Everyone knows that critics of government involvement in things, or control of things, or of government (full stop) have an impressive weapon in their rhetorical arsenal: Hitler comparisons. There is never a dearth of Nazi talk in American politics - most recently, conservative commentators have been comparing Obama to Hitler because of his move to require that Catholic organizations provide birth control to their employees through their insurance plans. Jon Stewart has weighed in on this, making the apparently still radical and crucial point that the pundits who make this comparison tend to be irresponsible jackasses. Canadian politicians have finally twigged to the fact that all that might be needed to convince the public that something is wrong is to suggest it wouldn't be out of place in 1930s Germany. Conservative MP Larry Miller, during a debate on the long-gun registry, claimed (wrongly) that Sen. Sharon Carstairs said, "The registering of hunting rifles is the first step in the social reengineering of Canadians" and then stated, "That is what Adolf Hitler tried to do in the 1930s."Later realizing that not everyone thought a registry used by law enforcement to keep track of weapons was the first sign of Canada's descent into Naziism, he offered the following masterful apology: "While the references to the gun registry and what this evil guy did to perpetrate his crimes are very clear, it was inappropriate to use his name in the House."So people suspicious of increased regulations and government oversight have always had a ready-made, go-to charge: "[insert name here] is behaving just like Hitler." But what of the rhetorically reckless types who want to use an overblown, groundless, and incendiary analogy to condemn the people who are suspicious of increased government regulations? To what baseless charge can they turn?Enter Vic Toews, Canada's Public Safety Minister, with the answer. The Conservative government tabled the "lawful access" bill on Tuesday, and it is expected to pass. This legislation will make it easier for police to get certain information about internet users without first having to get a warrant. A number of dangerous, uninformed radicals (Ontario privacy watchdog Ann Cavoukian, Federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart...what is this, a hippie convention?) have raised concerns about what the changes would mean for privacy rights. When liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia made some (admittedly misleading and exaggerated) claims about the new powers that would be available to police, Toews bravely took him to task by declaring, "He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."Finally! Now both sides of a "how much government is too much government" argument will have access to inflammatory metaphors. Government trying to run you life, trying to clamp down on certain freedoms? They're a bunch of Nazis. Citizens trying to hold on to certain freedoms, daring to criticize the government? They're on the side of child molesters. I love a fair fight.
POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough.
The other day, I suddenly remembered Anthony Weiner and reflected upon the fact that he is still out there, somewhere, and that wherever he is, he has a perfect view of the ruins of his life. Remember Weiner? He's the former politician-on-the-rise/friend-of-Jon-Stewart who tweeted photos of his crotch to random ladies, for some reason trusting that random ladies would for some reason decide not to tell anyone else about it. I have frequently deplored the lack of crotch-related scandals in Canadian politics, but recently there was at least a Twitter-related scandal to tide me over. Tony Clement, Conservative politician and proud unnecessary-gazebo-builder, decided it would be a grand idea to call a teenager names. Clement, providing unasked-for insight into his intellectual preoccupations, tweeted the following while watching Hockey Night in Canada: "Coach's Corner gave me a lot to think about tonite." Keith Pettinger, of Parry Sound High School, responded: "If you can't spell, how can you run Canada's treasury?" Later, he generously offered Clement the opportunity to join him at Parry Sound High School in order to learn to spell.So far, so good. We have a politician desperately trying to be relevant and relatable in 140 characters or less, and we have a smart-ass kid who has already won my vote for whatever position he might end up wanting to run for as a grown-up. But then, Clement suffers from some kind of strange, non-pervy Weiner attack. Instead of simply concluding that teenagers are all mouthy hooligans who should be jailed indefinitely for misdemeanours, he decides to send a private message to Keith and the following exchange occurs: Clement not only thinks it's appropriate to call a fifteen-year-old a "jack ass"; he, like Weiner, cannot seem to envision a scenario in which someone he doesn't know might share with the public something embarrassing and inappropriate that he's done.
I'm sorry for calling him out. I just want someone so involved with my, and Canada's money, to behave properly and treat people with dignity and respect and at least have the good sense not to write down and then share the mean things he thinks about teenagers who've actually done their homework.
POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough.
Of course she didn't. You didn't really think she would do anything crazy like that, did you? She's not (as far as I know) dishonest in a sexual way, which means anything else she happens to be dishonest about just doesn't matter.Bev Oda, the Minister of International Cooperation for Canada's Stephen Harper Government (TM), was recently reelected, despite having been embroiled in a regrettably un-sexual political scandal. Oda, according to one reputable source (Wikipedia, obviously) "admitted to directing one of her staff to add a hand-written annotation to an already signed Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) memo in 2009 that resulted in a funding recommendation for KAIROS being ignored. The memo was altered by the addition of 'not' into the recommendation line of the document. When asked about the matter, Oda had at first told Parliament that she did not know who had made the change." Before she could be punished or anything, there was an election. Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper bravely decided not to value honest or integrity in politics and announced she would be staying at the Canadian International Development Agency. Apparently, neither the leader of nor the people of Canada care whether Bev Oda lies a whole lot.Everyone knows that in France, politicians are always having extramarital sex and that everyone there thinks that's wonderful. Everyone also knows that in puritanical North America, politicians can accept bribes, tell lies, and start random wars, and so long as they don't accept bribes from a mistress, tell lies to a mistress, or start random wars against a mistress, nobody really cares. It's the sex stuff that really loses elections, not the political stuff.I, because I buck the trend towards apathetic unprincipledness and am brimming with integrity and self-righteousness, am distinctly annoyed that Oda has been reelected and allowed to remain at her post. There's only one way Harper will be moved to remove her: she has to have a sex scandal.PLEASE, Bev Oda, do one of the following things:1) start hosting wild "bunga bunga" parties at your Ottawa home, and interfere with a police investigation to protect a young "friend" from Hull (who you claim you thought was the son of the Prime Minister of Belgium).2) disappear from Ottawa (telling everyone you're going hiking on the Cabot Trail) and visit your lover in New Jersey.3) send a topless photo of yourself to a man you found on Craigslist.OR, why not make a real name for yourself, and do all three? Send the Catastrophizer your requests for advice and/or rationalizations using the form conveniently provided HERE. I will publish my responses on the THE CATASTROPHIZER page.POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough. Also, I'm not very good at copy-editing, so if something looks wrong, it was put there by accident. Totally by accident.
I have just discovered I am claustrophobic. No - I'm not afraid of elevators, or of being trapped in some small space underground. I don't have to steer clear of closets or crawl-spaces. You see, I'm not actually suffering from the traditional form of the condition. I've been trying to come up with a name for what ails me, but I can't find anything either appropriate or catchy. "Psychological claustrophobia"? "Political claustrophobia"? I couldn't even scare up a pun.
What I'm trying to describe is this oppressive sense I have of being surrounded by people whose beliefs I do not share. The symptoms first popped up after Rob Ford was elected mayor of Toronto. They have became noticeably worse since Stephen Harper won a majority government.
So if claustrophobia is (according to Merriam-Webster) the "abnormal dread of being in closed or narrow spaces", what I'm stricken by is the "abnormal dread of being in the company of closed or narrow people". I know that being a warm-hearted, diversity-loving left-leaner means that I should respect other people, that I should try to understand other points of view and mentally embrace my adversaries. That kind of thing. But for the past few days, whenever I see people, I think: "Are you one of them? One of the stupid people I don't agree with and who voted for a Prime Minister who is going to put women who want to have abortions in mega-prisons?"
At some point, I'm sure I'll feel a renewed sense of the beautiful contradictions inherent in the Human Condition, and a renewed sense of smugness about how I'm able to sense all those beautiful contradictions. But right now, I just wish I could live in a place where everyone shared my beliefs. Why do they have to do all that hating of immigrants in Sweden? If it wasn't for all the racism in Sweden, I could totally live there.
Send the Catastrophizer your requests for advice and/or rationalizations using the form conveniently provided HERE. I will publish my responses on the THE CATASTROPHIZER page.POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough. Also, I'm not very good at copy-editing, so if something looks wrong, it was put there by accident.
