11.17.2011 09:27 AM

Questioning bits and pieces

  • Blogging makes money? Bullshit.  I’ve sold some advertising over the years, but I don’t run this web site – which predates the word “blog,” which I hate, and which isn’t a “blog” – for money.  I do it for fun. Anyone who says they can make a living out web logs is full of it.  You can’t.
  • London Rippers? A team named after a notorious serial murderer of women: yeah, that’s really funny.  Why stop there?  Why not name sports franchises after other homicidal and genocidal maniacs from history?  The Son of Sam Shooters! The al-Qaeda Slashers! Stuff like that wouldn’t offensive at all, would it?
  • F**k Off?: I tell people to do it online every once in a while, too.  I also ban them from this site, Facebook and so on.  But that’s me: I’m not an MP.  My rule of thumb is that Twitter and politicians don’t mix: if they are being careful when they Tweet, they’re boring.  And if they’re not being careful, they get into trouble.  So why bother?
  • Hudak Helper? Check out Ontario Newswatch’s lead story and the fun graphic therein – I recognize that!  Since General Mills have sent me threatening legal letters about the further use of same, I will be uncharacteristically careful.  Ahem. But Ms. Kelley is right: Andrea and Tim are besties! Not sure their core supporters are going to dig it, however, which saddens me no end. Stay, Tim, stay!
  • Bob’s blast? Is it ever. One of my best friends on Earth – who I did not speak to about this issue – has blasted the federal Grits for their idiotic position on a more-democratic House of Commons.  Quote: “Federal Liberal position on expansion of seats in the House of Commons is idiotic and anti-democratic. So it is okay to maintain over-representation in rural canada, but not okay to provide representation in growing urban (read new Canadians) Canada? Good to see old elites firmly in charge. Pathetic.” Bob was the head of Red Leaf, folks. Ouch!
  • A Liberal giant passes? No question there.  Tom Kent was a towering figure in Canadian public life.  When I was partner at a Bay Street law firm, I had the pleasure to work with his equally-amazing son, and we discussed his Dad often.  A huge loss to this country.


  1. James Bow says:

    The London team’s owner loses me somewhat when he tries to claim that the name isn’t intended to invoke the memory of Jack the Ripper. I mean, c’mon! What sort of idiots does he take us for?

  2. Kre8tv says:

    Blogging for profit is a hustle. Those who post for business have to have something else to offer. It’s that simple. Because it’s no replacement for well researched, fact-based reporting (something that is is woeful short supply). Anything else is, to quote the Lebowskian philosopher The Dude, “just your opinion, man.”

  3. Brine says:

    Pat Martin is widely regarded as a showboating media whoore. Not surprising that we can add ‘foul-mouthed’ to the description. No one loves the sound of his own voice more, as he vomits self-righteous indignation about every little thing.

  4. Dan says:

    Slashing taxes on people’s home heating. Some vast right-wing conspiracy.

    Shouldn’t we call Hudak the Horwath-helper?

  5. Marc L says:

    Pat Martin…hmmmmmm.isn’t he the one who said he would change his ways to help introduce more civility to the House? Oh well….

  6. CQ says:

    I just added in 36 subtle corporate advertising spots to my blog; 15 spaced inside the top banner, and 21 inside the footer. No where else – not applied to individual postings nor sub-pages. (None are paid though – free examples only – and, besides, I don’t have readers.)
    So why can’t the big sites ever find room for more than two or three advertisers? We have much of Canada’s media centred in Toronto, and hundreds if not ‘0000s of I.T. students, graduating every year from within this region alone for over three decades. Do the math.
    It took me, a (nearing homelessness) nobody whose only failed tech. schooling was watching a night school instructor die at Ryerson – first class – to put workable ads on a weblog.

  7. Warren says:

    He refused. I kind of like it when politicos swear like truckers, but you guys knew that already.

  8. Brad says:

    Then I guess the reasoning behind the conservatives doing it is equally as transparent

    • Warren says:

      Into repetitive posts, are you?

    • Philip says:

      It gets better Brad. The Conservatives pulled the number of new seats straight out of their ass. Based of the formula in the 1986 Representative Act, the latest on record, the total new seats should be 13 not 30. The interesting questions becomes, why is Mr. Harper over-compensating with great lumps of new seats? And why in ON, AB and BC?

      • Matthew says:

        ….cuz they’re the most under-represented? was this a trick question?

      • Ken says:


        The 1986 forumula is epoch-neutral, and applies to future censuses.

        You are confusing the formula with its input data.

      • Philip says:

        The Representative Act of 1986 just sets out the formula for the calculation of new seats. Each new census is plugged into that formula. To get the number 13 I used the 2011 Census results available through the StatsCan website. The only possible way to get to 30 new seats is to use an imaginary number as the quotient. Which is apparently what the Conservatives have done.

  9. Brad says:

    Then I guess the reasoning behind the conservatives adding the seats is as equally transparent

    • Matthew says:

      Those dastardly Conservatives trying to make seat distribution more accuraltey reflect rep-by-population. Shame! Shame!

  10. Philip says:

    If the Senatorial Clause of 1915, an amendment to the Constitution is left on the table, every thing else is an Act of Parliament. An almost pure rep. by pop. seat formula was put in place in 1946. There is no Constitutional impediment to capping the number of seats at 308 or any other number and adjusting the riding boundaries based on population density. I really don’t see the big deal in capping the seat number in the HoC.

    • Matthew says:

      Ok, I’ll explain it as simply as possible then:

      The constitution guarantees that no province can lose its current seats. Right now some provinces are over-represented (particularly PEI and Newfoundland) and some are under-represented (Alberta, BC, Ontario). If you want to make seats more accurately reflect population without increasing the number of seats in the house, you would have to take seats away from the over-represented provinces. But, to repeat, you cannot take seats away from provinces constitutionally. The ONLY way to change seat distribution in order to make it more fair is to increase the total number of seats.

      • Philip says:

        I’m sorry grumpy Matthew but you are completely and so utterly wrong. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee, anywhere, that no province could fall below it’s current level of seats. Nowhere. I really can’t understand where you picked up that bit of mis-information.

        What you might be referring to, at least I hope so, is the Representation Act of 1974. That is an Act of Parliament, which could be amended by a simple majority in the HoC. In fact the 1974 version of the Representation Act was only applied once but was dropped as it was realized that to guarantee current seat levels in perpetuity was completely unworkable. It may interest you to know that after the Representation Act of 1946 actually did have provinces lose seats, as their population dropped. To more accurately reflect population changes.

        To sum up for you, as simply as I can, Representation Act = an Act of Parliament. The Representation Act has been changed in 1946, 1951, 1974, 1981 and the last time in 1986. Senatorial Clause of 1915 = item in our Constitution. That needs a constitutional amendment to change.

    • Philip says:

      Which would be the Senatorial Clause of 1915 that I mentioned Mr. Tulk. That is the only thing which requires the Constitution to be opened. Do try and keep up.

  11. steve says:

    In addition to the wrong choice on the NEP, a reminder that media concentration was also a mistake.

  12. Iris Mclean says:

    How about “The Holy Cross Crusaders”? Damn near every Catholic school in the land has a sports team called The Crusaders.

  13. Rick Thomson says:

    A real class act is Pat Martin. Most of us say the word but your an MP and your on all the time. I think you just wanted air time and you got your wish.

    To bad you and Charlie Angus did not enter the race, now that would have been a hoot.

    The charade of decorum in the NDP is alive and well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *