From left: Davey Snot, Royal Niblet, Steve Deceive and Winkie Smith. Bjorn von Flapjack III? Who cares. We hate him, now.

I love Stevie’s Townshend-esque flourish. Classic.

Oh, and we made history! We broadcast our show live over Meerkat, and got watched as far away as Australia. Cool.

Comments (1)

Spotted by the ever-vigilant Michael Slavitch.

Comments (5)

Quote:

 Like a real dog whistle which produces sound at a high frequency that can be heard by canines but not by humans, dog-whistle politics refers to the use of code words that go unheard or unremarked by most people but which convey a particular — usually nasty, racially tinged — message to a target audience.

I never liked the phrase, personally, because it suggests that strategists believe voters are animals, and therefore easily trained. If that were so, no one would need strategists anymore, would they?

A cur like Larry Miller notwithstanding, my experience is that Ontario Conservatives – from Harris to Tory to Hudak – were always much more willing to engage in such politics than their federal cousins. Not sure why that is so, but all three of those guys ran campaigns where race was a key strategic imperative. 

Among other things, it certainly casts doubt on the notion that we Albertans are mouth-breathing racists, and Central Canadian folks are always fair-minded progressives, don’t it?

Comments (27)

Quote:

 Warren Kinsella, another Ottawa-based political strategist and former Special Assistant to Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien agrees. “The NDP never wants the Green party there, the Liberals would prefer not to have the NDP there, the Tories would probably prefer to have nobody there. All of them have their preferences,” Kinsella chimes in.

I knew we moved yesterday, but not that far! (We didn’t.)

Anyway, it’s in the new iPolitics thing for today, by subscription. 

What’s your take, debating commenters? Which debate lineup works best for which leader? Which format? How many debates? Which moderator? When? Where? Bueller?

Comments are open. Back to unpacking, for me. 

Comments (27)

• Getting kicked in the face by a goat

• Leaving a baby on a bus

• Having to poop at your friend’s tiny studio apartment

• Accidentally drooling while speaking to a Super Model

• Being kidnapped by a drug cartel

• Swallowing a pill sideways

• Week-long Justin Bieber Music Festival 

….but moving is what we are doing! Yep. 

What do you think moving is worse than, Dear Reader?

Comments (21)

It’s just one poll, election is far away, blah blah blah. But if those BC and PQ numbers are right, Harper doesn’t have far to go to secure another majority.  Wow. 



Comments (69)

Our plan is to get Obama to read it on-air.

Comments (1)

Ah, memories.

Comments (23)

Quote:

31. – That this be the better observed at all times and by all Sisters in every place, we decree that all the Sisters shall so adjust their kerchiefs, that the forehead, both cheeks and the chin shall be for the greater part covered, so that their faces may be in no wise entirely seen.

Shocking! Appalling! Repression! The “Sisters” in question? Why, it’s the Colettine Poor Clare Order of nuns, that’s who.

Here’s a picture of one of them, practically nude:

I look forward to assorted politicians condemning this anti-women group of, er, women.

Comments (14)

The full post:

Possible lawbreaker.

BR Ignatieff Veil
Source: The Canadian Press
Mar 27, 2010 3:13

MONTREAL – Michael Ignatieff is weighing in on the Muslim face-covering debate that’s raging in Quebec.

The federal Liberal leader says he supports controversial legislation that would force veiled women in Quebec to uncover their faces when receiving or delivering public services.

Ignatieff says the bill represents a “good Canadian balance” between religious freedom and equal treatment.

Some Muslim groups and other commentators have harshly denounced the bill, branding it as intolerant.

Ignatieff, however, says it’s “ridiculous” to say that Quebec is more intolerant than other parts of the country.

He says all modern societies are grappling with how to reasonably accommodate cultural and religious differences.

***

I’m not “grappling” with this one, personally. I don’t agree, at all, with the position that my party – or the governing party – have taken, here. That likely places me in a small minority, but I’m okay with that.

It’s fair to say, however, that I’m also not overly exercised about what Quebec proposes to do: it’s a poorly-drafted law, one that will face (so to speak) an inevitable constitutional challenge. I just cannot foresee such a law surviving a Section Two Charter review – nor it being regarded as particularly reasonable, under a Section One check.

On the other hand – if I am wrong, and I’m often wrong – and the law survives a Charter challenge, prepare yourself for the inevitable: every kook and bigot with some spare time on his hands may commence litigation against the Sikh’s turban and beard, the Jew’s kippah and the Hasidic’s Jew clothing, the Hindu’s tilak facial markings, the styles favoured by traditional Mennonites and the Amish, or perhaps even the ostentatious display of a nun’s habit. I mean, why not, right? Any one of those things may serve to obscure a person’s identity in some way. Fair’s fair.

There may indeed be occasions when the provision of certain government services reasonably require that we see a person’s face – checking a passport, crossing a border, perhaps even voting – when a person’s bona fides can’t otherwise be confirmed. But, say, popping by a government office to pay a parking ticket? Will the new law prohibit that, too?

I think we’re in rather dangerous territory, here, but I’m interested in your thoughts, as always.

Comments (34)