 Perfect. They'll never know. For the first time, The Toronto Sun has broken a story that does not involve Rob Ford respecting tax-payers or the Liberals refusing to respect tax-payers. Apparently,former Harper deputy chief of staff Patrick Muttart sent The Sun a report from a mysterious U.S. source that claimed Ignatieff advised the Americans on military strategy before its 2003 invasion of Iraq. And not from any cushy, east-coast armchair, either, but from a base in Kuwait. Muttart also helpfully sent along an image that ostensibly shows Ignatieff hunkered down in front of a helicopter cradling a giant gun. The photo, unfortunately, was low-resolution, and lacked the metadata that would have proven when it was taken. The Sun asked for a high-resolution version of the photo, and when it was finally provided, the paper discovered that while the image had been taken in 2002, the man in question was not Ignatieff. Not one bit.
I find this all extremely depressing. Not because it seems like this was a dishonest and underhanded attempt to throw crap on an opponent, but because the Conservatives can't even seem to pull off a good, old-fashioned unfounded smear. They aren't without know-how and resources. If they were themselves duped, do they have no photo-analyzers of their own? If they were actively and knowingly attempting to dupe, did they not realize a sophisticated analysis would reveal the high-resolution image to be a clumsy forgery? Did they not have access to a photo-forger who could have produced something a little more convincing? Couldn't they have located and employed whoever was responsible for making Obama's long-form birth certificate?
I bet the Conservatives are also wishing they'd just waited a couple of weeks. Then they would have realized the doctored photo featured the wrong man. I'm going to offer them this one, free of charge:
It seems there are only white people in Canada. Canada is so smug about its multiculturalism, you'd think it would actually make a point of showcasing its diversity in ways besides making visible minorities share the small screen with Sheila McCarthy. But two recent television-watching experiences have led me to question whether this country is, in fact, populated only by Caucasian, sweater-sporting executives and their blonde, Queen's University-attending children.First, there was Top Chef Canada. I was willing to look beyond the host (Thea Andrews, who, coincidentally, is blonde and graduated from Queen's University and calls to mind that episode of Seinfeld in which Kramer suffers from Mary Hart-related seizures) and the fact that a strangely high number of the contestants appear not really to be able to cook. What I find hard to accept is that they couldn't have included one contestant of a non-pale hue. Apparently, the show's (unnamed) defenders claim that "the contestants were chosen based on ability, not on location, gender or race". That just means that there happen not to BE any women or minorities who are as good at cooking as these white men are, which is especially distressing as most of these white men appear not be very good at it at all.Then there was the whiteness of the recent election debate. I'm not referring to the fact that all four leaders and the host were white (and also men - although Steve Paikin is a Prince Among Men, which sets him slightly apart). I'm talking about the fact that all six citizens whose videotaped questions were shared were white. They were careful to balance the sexes (three women [all blonde, as far as I can remember], three men) and the regions represented, but made no effort to vary the colour scheme. One of the women had an accent, but that was about as diverse as the evening got. Are Canadian television producers so obsessed with regional diversity and not looking like the only place they care about is Toronto that they forget there are other forms of inclusiveness? I find I have been retroactively protesting their lack of inclusiveness for years by forgetting about the existence of Canadian television. Send the Catastrophizer your requests for advice and/or rationalizations using the form conveniently provided HERE. I will publish my responses on the THE CATASTROPHIZER page.POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough. Also, I'm not very good at copy-editing, so if something looks wrong, it was put there by accident.
There are certain well-established truths that left-wingish people are fond of continuing to establish. Many wars are about economic interests - economic interests related to oil, for example. Many, if not most, people vote for the politician who looks most like a smooth-haired family man from the 1950s. Both facts are, of course, completely regrettable: wars, if they are to be fought at all, should be waged for staunchly humanitarian reasons, and people should vote for the politician with the most thoroughly-articulated and admirable policies. I, in fact, am one of those individuals who thinks you really shouldn't kill people to protect defenseless oil or vote for someone based on the eerie immobility of their haircut.
