- I am redeemed! The word "kerfuffle" not only exists, but has an unimpeachable pedigree.
- Stephen Harper was apparently a Reach for the Topper in his high school days - yet another thing he and I have in common, along with....um...
- One of my better friends accidentally assaulted Donald Sutherland yesterday in a 5th Avenue mansion. And it was Donald Sutherland who was out of place.
Friday, March 30, 2007
La bleh provence
Well, my Quebec election prediction wasn't quite right. Though in my defense, it was damn close.
I wonder how Bernard Landry will do toe to toe against Stephen Harper - probably not as well as Gilles Duceppe will do toe to toe against Mario Dumont.
I also wonder if anyone will pause to consider the following: that you can apparently be a drunk driver, a crypto-racist, a verbally abusive misogynist, or a failed amateur golf pro and also a Canadian Premier, but you can't be a homosexual unless you somehow manage to convince the public you "represent families." Besides, wouldn't "reformed coke addict" fit right in on that list?
What a message to Canadian queer youth considering getting involved in politics, from Rachel Gagnon and, more broadly, from the people of Quebec: if you're a tepette, don't wear a pink tie at the office. Leave the bad behaviour, and the power, to the straight men - after all, they have so much experience with both.
I wonder how Bernard Landry will do toe to toe against Stephen Harper - probably not as well as Gilles Duceppe will do toe to toe against Mario Dumont.
I also wonder if anyone will pause to consider the following: that you can apparently be a drunk driver, a crypto-racist, a verbally abusive misogynist, or a failed amateur golf pro and also a Canadian Premier, but you can't be a homosexual unless you somehow manage to convince the public you "represent families." Besides, wouldn't "reformed coke addict" fit right in on that list?
What a message to Canadian queer youth considering getting involved in politics, from Rachel Gagnon and, more broadly, from the people of Quebec: if you're a tepette, don't wear a pink tie at the office. Leave the bad behaviour, and the power, to the straight men - after all, they have so much experience with both.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Un canadien errant
The next 7 days could perhaps turn out to be one of the more exciting weeks in Canadian politics in some time. Or it could turn out to be a total bust. Either way, I won't be here to comment on it - I'm off for a well-deserved rest south of the border.
Before I go though, a couple of thoughts:
- Convential wisdom says that Stephen Harper wants an election immediately after the budget. Unconventional wisdom says that he doesn't. My guess is that Stevie will be happy to have or not have an election as long as whatever happens happens to be in his party's interest. Harper's funny like that.
-Jean Charest won't win the Quebec election.
That's all I've got folks. See you when the dust settles.
Before I go though, a couple of thoughts:
- Convential wisdom says that Stephen Harper wants an election immediately after the budget. Unconventional wisdom says that he doesn't. My guess is that Stevie will be happy to have or not have an election as long as whatever happens happens to be in his party's interest. Harper's funny like that.
-Jean Charest won't win the Quebec election.
That's all I've got folks. See you when the dust settles.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Shell game?
You know, there's an awful lot of support from some right-wing pundits for a merger of the Canadian political left - note who's in support out of this group.
(In passing, it's a remarkably cool idea that Maclean's has come up with - getting public luminaries to comment on stories. Whether it's actually a good idea is something I need to think about a little more).
Now why would the right be so gung-ho about merging the left? Maybe because it would allow the political dialogue in Canada to be pushed even farther to the right than it already is? Or because it would silence any discussion about proportional representation at the national level? Or because it would, psychologically, give the Conservative Party a hypothetical 50% of the national pie, which is 15% more than they have in reality?
Pat Martin's actual comments were in fact fairly forthright, honest and unrehearsed, which is of course they're being called a gaffe and why he's getting into trouble.
(In passing, it's a remarkably cool idea that Maclean's has come up with - getting public luminaries to comment on stories. Whether it's actually a good idea is something I need to think about a little more).
Now why would the right be so gung-ho about merging the left? Maybe because it would allow the political dialogue in Canada to be pushed even farther to the right than it already is? Or because it would silence any discussion about proportional representation at the national level? Or because it would, psychologically, give the Conservative Party a hypothetical 50% of the national pie, which is 15% more than they have in reality?
