve, embedded above? That cat-that-ate-the-canary smirk makes me want to hit him right on his big long nose.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Wanted: a strong leader -- another take
Yesterday I wrote that the Liberals are in dire need of a strong leader. Since the other parties have such, it's a pity the Grits can't find someone with perceived strength and leadership ability to do battle with Mr. Harpoon. Iggy just doesn't cut the mustard.
Today's Globe and Mail has a fine column by Lawrence Martin, "How ‘Iffy' and the Liberals dropped the ball". You should read it.
"Iffy"... I wish I'd thought of that soubriquet. I love it!
Someone has asked who I think should lead the Liberals, if not the Iggster. Frankly I can't think of anyone. What a pity Gilles Duceppe isn't a Liberal.
Today's Globe and Mail has a fine column by Lawrence Martin, "How ‘Iffy' and the Liberals dropped the ball". You should read it.
"Iffy"... I wish I'd thought of that soubriquet. I love it!
Someone has asked who I think should lead the Liberals, if not the Iggster. Frankly I can't think of anyone. What a pity Gilles Duceppe isn't a Liberal.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wanted: a strong leader
Major Canadian political party seeks leader, bilingual, able to take charge of faction-ridden caucus. Must have personality plus, strong and determined TV persona, and must have his own red tie...
Canadian readers may remember last year's federal election. (Was it only last year? ed.) The TV campaign -- the debates, the ads, the 24/7 analysis and punditry -- stick in my mind. We had five (5) parties contesting the election (being charitable to the Greens), led by four (4) strong personalities.
Who was the weakest link? Give you a hint...it wasn't the woman! Step forward, poor little put-upon Stéphane Dion. Yes, he of the red tie, pencil-neck and somewhat owlish visage...that's when he didn't appear more like a deer caught in the headlights.
I felt genuinely sorry for M. Dion. Being portrayed in a Tory attack ad with a puffin shitting on his head was just a small portion of the indignity and scorn heaped upon him every day. He was indeed shat upon from a great height, and by all and sundry including many within his own so-called united party.
I remember him as playing the 97-pound weakling to "Call me Steve" Harper's beach bully. It seemed he wore the glasses to protect his eyes from having sand kicked in them! And when he tried to go on the offensive himself, as in the debates, it was rather like watching a sheep trying to savage a wolf.
M. Dion must have been mightily relieved when it was all over and a bloodless coup put him out of his misery. But he was no more relieved than card-carrying Liberals who thought that now they could crown a new leader, a strong leader, one who would impose some order on the fractious party and stand up to the attacks of Mr. Harpoon and the barking of the dreaded square-jawed Baird.
Alas, the Liberals chose Michael Ignatieff, the latest in an increasingly long line of urban liberal intellectuals who have difficulty relating to Joe Sixpack from Otter Haunch SK.
How can one describe the Iggster? He is taller than his predecessor, more...saturnine, perhaps? He is thin, angular...another Abraham Lincoln, maybe? Except you can't picture him splitting rails or operating a jackhammer or anything vaguely physical like that.
Indeed, in the truly awful ads in which we see him standing in a copse near Cherry Beach, he manages to look quite uncomfortable, as if afraid that a squirrel or raccoon might jump on him. Maybe that's why he keeps his voice so low. And the vapid script... I keep waiting for him to say "Gosh, so these are trees, eh. We should do something with these...something better!"
Dear readers, Walt has seen this movie before. We've got yet another bemused and feckless dude (in the old sense of the word), a puppet in the hands of the Toronto Liberal establishment (hello, Senator Smith!), who's going to shoot it out against the Sundance Kid. Guess who's going to get killed?
Canadian readers may remember last year's federal election. (Was it only last year? ed.) The TV campaign -- the debates, the ads, the 24/7 analysis and punditry -- stick in my mind. We had five (5) parties contesting the election (being charitable to the Greens), led by four (4) strong personalities.
Who was the weakest link? Give you a hint...it wasn't the woman! Step forward, poor little put-upon Stéphane Dion. Yes, he of the red tie, pencil-neck and somewhat owlish visage...that's when he didn't appear more like a deer caught in the headlights.
I felt genuinely sorry for M. Dion. Being portrayed in a Tory attack ad with a puffin shitting on his head was just a small portion of the indignity and scorn heaped upon him every day. He was indeed shat upon from a great height, and by all and sundry including many within his own so-called united party.
I remember him as playing the 97-pound weakling to "Call me Steve" Harper's beach bully. It seemed he wore the glasses to protect his eyes from having sand kicked in them! And when he tried to go on the offensive himself, as in the debates, it was rather like watching a sheep trying to savage a wolf.
M. Dion must have been mightily relieved when it was all over and a bloodless coup put him out of his misery. But he was no more relieved than card-carrying Liberals who thought that now they could crown a new leader, a strong leader, one who would impose some order on the fractious party and stand up to the attacks of Mr. Harpoon and the barking of the dreaded square-jawed Baird.
Alas, the Liberals chose Michael Ignatieff, the latest in an increasingly long line of urban liberal intellectuals who have difficulty relating to Joe Sixpack from Otter Haunch SK.
How can one describe the Iggster? He is taller than his predecessor, more...saturnine, perhaps? He is thin, angular...another Abraham Lincoln, maybe? Except you can't picture him splitting rails or operating a jackhammer or anything vaguely physical like that.
Indeed, in the truly awful ads in which we see him standing in a copse near Cherry Beach, he manages to look quite uncomfortable, as if afraid that a squirrel or raccoon might jump on him. Maybe that's why he keeps his voice so low. And the vapid script... I keep waiting for him to say "Gosh, so these are trees, eh. We should do something with these...something better!"
