Ridiculous, boring, stupid: Summertime reading

Perhaps it’s because I’m in Jamaica and don’t give a rat’s ass, or perhaps it’s because I’m becoming even more of a curmudgeon than before: either way – and from an admittedly great distance – I find this week’s commentary/news to be a ribald mix of stupidity, ridiculousness and/or stupendously boring thumb-sucking.

A sampling:

The Globe and Mail’s august editorial board, on…strippers. That’s what they’re worried about, down on Front Street. Strippers.

It wasn’t even a cabinet shuffle, for Chrissakes! It was the replacement of ONE PERSON. But the Post, and everyone else, endlessly pokes through the entrails to ascertain the cosmic significance of it all. You know, the replacement of ONE PERSON. Please, Lord, kill me now.

…and, finally, the Toronto Star editorializes in favour of lighting up the downtown core at night. On, um, the same night the downtown core was entirely without power. Because, you know, too many people were using power.

And so on, and so on. And newspaper folks wonder why they’re heading the way of the Dodo. Wonder no more, etc.

Oh, and if one more media person tells us to “keep hydrated” we are going to kill them.

End of rant.


SFH has fans around the world

This young man was snapped at USMC Camp Pendleton, celebrating July 4 near San Diego with 15,000 Marines, all SFH fans!

In an unrelated matter, SFH looks forward to the day this strapping young man kicks Mark Steyn’s head in. In front of his ugly loser friends.

20120705-081102.jpg


Point, missed

The point – in this column, and the poll it examines – is entirely missed. Voters have always been progressive. It’s only journalists who thought they were becoming conservative.

The point is this: what’s been changing isn’t voters’ views of conservatives – it’s conservatives themselves who have changed. They have a smaller base of voters, but they’ve adapted to that. They have become way, way better at campaigning than progressives.

They’ve done that by stealing language, and values. Buy this if you are as interested in why as I was!


Leave Tom Cruise alone!

I liked this because:

1. Lynn Crosbie isn’t running with the snarling, snapping media pack, which is what the best columnists should do.

2. She correctly notes that a lot of the personal criticisms Cruise has faced over the years originate in homophobia; and

3. She correctly notes that a lot of the religious criticisms he’s faced are plain old bigotry and hate.

Like Crosbie says, his sexuality and religion should not affect my views of Top Gun, for example.

Which was, like, the worst movie ever.


In Tuesday’s Sun, weirdly early: killing Canada, not so softly

The shortwave service started in 1942. Prime Minister Mackenzie King said it would help to keep our soldiers connected with what was going on back home. For our armed forces members in uniform – then and now – RCI became an easy way to stay in touch with Canada and Canadians.

Similarly, the service became a means by which we could subtly promote democracy, and the Canadian way of life, in far-flung corners of the world. In places like China, Russia and North Korea – where the Internet can be censored, but shortwave can’t be – RCI was heard by many. In post-Communist Eastern Europe, shortwave radio receivers are still the way in which many receive news from the outside world.

I know this from experience. When I was an election observer in Bosnia in 1996, billeted with a Serbian family, I was glued to my tiny shortwave radio at night. I’d listen to the Stanley Cup playoffs, and the news from back home, and I was always pretty grateful that RCI existed.

Our allies – the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and Australia – have all expanded their national shortwave service.

In Canada, meanwhile, we’ve killed it.


In tomorrow’s Sun, today: the politics of disaster

Everyone in Canada knows about the catastrophe that has been unfolding in Elliot Lake, midway between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, in Ontario’s North. It has been a terrible, terrible tragedy. People have died, and many have been hurt.

Unfortunately, some in the media and in the political opposition have been looking for someone to blame in Elliot Lake. They’ve suggested Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper should have hustled up there right away. To do what? We know not. But McGuinty and Harper have been lambasted by some for not travelling to Elliot Lake.

Jean Chretien, as I recall, travelled to Manitoba during the ’97 flood. “An infamous PR disaster,” the Montreal Gazette later intoned. A “photo opportunity stunt,” declared the Vancouver Sun. “Appalling insensitivity,” said the Edmonton Journal.

However, in the end, Chretien still won a majority – albeit a reduced one. Some of his western candidates (like, um, me) certainly paid a price. But the Liberal leader ended up with more seats in Manitoba than any other party.

The paradox, I remarked to my campaign team at the time, is this: If you don’t go to the site of a disaster, you’ll get hammered for staying away and being insensitive. And if you travel to the site of a disaster, you’ll get hammered for coming for a photo op and therefore being insensitive. You can’t win, in other words.