Pat Martin's actual comments were in fact fairly forthright, honest and unrehearsed, which is of course they're being called a gaffe and why he's getting into trouble.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
And speaking of autonomists...
I've just realised that most of my readership may in fact not be familiar with the links between the Harper Conservatives and Quebec's ADQ as I mentioned in my previous post. On doing a little digging, I discovered that my source for this information, a Canadian Press article written by one Alex Panetta, was only published in one Ontario paper, the Owen Sound Sun-Times (and if you don't know why I regularly read the Owen Sound Sun-Times, don't bother asking). Anyhoo, barring a searchable archive feature on the Sun-Times website, I will brave a CP cease-and-decist copywright injunction and post the article below in full:
Tory, ADQ ties run deep; Conservatives chock full of former Action democratique operatives (The Owen Sound Sun Times, March 6, 2007)
Copywright: The Canadian Press - Alexander Panetta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensive ties between the Harper government and Quebec's third-largest political party belie the popular wisdom that the federal powers that be are pulling in unison for a Liberal re-election in the province.
From the lowest echelons of the federal government all the way up to the Prime Minister's Office, political operatives who worked for and in some cases helped build the Action democratique du Quebec are sprinkled throughout the Harper Conservatives. "I'd even say a majority of the Conservatives' francophone personnel are Adequistes," one federal government official said Monday.
The close bond with the small-c conservative ADQ explains why the federal Tories are claiming partial neutrality in the Quebec campaign. Ministerial staff have the green light to criticize the sovereigntist Parti Quebecois but are forbidden from endorsing either of the two other parties. The ban on open campaigning does not extend to Conservative MPs, one of whom - Jacques Gourde - stumped for an ADQ candidate in a Quebec suburb last week.
The common bond between the Tories and Mario Dumont's party extends far beyond personnel.
Dumont was approached informally several times before the 2006 election about running for the federal party - and he insisted every time he has no intention of ever making the move to Ottawa.
Instead, he appears to have brought a piece of Tory Ottawa to provincial politics. With his party closing in on its two bigger rivals in the polls, Dumont has adopted a nearly identical campaign strategy to the one Harper used in 2006. He espouses similar ideas on child care, fiscal policy and law and order.
Those platform planks are being driven home in a daily announcement around 9 a.m. where Dumont sets the tone for the day's news coverage the same way Harper did in the 2006 election.
"It seems to be working fairly well for Mario," said Philippe Gervais, who has been a senior campaign official for the federal Tories and both the provincial Liberals and ADQ. That announcement-a-morning strategy - lifted from the playbook of Australian Prime Minister John Howard - was imported into Canadian politics by Harper after his disastrous final days of the 2004 federal campaign.
Dumont suffered a similar fate in the last provincial election. His support tanked in 2003 as he chose to comment on topics seemingly hand-picked by his opponents.
In Harper's case, he grew visibly frustrated amid daily grillings over same-sex marriage and on the Liberal charge he would suspend women's abortion rights.
For Dumont, the daily torment sprang from that most pervasive and perennial question in Quebec politics: Are you a sovereigntist or a federalist? Eager to draw support from both sides of the nationalist divide, Dumont has steadfastly avoided describing himself as either. But Dumont - who began his political life as a federalist provincial Liberal, then campaigned for the sovereigntists in the 1995 referendum - has consistently said it's time for Quebec to move beyond the national debate.
Federal Tories admit some consternation about Dumont's checkered constitutional past but they believe he's come full circle to his federalist roots.
If the Harper government has any questions about the party, it doesn't need to look very far for answers. Dumont's tour guide from the 2003 provincial election - Jean-Maurice Duplessis - is now the tour manager in Harper's office.
International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner, who was once a provincial Liberal staffer, made the switch to the ADQ and was a Quebec City regional organizer for the party in 2003. MP Stephen Blaney ran for the party in 1998 and fellow MP Jacques Gourde was an organizer in the last provincial campaign.
At least three spokespeople for Tory ministers - Jean-Luc Benoit, Isabelle Bouchard and Isabelle Fontaine - worked for the ADQ, as did Michele Lalonde, the chief of staff to Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn.
Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign. He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties. "I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont," he said.
"Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ."
Tory, ADQ ties run deep; Conservatives chock full of former Action democratique operatives (The Owen Sound Sun Times, March 6, 2007)
Copywright: The Canadian Press - Alexander Panetta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensive ties between the Harper government and Quebec's third-largest political party belie the popular wisdom that the federal powers that be are pulling in unison for a Liberal re-election in the province.
From the lowest echelons of the federal government all the way up to the Prime Minister's Office, political operatives who worked for and in some cases helped build the Action democratique du Quebec are sprinkled throughout the Harper Conservatives. "I'd even say a majority of the Conservatives' francophone personnel are Adequistes," one federal government official said Monday.
The close bond with the small-c conservative ADQ explains why the federal Tories are claiming partial neutrality in the Quebec campaign. Ministerial staff have the green light to criticize the sovereigntist Parti Quebecois but are forbidden from endorsing either of the two other parties. The ban on open campaigning does not extend to Conservative MPs, one of whom - Jacques Gourde - stumped for an ADQ candidate in a Quebec suburb last week.
The common bond between the Tories and Mario Dumont's party extends far beyond personnel.
Dumont was approached informally several times before the 2006 election about running for the federal party - and he insisted every time he has no intention of ever making the move to Ottawa.
Instead, he appears to have brought a piece of Tory Ottawa to provincial politics. With his party closing in on its two bigger rivals in the polls, Dumont has adopted a nearly identical campaign strategy to the one Harper used in 2006. He espouses similar ideas on child care, fiscal policy and law and order.
Those platform planks are being driven home in a daily announcement around 9 a.m. where Dumont sets the tone for the day's news coverage the same way Harper did in the 2006 election.
"It seems to be working fairly well for Mario," said Philippe Gervais, who has been a senior campaign official for the federal Tories and both the provincial Liberals and ADQ. That announcement-a-morning strategy - lifted from the playbook of Australian Prime Minister John Howard - was imported into Canadian politics by Harper after his disastrous final days of the 2004 federal campaign.
Dumont suffered a similar fate in the last provincial election. His support tanked in 2003 as he chose to comment on topics seemingly hand-picked by his opponents.
In Harper's case, he grew visibly frustrated amid daily grillings over same-sex marriage and on the Liberal charge he would suspend women's abortion rights.
For Dumont, the daily torment sprang from that most pervasive and perennial question in Quebec politics: Are you a sovereigntist or a federalist? Eager to draw support from both sides of the nationalist divide, Dumont has steadfastly avoided describing himself as either. But Dumont - who began his political life as a federalist provincial Liberal, then campaigned for the sovereigntists in the 1995 referendum - has consistently said it's time for Quebec to move beyond the national debate.
Federal Tories admit some consternation about Dumont's checkered constitutional past but they believe he's come full circle to his federalist roots.
If the Harper government has any questions about the party, it doesn't need to look very far for answers. Dumont's tour guide from the 2003 provincial election - Jean-Maurice Duplessis - is now the tour manager in Harper's office.
International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner, who was once a provincial Liberal staffer, made the switch to the ADQ and was a Quebec City regional organizer for the party in 2003. MP Stephen Blaney ran for the party in 1998 and fellow MP Jacques Gourde was an organizer in the last provincial campaign.
At least three spokespeople for Tory ministers - Jean-Luc Benoit, Isabelle Bouchard and Isabelle Fontaine - worked for the ADQ, as did Michele Lalonde, the chief of staff to Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn.
Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign. He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties. "I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont," he said.
"Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ."
Quebec City Nights
Had a good time last evening thanks to the wonders of l'Internet, watching the Quebec Leader's Debate on Radio-Canada's website. A few thoughts:
- I really liked the colour of Andre Boisclair's suit (and tie! - was the green for the environment, or to celebrate Quebec's Irish heritage? I suspect the former). If he somehow manages to pull out an electoral win, Boisclair will leapfrog over Nova Scotia's Rodney MacDonald to become, in my books anyway, Canada's most attractive Premier by far.
