Is anyone else as sick of that as me? Enough, already.

Comments (3)

As everyone knows by now, ESPN did the right thing:

“The headline — “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin’s 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-stopping Loss to Hornets” — appeared on ESPN’s mobile website at 2:30 a.m. on Saturday and was removed by 3:05 a.m. Battling to contain a furor, the sports network fired Federico and suspended anchor Max Bretos for 30 days.”

So, have Maclean’s and the National Post done likewise with Mark Steyn, who wrote for both media outlets for years, and who has also called Chinese “chinks”? Um, no.

“Mark Steyn has a penchant for using ethnic slurs, including “chinks” and “japs” (Spectator, 3/24/01), but he is at his most prolific and poisonous on the subject of Muslims…this is the man who calls Chinese people “Chinks” and Japanese people “Japs.” He calls Indians “wogs.”

How will Maclean’s and the National Post cover the ESPN/Lin story? I can’t wait to see the oleaginous Selley on this dilemma: it’ll be interesting, but likely not inspiring.

Comments (11)

Dangerous!

Comments (1)

Read it, Geoff and Jordan.

Comments (29)

Being Irish and Catholic, I am a sucker for well-written obituaries. This one, along with being near-pitch-perfect, benefits from some wonderful subject matter.

Comments (4)

It’s a tale of two nations, you might say.

Up here? Well, the Canadian bill — Bill C-30, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act (PCIPA) — saw opponents come together to publicize Toews’ divorce files. The sickening campaign culminated in a shocking Ottawa Citizen story Thursday, which revealed the Twitter account that had been disgorging salacious details about the Toews family had been — wait for it — run out of the House of Commons.

Comments (39)

Of course it is – sort of.  So sayeth this pollster:

Some Canadians believe that the country’s values have shifted over the past decade, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted in partnership with L’Actualité has found.

In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,006 Canadian adults, more than a third of respondents (37%) believe that the values of Canadian society are more right-wing now than 10 years ago, while 22 per cent report no change. Only 15 per cent of Canadians think the country is now more left-wing oriented.

Almost half of Canadian men (48%) think the values of Canadian society are more right-wing than ten years ago. Only one-in-ten respondents over the age of 55 (9%) say that Canada is now more left-wing oriented than a decade ago.

More than half of Canadians (56%) believe the Federal Government has an important role to play to redistribute the wealth and intervene in the economy, even if it means increasing taxes.

Comments (25)

 “Their attack on me is a disgrace. They’ve attacked my patriotism. They’ve attacked my commitment to the country. And now they’re attacking my family.”

He said the Tories’ targeting of his character and family is unparalleled in this country. “These personal attacks are unprecedented in the history of Canadian democracy,” Mr. Ignatieff charged.

“[Stephen Harper] is absolutely out of control. He thinks he can get away with and say anything,” the Liberal Leader said...

He added: “Canadians got to ask themselves is this the kind of politics you want? This is a prime minister who is prepared to say anything to hold on to power.”

Wise words.  Are you listening, Geoff and Jordan?

Comments (20)

The repugnant folks who brought you the Persian Gulf War are at it again!

Here’s their list of QP Twitter “influencers.” As determined by, um, Hill and Knowlton.

There’s some people I know who, er, have more Twitter followers than quite a few of the “influencers” put together.

Wouldn’t want to mention a competitor would ya, now, H and K?

Comments (6)

This morning’s judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada – which licences mandatory courses to teach religion to student in public schools – is very, very troubling.

Along with suggesting that Conservative attempts to remake the highest court are bearing fruit, I have a few other problems with the decision:

• It involves governments directly in matters of religion.  Religions should have no influence over governments, and governments should have no influence over religions.  This decision creates a direct and ongoing relationship between the two.
• How will government bureaucrats decide which religions should be taught, and which should not?  If I was legal counsel to the Scientologists or the Identity Christians, I would immediately commence litigation to demand that my faith now be taught to students.
• How will the very significant differences of opinion between faiths be depicted?  Jews do not believe Christ was the Messiah.  Some Christians still believe Jews murdered Christ.  Interpretations of the Koran and the Bible – as we all know too well – range from the mundane to the extreme.  Who will determine which interpretation will prevail?  How will they do that?
• Who will evaluate whether the “teaching” is being conducted in an even-handed manner – and when it devolves into discriminatory proselytizing? Is there going to be a watchdog in place to continually monitor these classes, to ensure what happened in Jim Keegstra’s Eckville High social studies class doesn’t happen in a Quebec classroom?  Why not, if not?
• I take my children to church; I believe they need to be exposed to the moral teachings which make up most of our major faiths.  When they get older, they can be whatever they want.  Until they then, their mother and me should be the ones guiding them – not some faceless bureaucrats and a teacher whose motives are unknown to me.

And so on  and so on.

I’m usually in a minority on these things, but that’s fine.  But when it comes to my children, I intend to be the one who decides what religions they are exposed to.  When it comes to them, their Mom and I are the majority.

Not some bureaucrat.  And certainly not the unelected conservatives on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Comments (23)