What I write sometimes makes people angry. Right and Left.

Here’s what I’ve noticed. It’s interesting.

I write about different stuff. Politics, music, culture, whatever. People react.

Sometimes I take a position that is notionally “progressive.” I’ll indicate support for trans kids, or taxing polluters, or vaccines.

Self-described “progressives” will react by saying nothing. “Conservatives,” meanwhile, will go apeshit and say I’m a communist, a pedophile, whatever.

But they will say those things to me directly. Right to me.

And sometimes I take a position that is notionally “conservative.” I’ll say I support capital punishment, or less taxation, or (these days) Israel.

Self-described conservatives will react by sending me messages about how delighted they are that I have joined their side, even though I haven’t joined any side. They always want to increase the size of their team. I think they always want validation.

The progressives are a different matter. When they read that “conservative” stuff, they again don’t contact me directly, almost ever.

Instead, they complain to my editors. They complain to my publishers. They complain to my clients.

They complain to whoever they think is my boss.

They do that to get me fired or disciplined or whatever. Mainly, they do it to get me canceled.

That’s the difference between conservatives and progressives, in my experience. The conservatives will get angry and abusive, but at least they do it to your face. The progressives get pious and indignant and vengeful, and they will try to get you shut down.

Both sides have assholes, in their own way. The critical difference is that, however: one side gets mad at you directly, and then forgets about it. The other side wants to end you, forever.

That’s how I look at the “woke” stuff. In definitional terms, being woke means opposing bigotry and injustice. I agree with opposing bigotry and injustice.

In practical terms, however, woke has come to mean: punish those who disagree with you. Make them bleed.

That’s what the Right and the Left have come to mean to me, at least insofar as my writing goes.

I don’t really give a shit about either extreme, but it’s certainly been interesting.

Comments (14)

Observing the braying, spit-flecked mob outside the doors to Toronto’s Park Hyatt Hotel on Monday night – replete with signs (falsely) accusing Israel of genocide, and hinting (clearly) at a desired genocide of their own – it almost seemed redundant to ask: what did the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas swarm hope to accomplish?

It’s a relevant question, too: like, what the Hell? Are you actually against books, pro-Hamas cabal? Have you, at long last, reached that low, that nadir?

Because that’s all that the tony affair at the Park Hyatt was about, folks: books. Canadian books, in particular.

The occasion was the awarding of the Giller, which is one of the biggest such prizes for writing in the world, with $100,000 going to the winner. It’s been going for years, now, and was started by the much-admired Jack Rabinovitch, a business guy who loved books. He named the prize after his wife and true love, Doris Giller, who had been editor at the books section of the Toronto Star. After Jack passed away in 2017, his daughter Elana Rabinovitch took up the mantle.

The finalists this year were from across Canada. There was Eric Chacour from Quebec, who wrote ‘I Know About You.’ There was Anne Fleming from Victoria, with ‘Curiosities.’ There was Guelph’s Deepa Rajagopalan, who was there for ‘Peacocks of Instagram.’ There was Conor Kerr, who is an Alberta guy and even wore his cowboy hat all night, picked for his book ‘Prairie Edge.’ And there was the winner, the soft-spoken and thoughtful Anne Michaels from Toronto, who wrote ‘Held.’

It was a nice event. Everyone there – former Toronto mayor John Tory, Canadian U.N. Ambassador Bob Rae, and a metric ton of folks sporting Order of Canada pins on their lapels – wanted to celebrate books generally, and Canadian books in particular. Who could be against that?

Well, the Hamas fetishists could be, and are. Last year, just a few days after Israel commenced its just and rational war against Hamas for slaughtering 1,200 Jews and non-Jews, some creeps disrupted the Giller ceremony. They jumped up on stage with signs that falsely accused the main sponsor, Scotiabank, of “funding genocide.” Screamed one: “We will not be silent anymore.”

Well, at this year’s gala, they were. There was more security present than at a typical Prime Ministerial speech, and everything went off without a hitch. No Hamasniks made it inside to cause trouble. Credit Elana Rabinovitch for that.

