Comments (7)

Would you buy a used house from this woman?

Comments (4)

As you all know, I detest award shows and Hollywood, but I immodestly note that I was right about Hugo, and the Oscars judges are simply following my lead.

You’re welcome.

Comments (0)

John Cummins is right about one thing: BC voters are smart. They won’t be fooled by Christy Clark’s attempts to position herself as a conservative.

In politics, you’re expected to know certain things. Like who you are, for example.

Comments (20)

You’re going to think I’m crazy — or crazier than usual — but hear me out.

In politics, some folks base their advice on polls, focus groups and data. Me, I favour my gut. It generally doesn’t let me down.

For example: Back in the summer of 1990, when I was offered a job by then-opposition leader Jean Chretien, I had quite a few family and friends saying “don’t do it.” I was doing well as a lawyer, they said, and Chretien would never, ever be prime minister.

My head told me they might be right, but my gut said I should go work for the p’tit gars de Shawinigan. As things turned out, I never hesitate to tell my relations and friends, Chretien kind of did all right, didn’t he?

Which brings me, in a typically circuitous fashion, to a Toronto boardroom in the fall of 2008, a few weeks before Michael Ignatieff would become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Gathered in the Yorkville boardroom was Ignatieff’s charming wife, plus most of his senior advisers. I was the only one wearing a T-shirt (an Obama T-shirt, incidentally).

Comments (12)

Brilliant, as always.

Heard about the shake-up while at Son One’s game last night, from some other parents afterwards (we lost, to one of the worst teams in the GTHL).  They said RIM’s stock price would be juiced Monday morning.  I wasn’t so sure.  “Too little, too late,” said I.  “Bringing in a guy who was already in won’t work.”

And it didn’t.

 

Comments (7)

If you’re a U. of T. student with time to do some research/writing stuff, and a desire to have a huge impact on key world events, email me.

Comments (0)

UPDATE: Aiiiieeee! Reader Sean Craig sends along this second abomination. Good Lord!

Then again, on second thought, I may order one. It sort of screams “I don’t give a f**k what you think” better than the original Black Flag tee, two of which I own.

UPDATED AGAIN! This one, from reader Alex Ferguson, is actually brilliant. I’d retain these guys, wouldn’t you?

Comments (8)

A nice person from Post City, Michelle, asked me to offer up my thoughts on the rebranding of the Liberal Party of Canada, and whether their pot thing helps them do that.  Here’s what I told her, below.  Your thoughts are welcome, as always.

The pot thing is a sideshow.  It’s relevant, in a serious way, to perhaps no more than a few hundred people in the entire country.  It’s not the kind of issue that captivates enough people to matter to the outcome in a general election, let along a by-election.

The things that matter to voters are the things that have always mattered to voters: economic and managerial competence.  In era like the one we all live in, with all sorts of economic drama going on in Europe and the U.S., Canadians want to see a stable governance, and no surprises.  That’s why Harper has so studiously played against type, and avoided the sorts of pitfalls (abortion, gay marriage) that so many in his backbench want to see gone.

The Liberal Party will become relevant again when it stops talking about itself, and it starts talking about the country.  It’ll become relevant when it recaptures the two things that helped it dominate governance for so many decades: strong central government and managerial competence.

As long as it preoccupies itself with trivialities, it’ll continue to be relegated to the sidelines, where the other trivialities can be found.

Comments (19)

Quote:

“Option three, wrote Mr. Adler, is for the Israeli leader to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”…“Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?” he wrote. Options one and two were all-out Israeli attacks on Hezbollah or Iran’s nuclear sites.“

This fool deserves to spend a long time in prison for what he wrote, and hopefully will.  Many Jewish organizations are now strongly condemning him for what he wrote, which is good but hardly surprising.  It’s the least they can do.

This extreme case isn’t representative.  But it brought to mind conversations I have had, recently, with three very prominent Jewish liberals.  They said to me, with sadness, that they are part of a dying breed – the Jewish community leader who embraces progressive points of view, and who hasn’t become an uncritical cheerleader for the Conservative and Republican parties.

The leaders of the Jewish community have always been smart.  They have always embraced diversification – they were politically active, and they encouraged their team to get involved with the Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats (or even the separatists).  In that way, whenever there was a change in government, they could always count on having friends in power.  It was a smart strategy.  It was the right strategy.

Bottom line?  Stephen Harper’s party will eventually lose power, and another party will take its place.  And the Canadian Jewish community – and its “CEO,” whose name I can’t even bring myself to say out loud anymore – will rue the day that they chose to promote only one horse, instead of all of them.

More I have had to say on this subject, here.

Comments (14)