- Jean Charest's hair: better than it was circa 1995, but still terrible, terrible.
- Why aren't federal leadership debates held in some classy room on Parliament Hill, instead of on some god-awful set in a Nepean soundstage? The National Assembly seems like a cool building, and indirectly managed to help all three leaders appear slightly more like statesmen, and less like sleazeballs.
- In terms of the actual debate:
-I was quite impressed with Boisclair (I admit that I'm predisposed to like him, despite his status as a flaming separatist). He came off well - quite measured (he actually became more so as the debate wore on), animated and convicing in debate, especially with Dumont. He wasn't perfect - he sometimes interrupted Charest too often - but very good.
-Charest was also good, but seemed weary - "defensive" is the word columnists are using. When Dumont challenged him on his accomplishments on behalf of Quebec at the federal level, Charest rhymed off several quite reasonable examples (the Council of the Federation, more money, etc). Dumont pressed more and more aggressively, clearly trying to bait Charest to anger. I expected Charest to turn the tables on Dumont by taking a tack similar to that of Boisclair earlier in the evening - when he repeatedly asked of Dumont, I think to Dumon's detriment, what new powers the ADQ's ludicrous "autonomy" position would actually seek of the federal government - but Charest simply repeated his answer over and over resignedly. He looked like a Premier, but not a very dynamic one.
-As for Mario Dumont, I admit that I'm inclined to dislike his party and his policies, for a number of reasons. I had no reason to feel otherwise after last night. Dumont played to the bleachers all evening - he was sharp and a little wild in his attacks, and played to his rural nationalist base in a way that struck me as more than a little xenophobic.
What's remarkable, for an anglo, is just how anti-Canadian all three leaders, not just Boisclair, seemed to be. Charest and Dumont have similar views of Quebec's place in Canada (more money, more autonomy) whereas Boisclair would settle for the latter outside of Confederation even if it meant passing on the former.
The fourth person present at the debate, though not of course in person, was Stephen Harper. His shadow (and fingerprints) are all over this election, and many are touting Monday's federal budget as one of the campaign's defining moments. I'm not sure how it's going to go down, and I am starting to have a sneaking suspicion that the budget will not be as overtly good for Quebec as many are predicting it will be. I've mentioned before the ties between the ADQ and the federal Conservatives, particularly in the area of operatives on the ground. I wonder if perhaps our Stephen will find some way to reinforce the ADQ's message, and thus its electoral fortunes, if he feels as if Jean Charest is a bit of a canard. Remember, this is the Prime Minister who suggested building a firewall around Alberta - if that's not autonomy, I don't know what is.
- I really liked the colour of Andre Boisclair's suit (and tie! - was the green for the environment, or to celebrate Quebec's Irish heritage? I suspect the former). If he somehow manages to pull out an electoral win, Boisclair will leapfrog over Nova Scotia's Rodney MacDonald to become, in my books anyway, Canada's most attractive Premier by far.
- Jean Charest's hair: better than it was circa 1995, but still terrible, terrible.
- Why aren't federal leadership debates held in some classy room on Parliament Hill, instead of on some god-awful set in a Nepean soundstage? The National Assembly seems like a cool building, and indirectly managed to help all three leaders appear slightly more like statesmen, and less like sleazeballs.
- In terms of the actual debate:
-I was quite impressed with Boisclair (I admit that I'm predisposed to like him, despite his status as a flaming separatist). He came off well - quite measured (he actually became more so as the debate wore on), animated and convicing in debate, especially with Dumont. He wasn't perfect - he sometimes interrupted Charest too often - but very good.
-Charest was also good, but seemed weary - "defensive" is the word columnists are using. When Dumont challenged him on his accomplishments on behalf of Quebec at the federal level, Charest rhymed off several quite reasonable examples (the Council of the Federation, more money, etc). Dumont pressed more and more aggressively, clearly trying to bait Charest to anger. I expected Charest to turn the tables on Dumont by taking a tack similar to that of Boisclair earlier in the evening - when he repeatedly asked of Dumont, I think to Dumon's detriment, what new powers the ADQ's ludicrous "autonomy" position would actually seek of the federal government - but Charest simply repeated his answer over and over resignedly. He looked like a Premier, but not a very dynamic one.
