…which explains plenty. 

  

Comments (0)

Here!

Also, she says he raped her. Then she says he sort of didn’t. 

  

Comments (1)

Quote:

The proposal, adopted Saturday by the party’s national board during a three-hour meeting with the prime minister in Halifax, would do away entirely with the long-held principle that only dues-paying, card-carrying members are entitled to take part in party activities. 

Indeed, there would no longer be any party members. Instead, anyone willing to register with the party — for free — would be eligible to participate in policy development, nomination of candidates, party conventions and the selection of future leaders.

That’s not a membership – that’s a mailing list. Sorry. 

The biggest concern, I think, would be that a political party would become much more susceptible to special interest takeovers. We saw that happen in the 1990 Liberal leadership race, when thousands of pro-life types propelled Tom Wappel to third place in delegate totals (Sheila Copps only achieved nominal third place on the single ballot in Calgary when worried Jean Chretien delegates rushed to support her to deny Wappel the bronze). 

That sort of special interest takeover didn’t happen in 2013, I suspect, because very few expected the Liberals to vault from a distant third place in the Commons to first. That likely won’t be the case when Trudeau departs: power attracts, like a bright light attracts bugs. 

When single-minded outsiders want to take over a political party – and when they’re given the means to do so, as here – they will mobilize. And the consequences can be serious. 

If you don’t believe that, I encourage you to cast your eyes South, to what will soon be referred to as “Donald Trump’s Republican Party.”

Comments (12)

…the wife poses with our attack dogs, Satan and Lucifer. 

  

Comments (5)

But one sector has been hit particularly hard by the new era. Can you guess what it is?

  

  

Comments (3)

They have an unerring instinct for a losing proposition.

1. Canadians used to "socialist" politicians. 2. Americans aren't. 3. Primaries ≠ General. 4. @SenSanders elects @realDonaldTrump @tedcruz.

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) April 2, 2016

Comments (22)

Comments (0)

 

What a giant this man is: Irwin Cotler.  

Comments (6)

I’m sorry, but Tom Mulcair is kind of pathetic.  He is.

Mulcair has tweeted that Donald Trump is a “fascist,” quote unquote.  He says he wants that “to be on  the record.”

Gotcha.

To me and not a few other people, fascism is the ideology of murder.  Its characteristics are total state control of the economy, uniformed paramilitary forces, and – as noted – organized murder on a massive scale.  You will know you are dealing with a real fascist when they want to kill you. For an opinion, or your religion, or the way you look or the way you are.

Donald Trump is an asshole, to be sure. He says things that are outrageous and racist and offensive and crazy. Yes.

But he isn’t yet openly advocating the forced sterilization of “sub-normal” people – like this other politician did, back in the Thirties.  He hasn’t started calling disabled people “morons” and “prostitutes” who are a burden to the taxpayer – like this fan of Third Reich medicine did, way back when.

Tom Mulcair knows all that, anyway.  Just as we know that he is revealing himself to be a desperate, pathetic man, frantically trying to depict himself as “left wing” to preserve his job.

Save your money writing reports about why you lost the election so badly, Team Orange.  You lost because of the execrable judgment of Tom Mulcair.

Mulcair diminishes suffering of REAL victims of fascism, to save his hide in a leadership review. Pathetic.#cdnpoli https://t.co/abWivYNQCJ

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 31, 2016

Comments (26)

To wit: why bother?

A snippet, below.  Your speculation is welcome, as always.

Children, someone once observed, are the only known form of immortality.

That rarely deters the makers of monuments, the curers of disease, the inventors and discoverers, the authors of books and songs and art: all valiantly attempt, in some small measure, to defy death. But we cannot ever hold mortality’s strong hand (per The Bard). The “undiscover’d country” awaits us all.

Politicians, and political folk, remain mulishly undeterred. They do not ever embrace politics to achieve riches: unless one is a crook, and also very lucky, there really aren’t any riches to be had. They do not do so to be loved: for many, all that lies ahead is hate mail, and the insults of strangers at baggage carousels. They don’t do it for their health, either: plenty of them start drinking too much, exercising too little, and – in a small minority of cases – even smoking crack.

Finally, they don’t succumb to the political life because it will bring them closer to their family. For a disproportionately-large number, politics routinely ends in divorce, and alienated offspring. It is, indeed, an unspeakably lonely life (per Kim Campbell).

So why does any sensible person do it?

Comments (16)