People at this year’s event – where Scotiabank’s name was absent – were clearly relieved. Some great books got promoted, and Canadian writing got celebrated. It was, as noted, nice.

But the question still nags: How can the ones who profess to be for Palestine be against books?

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (0)

Comments (2)

The people are always right, John Turner said.

It was the evening of September 4, 1984 when he said that. Turner’s Liberal Party had just been crushed by Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives. On that occasion, so long ago, it felt like Turner was right. The people had spoken.

These days, we’re not so sure. These days, it’s pretty hard to believe that “the people are always right.”

In the United States, for instance, the people chose Donald Trump. It was a free and fair election, and Democrats have respected the outcome. The didn’t convene secret meetings of fake electors, they didn’t allege the election had been stolen, they didn’t instigate a riot at the Capitol.

But, in the days since the election, America and the world – and many within Trump’s own Republican Party – have been shocked by Trump’s selections for his cabinet.

There is Robert Kennedy, Jr., who famously opposes vaccines and says he has a worm in his brain (those two things may be related). Trump wants to put Kennedy in charge of healthcare for millions of Americans – which has many experts predicting a return of measles, polio and other preventable disease diseases.

There is Tulsi Gabbard, who has been an enthusiastic supporter of Syria’s genocidal regime, and has been credibly accused of being a Russian asset. Trump wants her to be America’s top intelligence official.

There is Matt Gaetz, who has been investigated for sex with a minor, illegal drug use and accepting improper gifts. Trump wants him to be America’s Attorney General.

There is Pete Hegseth, who has never had a military command role, and who has said he hasn’t washed his hands in a decade, because germs aren’t real. Trump wants him to run America’s military.

There is Elon Musk, the billionaire who has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials – which, as the New York Times has reported, has delighted the ayatollahs in Iran, who have called it “positive” and “good news.” Trump has brought Musk in for all kinds of meetings, without ensuring first that the X elf lord has a security clearance.

Up here, of course, we have a Prime Minister who has worn racist black face many times, who has never been cleared of groping a female reporter, and who has been found culpable in multiple corruption scandals. And who claims to be (a) anti-racist, (b) feminist, and (c) leading a responsible and ethical government.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (16)

It’s the economy, stupid.

Democratic strategist James Carville famously uttered those words first, during the 1992 US presidential campaign. They’ve become the accepted political wisdom ever since.

What’s fascinating is that, in that election year, the economy should have worked against Carville and his candidate, Bill Clinton. In that election cycle, you see, Vice President George H.W. Bush’s verbal gaffes – “read my lips,” etcetera – seriously damaged the Republican’s public image, yes. But what is surprising, still, is that the GOP lost the White House despite significant GDP growth plus approval ratings as high as 89 per cent following victory in the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Decades of data show that the state of the economy determines election outcomes, in the United States, Canada and across Western democracy. It’s the economy, stupid, as Carville said.

Incumbents – which Kamala Harris effectively was – almost always have an electoral advantage. But that isn’t true when there’s been a recession or some economic calamity. Like, say, a pandemic which retailers used as an excuse to gouge consumers.

As financial analysts Goldman Sachs observed a year ago, in what should have been a warning to the Biden-Harris administration: “Since 1951, when the constitutional amendment was ratified to limit presidents to two terms, the incumbent has lost when the election took place soon after a recession (in 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2020). The party in the White House also lost after a recession in two instances when the incumbent candidate was not on the ballot (1960 and 2008).”

Except, except, Democrats will protest: there wasn’t a recession in 2023-2024! There actually has been lots of growth!

So why did the economy kill the Harris campaign, then? (And, make no mistake, it did: “inflation is too high under the Biden-Harris administration” was the number one cited reason why Americans voted for Trump, exit polls reported this week. People crossing the border illegally was the second-ranked reason.)

Sorry, Democrats: what voters think is the reality is the reality. Whether, um, it’s the reality or not.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (3)

Comments (7)