-As for Mario Dumont, I admit that I'm inclined to dislike his party and his policies, for a number of reasons. I had no reason to feel otherwise after last night. Dumont played to the bleachers all evening - he was sharp and a little wild in his attacks, and played to his rural nationalist base in a way that struck me as more than a little xenophobic.
What's remarkable, for an anglo, is just how anti-Canadian all three leaders, not just Boisclair, seemed to be. Charest and Dumont have similar views of Quebec's place in Canada (more money, more autonomy) whereas Boisclair would settle for the latter outside of Confederation even if it meant passing on the former.
The fourth person present at the debate, though not of course in person, was Stephen Harper. His shadow (and fingerprints) are all over this election, and many are touting Monday's federal budget as one of the campaign's defining moments. I'm not sure how it's going to go down, and I am starting to have a sneaking suspicion that the budget will not be as overtly good for Quebec as many are predicting it will be. I've mentioned before the ties between the ADQ and the federal Conservatives, particularly in the area of operatives on the ground. I wonder if perhaps our Stephen will find some way to reinforce the ADQ's message, and thus its electoral fortunes, if he feels as if Jean Charest is a bit of a canard. Remember, this is the Prime Minister who suggested building a firewall around Alberta - if that's not autonomy, I don't know what is.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Kill all the lawyers?
An article from the Washington Post sheds yet more light on what looks to be an increasingly ugly, damaging and wide-ranging scandal involving the White House, the Department of Justice, and a purge of US Attorneys not considered loyal enough to the Republican cause by Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers. (In doing so, the Post also shows just how badly the wheels have come off the Bush administration) . And they wanted to put this woman on the Supreme Court?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
"Vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle"
Stephane Dion gets flack, flack, and more flack in todays' national papers. I'm sorry, but this is getting a little ridiculous.
The current political clime reminds me particularly of that famous line from W.B. Yeats' "The Second Coming," about the best lacking all conviction, and the worst being full of passionate intensity.
Every day, vitriol pours down on Dion from all sides. Of course the Liberal leader is not a saint, and is still finding his rhythm (and under some of the most stressful political conditions possible). Of course he's made gaffes.
But in the 24-hour news cycle echo chamber, what's really remarkable, more so than getting a story reported, is getting a story reported again and again, and again. And it's that last fact that is helping the Reformed-Name Party to win hands down.
Does any Canadian really believe that there are no debates or discussions around policy or strategy inside "Canada's New Government" (or as I've taken to calling it, Canada's Ewww Government)? No factions? No competing interests? No changes in position? No disagreements around the Cabinet table? Chalk it up to the Prime Minister's legendary anal-retentiveness that very little of that ever comes up in the press. But when Harper changes a position (on the environment, on Quebec, on Iraq) it's "statesmanlike." Columnists are already calling Dion "Flipper."
Jason Cherniak suggests that the Liberals need to grin and bear things for the moment. I agree. But the Liberals also have to start operating like an Opposition party. Stephen Harper does - his entire strategy has been to pretend to be in oppositon even while in government. And the Liberals also have to find a way to get the press, sympathetically conservative as they are, to be, if not on-side, then at least not offside. 'Cause at the moment there aren't too many people crying foul.
The current political clime reminds me particularly of that famous line from W.B. Yeats' "The Second Coming," about the best lacking all conviction, and the worst being full of passionate intensity.
Every day, vitriol pours down on Dion from all sides. Of course the Liberal leader is not a saint, and is still finding his rhythm (and under some of the most stressful political conditions possible). Of course he's made gaffes.
But in the 24-hour news cycle echo chamber, what's really remarkable, more so than getting a story reported, is getting a story reported again and again, and again. And it's that last fact that is helping the Reformed-Name Party to win hands down.
Does any Canadian really believe that there are no debates or discussions around policy or strategy inside "Canada's New Government" (or as I've taken to calling it, Canada's Ewww Government)? No factions? No competing interests? No changes in position? No disagreements around the Cabinet table? Chalk it up to the Prime Minister's legendary anal-retentiveness that very little of that ever comes up in the press. But when Harper changes a position (on the environment, on Quebec, on Iraq) it's "statesmanlike." Columnists are already calling Dion "Flipper."