That's why I find myself in an awkward position. Canadians are going to the polls again for the 156th time in the last five days, and it seems I really object to one of the party leaders. Not because I think he's misguided (although I'm not saying he isn't) and not because I object to his Positions on the Issues (although I'm not saying I don't), but because I don't like his face. I'm not referring to Stephen Harper, who I think is clearly misguided and square-headed, or to Jack Layton, who is like a feisty and adorable self-promoting terrier, but of Michael Ignatieff. I don't like Michael Ignatieff's face.
Of course, I do dislike him on other grounds reminiscent of school (of the high-school or Sunday variety). He delivered the commencement address at one of my graduations (that's right, I said "one of" - I've often been educated, I'll have you know), and spent most of the time talking about how various intelligent and accomplished people had told him how intelligent and accomplished he was. I just think even if some world-famous musician tells you you're bright while vacationing at your cottage, you should keep it to yourself and not be a big, fat braggart.
But even if I hadn't decided he was a bit too fond of himself and not sensible enough to know or care not to show it, I would still have a problem with his face. He has a few basic, unfortunate looks:
A) The Most Nefariously-Eyebrowed Nefarious Ruler of Hell (couldn't find a photo credit for this one):
B) The "I have a meatball in my mouth - a whole meatball!" Awkward Eater (once again, no photo credit) C) The Guy From A) Trying Desperately to Look Approachable (ditto) D) The Guy From the End of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Just Before the Loss of His Face (Chris Wattie/Reuters) It's entirely possible that Ignatieff is a perfectly nice and intelligent person and that I shouldn't judge him negatively based on one speech that struck me as boastful and a number of facial expressions that strike me as terrifying and/or profoundly unfortunate. But couldn't the Liberals just save me the effort of having to question my biases by finding a leader who combines the principles of Jack Layton or Elizabeth May with the mystifyingly voter-luring square-headedness and sweaters of Stephen Harper?
Send the Catastrophizer your requests for advice and/or rationalizations using the form conveniently provided HERE. I will publish my responses on the THE CATASTROPHIZER page.POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough. Also, I'm not very good at copy-editing, so if something looks wrong, it was put there by accident.
It's not so long ago that left-leaning Americans thought of Canada as a paradise of pot-smoking, honeymooning gay people. I know that because I once read an article about it in The New York Times. Then, the Americans forgot all about our frozen tundra of progressiveness when their political Rapture arrived in the form of a new president (who's since managed to disappoint, but is still widely acknowledged to not suck nearly as much as the last one).Canadians seem to have succeeded in embracing the neo-Conservative movement of the '90s a little late. That is by no means an original observation (although if you have never heard it before, trust me: it is a totally original observation). We have a right-wing prime minister who will probably continue to be prime minister largely because his sweater vests are more appealing to voters than the entirety of his opponent, who in every photo strongly resembles Satan. Don't remember his name? Just read the most recent government news releases, which no longer refer to "the Government of Canada" and instead mention something called "the Harper Government."Stephen Harper is trying to campaign through every mention of Canada's national government; Rob Ford, the new right-wing mayor of Toronto, is branding himself by creating his own imaginary country inspired by the name given to fans of the city's perennially not-playoff-making hockey team. Leaf fans live in an imaginary place called "Leaf Nation." Recently, Ford referred to his supporters as "Ford Nation" and spoke of setting this nation loose on the provincial government if it didn't pony up some cash for Toronto. The name is unintentionally apt, as citizens of Leaf Nation are certainly defined by a constant and crushing sense of disappointment. As an inadvertent and bitter citizen of Ford Nation, I can relate.So I've gone from basking in the glow of American left-wing envy to living under "the Harper Government" in "Ford Nation". I'm so despondent, it's like I'm practicing to become a Leafs fan.Click here to sign a petition demanding that Stephen Harper stop naming the Government of Canada after himself.
Send the Catastrophizer your requests for advice and/or rationalizations using the form conveniently provided HERE. I will publish my responses on the THE CATASTROPHIZER page.POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough. Also, I'm not very good at copy-editing, so if something looks wrong, it was put there by accident.
|
RSS Feed