Category: 1

One for the record books...OF INFAMY!!!

04/27/2011

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:

Add Comment

Blinded by the White

04/13/2011

0 Comments

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.

Add Comment

The Many Moods and Distressing Faces of Michael Ignatieff

03/30/2011

0 Comments

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?

Add Comment

THE CATASTROPHIZER

Menu:

One for the record books...OF INFAMY!!!

Blinded by the White

The Many Moods and Distressing Faces of Michael Ignatieff

Categories

Archives