Jason Cherniak suggests that the Liberals need to grin and bear things for the moment. I agree. But the Liberals also have to start operating like an Opposition party. Stephen Harper does - his entire strategy has been to pretend to be in oppositon even while in government. And the Liberals also have to find a way to get the press, sympathetically conservative as they are, to be, if not on-side, then at least not offside. 'Cause at the moment there aren't too many people crying foul.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Paul Wells asks...
"Stéphane Dion and André Boisclair both in trouble. What's it all mean?"
One is tempted to say "nothing," but that's not really allowed.
One is tempted to say that the Canadian anglophone media establishment really dislikes left-wing Quebeckers, but that's not a particularly satisfying answer.
One is tempted to say that Canadians are often complacent about their progressivism, and allow a minority of conservative voices in business and the punditry to dictate the tone and pace of national debate to the detriment of the aforementioned leaders, but that's essentially the same response as answer number two.
One is tempted to say that Canadians now yearn for an unheralded era of freedom, capitalism and neoconservative opportunity, along with strong right-wing leaders with authoritarian tendencies and neo-fascist family-values policies - but that's possibly sensationalist, and possibly also wrong.
One is tempted to say (and many have said it) that Stephen Harper is one of the most strategically focused, and unscrupulously opportunistic, Prime Ministers that this country has ever seen, and that Jean Charest never met a strategic, unscrupulous opportunist he didn't recognize from the bathroom mirror.
One is tempted to say, metaphorically, that we as Canadians are a bit at sea at the moment - gasping and sputtering for air while simultaneously pushing people off the boat, letting the boiler run out of control, drilling holes in the hull, and throwing tomatoes at the people trying to hand out the life-jackets.
One is tempted to say that it's all about a little bit of all of the above. One might even be half-right.
One is tempted to say "nothing," but that's not really allowed.
One is tempted to say that the Canadian anglophone media establishment really dislikes left-wing Quebeckers, but that's not a particularly satisfying answer.
One is tempted to say that Canadians are often complacent about their progressivism, and allow a minority of conservative voices in business and the punditry to dictate the tone and pace of national debate to the detriment of the aforementioned leaders, but that's essentially the same response as answer number two.
One is tempted to say that Canadians now yearn for an unheralded era of freedom, capitalism and neoconservative opportunity, along with strong right-wing leaders with authoritarian tendencies and neo-fascist family-values policies - but that's possibly sensationalist, and possibly also wrong.
One is tempted to say (and many have said it) that Stephen Harper is one of the most strategically focused, and unscrupulously opportunistic, Prime Ministers that this country has ever seen, and that Jean Charest never met a strategic, unscrupulous opportunist he didn't recognize from the bathroom mirror.
One is tempted to say, metaphorically, that we as Canadians are a bit at sea at the moment - gasping and sputtering for air while simultaneously pushing people off the boat, letting the boiler run out of control, drilling holes in the hull, and throwing tomatoes at the people trying to hand out the life-jackets.
One is tempted to say that it's all about a little bit of all of the above. One might even be half-right.
Monday, March 05, 2007
"Everybody loves the sound of a train in the distance"...
The country's mayors prepare to do polite but pitched battle with the federal government on transit funding.
I love and am committed to public transit, but manufacturing subway cars and building buses is a pretty industrially intensive proposition. Whereas if we all walked a little more, or cycled, it would not only cut down on our car AND subway use, but would also benefit our bottom lines (and waist lines) in the long-term.
Which goes to show how, in the modern world, even the causes of progress are sometimes double-edged.
Just sayin'. Miller and Co., knock 'em dead.
I love and am committed to public transit, but manufacturing subway cars and building buses is a pretty industrially intensive proposition. Whereas if we all walked a little more, or cycled, it would not only cut down on our car AND subway use, but would also benefit our bottom lines (and waist lines) in the long-term.
Which goes to show how, in the modern world, even the causes of progress are sometimes double-edged.