Dear readers, Walt has seen this movie before. We've got yet another bemused and feckless dude (in the old sense of the word), a puppet in the hands of the Toronto Liberal establishment (hello, Senator Smith!), who's going to shoot it out against the Sundance Kid. Guess who's going to get killed?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The problem is the leaders: Rick Mercer
Sometimes Rick Mercer's TV rants don't work so well when they appear in print. Sometimes they are better. Today's analysis of the character and style of our three (Anglo) political leaders is one of the best pearls Mercer has ever cast before us. Read it!
Just a taste... Here's what he has to say about Mr. Harpoon:
"We have a minority government that bombards us, practically year-round, with campaign-style ads that are more vitriolic and personal than anything ever witnessed in Canadian history.
When it comes to issues that Canadians care about – the economy, Afghanistan, heath care, medical isotopes – there is a campaign of misinformation that qualifies as pathological.
When asked the philosophy behind our Prime Minister's communication strategy, Mr. Harper's former campaign manager, Tom Flanagan, summed it up with the phrase: “It doesn't have to be true; it just has to be plausible.”
Voting Conservative is not a problem for a majority of Canadians; we've done it before. Voting for an angry guy who thinks we're stupid and will believe anything? That takes some getting used to."
Mercer is equally scathing about the Iggster and Jack Laydown. Read the column!
Just a taste... Here's what he has to say about Mr. Harpoon:
"We have a minority government that bombards us, practically year-round, with campaign-style ads that are more vitriolic and personal than anything ever witnessed in Canadian history.
When it comes to issues that Canadians care about – the economy, Afghanistan, heath care, medical isotopes – there is a campaign of misinformation that qualifies as pathological.
When asked the philosophy behind our Prime Minister's communication strategy, Mr. Harper's former campaign manager, Tom Flanagan, summed it up with the phrase: “It doesn't have to be true; it just has to be plausible.”
Voting Conservative is not a problem for a majority of Canadians; we've done it before. Voting for an angry guy who thinks we're stupid and will believe anything? That takes some getting used to."
Mercer is equally scathing about the Iggster and Jack Laydown. Read the column!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The game of chicken climaxes Friday
Friday (18/9) looks like being put-up-or-shut-up day for Canada's "New" Democratic Party. A ways and means motion that afternoon could be the straw that breaks "Call me Steve" Harper's back, but only if the NDP votes with the Bloc Québecois and the Liberals to bring down Harpoon's misgovernment.
The Iggster has already announced that his Liberals won't back down this time, and his smug phiz is already appearing on your TV screen. The Blocheads also seem ready to hit the election trail.
The Iggster has already announced that his Liberals won't back down this time, and his smug phiz is already appearing on your TV screen. The Blocheads also seem ready to hit the election trail.
That leaves the Few Democrats to ride to the rescue of the Tories, if they want to avoid the election of which they are scared shipless. See my post of 2/9.
"Hit the road Jack" Layton has been making conciliatory (conciliaTory? ed) noises about how everyone should try to work together, but his troops sound increasingly doubtful. Having chided the Liberals for their previous support of the government, they'll be hard-pressed now to vote with the same capitalist-roaders.
Of course Harper's minions could find a way to duck the vote. A spokesman for Government House Leader Jay Hill said "the final timing decision has not yet been definitely made."
But check my post of 2/9 (or 9/2, for American readers -- OK, September 2nd). Here's what Layton's saying now: "I really think that most people across the country are saying to themselves, can't these people talk and get something done on the important issues? ... I say to the Prime Minister again, that it's incumbent upon a prime minister in this country in a minority parliament to work with other parties."
Sounds to Walt like he's the one who's going to blink. Stay tuned...
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The year of no summer; the summer of no politics
The Canadian political scene this summer has been as quiet as Walt can ever remember. It's as if all the rain (in the Ottawa area) has dampened everyone's spirits along with their clothes.
"Call me Steve" Harper went on a tour of the Arctic. "Let me drive the boat! Let me fly the chopper!" After securing Canada's Great White North, he turned his attention to the Senate, appointing another nine hacks, flacks and cronies to sit with Mike Puffy on the government side. (Is it true that the Duffster has a double-wide chair?)
As for the Liberals, their "war room" looks like the Marie Celeste. Everyone, up to and including the Iggster, has apparently taken the summer off.
This week they trotted out El Hacko Supremo, David Smith (one of the masterminds behind the great victories of John Turner, Paul Martin and "Call me Stephane" Dion) to say the Grits are in no hurry to force an election. You damn betcha!
The Liberal war chest is still closer to empty than full and in many ridings, including Walt's, the Grits can't even find a credible candidate. By the way, Walt lives in Ontario -- not Toronto, but the real Ontario -- where the next federal election will be won or lost.
Walt's prediction: December 31st will see Harpoon still in office, thanks to the fecklessness of the gutless Grits. You read it here first.
"Call me Steve" Harper went on a tour of the Arctic. "Let me drive the boat! Let me fly the chopper!" After securing Canada's Great White North, he turned his attention to the Senate, appointing another nine hacks, flacks and cronies to sit with Mike Puffy on the government side. (Is it true that the Duffster has a double-wide chair?)
As for the Liberals, their "war room" looks like the Marie Celeste. Everyone, up to and including the Iggster, has apparently taken the summer off.
This week they trotted out El Hacko Supremo, David Smith (one of the masterminds behind the great victories of John Turner, Paul Martin and "Call me Stephane" Dion) to say the Grits are in no hurry to force an election. You damn betcha!
The Liberal war chest is still closer to empty than full and in many ridings, including Walt's, the Grits can't even find a credible candidate. By the way, Walt lives in Ontario -- not Toronto, but the real Ontario -- where the next federal election will be won or lost.
Walt's prediction: December 31st will see Harpoon still in office, thanks to the fecklessness of the gutless Grits. You read it here first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)