…whilst typical Ontario families aren’t searching, particularly, for Tim.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Subject: Fwd: Party Needs a Hand

———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Party Needs a Hand
To:

Hi all – on October 6, from 11:30 AM till noon, the leader wants to visit a
typical Toronto family in their home with media in tow.  The idea is either to
find a young couple with preschool children or a senior couple.  Whether they
talk about all day kindergarten or a seniors issue or whatever will depend on
who they are.

Do you have anyone that you can recommend.  We obviously want them to be
supporters, but not title holders.  (i.e.  we don’t want a past candidate,
riding president).

We don’t have a lot of time, so I would appreciate any ideas that you may have
as soon as possible.

I also appreciate your confidence in this matter.

Cheers,
DR

Comments (33)

Blah and blah and blah.

Shorter version: “We may be subsidiaries of very powerful, unelected, super-rich corporations, but we like to propagate the mythology that we are the vox populi, the grubby and populist voice of the lumpen, without whom democracy would fail.  And we are unadulterated hypocrites, naturally, because we pillory politicians all the time for being prejudiced and/or non-factual, but when we are prejudiced and/or non-factual, well, that’s okay, because we are The Media, and the rules that everybody else has to observe, most days, don’t apply to us.  Because we are the media.”

And so they do expensive and silly redesigns, thinking it’s about form, when the problem is – and always has been – content. And, you know, honesty.

Blah Blah blah.  They’ll never change.

Comments (12)

Me: Oh, look! It’s cute! It’s a starter paper!

Unidentified person in Starbucks line: The Canadian Tire flyer people called. They want their look back.

Comments (5)

Comments (3)

Rogers Publishing comments on the recent issue of Maclean’s Magazine

MONTREAL, Sept. 30 /CNW/ – Rogers Publishing today commented on the most recent issue of Maclean’s Magazine. “The cover of this issue and the feature story clearly offended some readers, and this has been the subject of much debate,” said Brian Segal, President, Rogers Publishing. “As a company we own a broad range of media properties across the country and editorial independence is an important cornerstone of our management philosophy. While challenging at times, this means we do not interfere with the editorial direction or content of our media properties in any way.”

“On behalf of the company, we sincerely regret any offence that the cover may have caused. We value all of our customers and their perspective. Quebec is an important market for the company and we look forward to participating in the dynamic growth of the province and its citizens.”

– 30 –

Now, will the magazine and its writers finally admit that they made a mistake, and apologize, too? (En francais, ici.)

Comments (20)

Lotsa stuff going on.  Here goes:

• Coalition Blowback: The Harper Reformatories are being mocked and/or criticized, far and wide, for their ridiculous reliance on ridiculouser talking points.  The Globe’s lead editorial today is a representative sample: “The Conservatives should know – and when they pause to think, they do know – that the Canadian public is not gullible. They cannot persuade the electorate or win their desired majority by repeating the word “coalition” again and again., and the public isn’t scared by the Con scaremongering.” The reason why Harper is so preoccupied by a coalition? Harper would be defeated by a coalition.
• Maclean’s Quebec-Bashing Blowback: The House of Commons, which is never unanimous about anything, has passed a unanimous resolution condemning Maclean’s for the prejudice it displayed in its “Quebec Is Corrupt” issue. The magazine has finally acknowledged that it lacks any statistical/factual basis for its claim: “It’s true that we lack a statistical database to prove [the Quebec-is-corrupt allegation],” the magazine’s editors admitted yesterday.  The condemnations continue to roll in, as a result, here and here and here. The magazine’s writers, meanwhile, continue to mock their detractors on Twitter; the public, for its part, likely wonders why journalists demand that politicians apologize when they screw up, but won’t do likewise when the roles are reversed.
• Hooker Blowback: I’ve had no shortage of libertarians taking me to task for applauding Messr. Harper and McGuinty’s decision to appeal that social-engineering Superior Court prostitution decision, which always tells me I’m on the right track.  Until one of the kooky libertarian fringe start up a petition to welcome a bawdy house in their neighbourhood, I’ll continue to oppose trafficking in human beings.  So do others, here and here and here.

Comments (61)

Emily Haines of Metric is here, too.

Houseclouds, here.

Comments (0)

——Original Message——

From: David J. Howard [djhoward@bellnet.ca]

To: Warren Kinsella

Subject: Contact from warrenkinsella.com

Sent: Sep 29, 2010 1:29 PM

David wrote:

You are a dick, and make me sick to my stomach.

Pigs like you who live off the public trough have no idea what its like in the

real world

Website:

IP: 70.54.195.2

***

—–Original Message—–

From: wkinsella@hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:44:33

To: David<djhoward@bellnet.ca>

Reply-To: wkinsella@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: Contact from warrenkinsella.com

Dear David:

I run my own firm. We don’t have a single government client. All of our clients are in the private sector, like us; there are corporations, unions, associations and individuals. I am proud to represent every single one of them. My firm is very successful, but I attribute that success to my colleagues, and to my clients, and to the way we do our jobs.

I’ve always worked, right from junior high school, so I have never collected EI or welfare or anything like that. I am more than happy to pay taxes to help those who need help, however. It’s one of the things about this country that I love. I’m proud to do it.

You have at least used your real name – David J. Howard – above your email. Good for you. That at least puts you above 99 per cent of the cowards I periodically hear from.

Oh, and I’m happy that my tax dollars are used to help people like you, too.

You know, jerks.

Sincerely,

Warren

Comments (11)

Good.  That judgment was absurd.  Judges attempting to determine social policy instead of the law.  Never good.

***

Prostitution law appeal expected by feds and Ontario will support them: McGuinty (Bawdy-Law-Appeal)

TORONTO – Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he would be surprised if the federal government did not appeal a court ruling striking down Canada’s prostitution laws.

The Ontario Superior Court ruled that laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade put sex-trade workers in danger.

McGuinty says the ruling proposes some profound changes to laws that have been on the books for decades, and Ontario “looks forward” to supporting the federal Conservatives in the expected appeal.

The Superior Court judgment is subject to a 30-day stay during which the law remains in place, and the federal government can seek an extension of the stay period.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson signalled last night that the Conservatives are seriously considering an appeal.

He says Ottawa would “fight to ensure that the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to both communities and the prostitutes themselves.”

Comments (37)

So, the Harper Reformatories continue to raise the spectre of a Liberal-socialist-separatist coalition. Writers are writing about it. This is happening a lot, lately.

It’s odd, however.  Here are some reasons why it is odd:

1.  The Conservative Party is the successful result of a coalition.

2. Their party’s leader formally endorsed a coalition with the aforementioned “separatists” (which the Grits don’t, by the way).

3.  Canadians don’t think it is a big deal, or even objectionable.  They like it.

4.  Even long-time Reformatory cheerleaders think Harper et al. are being silly.

5.  The people who advocate for the coalition idea are among the most-revered in Canada.

So why does the (oxymoron alert) PMO brain trust continue to scream bloody murder about a “coalition” that doesn’t exist?  Beats me.  But, as my grandmother used to say: “Never discount the possibility that a political strategy that looks clever is in fact totally stupid, dear.”

As in all things, I’m with my grandmother on this one.

Comments (31)