Just sayin'. Miller and Co., knock 'em dead.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Truth Comes Out
"Earlier this week, Louis Champagne, host of the top-rated morning show in the Saguenay area, taunted a local PQ candidate who is gay.
In an interview, he asked Sylvain Gaudreault, the candidate in Jonquière, whether it was harder to sell a leader with a different sexual orientation, especially to the local factory workers. 'When you show up with another homosexual, aren't you going to be asked the question, 'Listen, the PQ, isn't that a club of fags?'"....
A clip television stations replayed throughout the day yesterday showed Mr. Boisclair looking uneasy and speechless for several seconds when asked about the radio interview."
-from today's Globe and Mail
Frankly, I think I'd be a little uneasy too.
I'd always wondered why there wasn't more attention paid to the fact that Andre Boisclair could potentially become the first openly gay premier in Canadian history, and now I know why.
When you're lucky enough, as I am, to live in downtown Toronto, it's easy not just to feel secure about your own life as a gay man, but also to feel secure about the place of queers in Canada's collective life.
But there are sometimes news items - like the negative comments from at least one prominent TV pundit when Ontario's Health Minister announced he was marrying his partner, or this business about Boisclair - that makes me wonder if the anxiety my father expressed to me when I came out (that it would be hard to get a job because I was gay) didn't have a very small wrinkle of truth to it. We can have gay MPs, or even gay ministers, sure - but when the shit really hits the political fan, I wonder if old-fashioned bigotry doesn't rear its ugly head, sometimes, after all.
Sometimes gay men are criticized purportedly not because they're gay, but because they act "irresponsibly" - but irresponsibility can be aggravated, in the eyes of some, by the mere fact of sexual orientation. I don't think Boisclair, with his years of Montreal club-going, saw the danger - if he had, he probably wouldn't have been caught in that Brokeback Mountain farrago.
Hang in there, Andre: you may be an ex-coke addict and a separatist, but at least you've only ever abandoned a drug addiction, not a political party.
UPDATE: The Globe's Konrad Yakabuski goes into the gory details ($) - Andre can call me anytime!
In an interview, he asked Sylvain Gaudreault, the candidate in Jonquière, whether it was harder to sell a leader with a different sexual orientation, especially to the local factory workers. 'When you show up with another homosexual, aren't you going to be asked the question, 'Listen, the PQ, isn't that a club of fags?'"....
A clip television stations replayed throughout the day yesterday showed Mr. Boisclair looking uneasy and speechless for several seconds when asked about the radio interview."
-from today's Globe and Mail
Frankly, I think I'd be a little uneasy too.
I'd always wondered why there wasn't more attention paid to the fact that Andre Boisclair could potentially become the first openly gay premier in Canadian history, and now I know why.
When you're lucky enough, as I am, to live in downtown Toronto, it's easy not just to feel secure about your own life as a gay man, but also to feel secure about the place of queers in Canada's collective life.
But there are sometimes news items - like the negative comments from at least one prominent TV pundit when Ontario's Health Minister announced he was marrying his partner, or this business about Boisclair - that makes me wonder if the anxiety my father expressed to me when I came out (that it would be hard to get a job because I was gay) didn't have a very small wrinkle of truth to it. We can have gay MPs, or even gay ministers, sure - but when the shit really hits the political fan, I wonder if old-fashioned bigotry doesn't rear its ugly head, sometimes, after all.
Sometimes gay men are criticized purportedly not because they're gay, but because they act "irresponsibly" - but irresponsibility can be aggravated, in the eyes of some, by the mere fact of sexual orientation. I don't think Boisclair, with his years of Montreal club-going, saw the danger - if he had, he probably wouldn't have been caught in that Brokeback Mountain farrago.
Hang in there, Andre: you may be an ex-coke addict and a separatist, but at least you've only ever abandoned a drug addiction, not a political party.
UPDATE: The Globe's Konrad Yakabuski goes into the gory details ($) - Andre can call me anytime!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
As You Leek It
Today is St. David's Day. St. David is the patron saint of Wales - and if anyone is planning on moving to that lovely land and is looking for an agricultural position, they might want to take a gander at this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
