Sigh. Screw it. It's the government we deserve.

I'll still vote for a rutabega over the Liberal party (and maintain that so should everyone else who gives the tinest crap about the health of the polity), but I believe I am now entering the Menckenesque stage where I just shake my head and have another drink. We are fucked, aren't we?

It's bewildering. Does Mr. Harper not understand that everyone east of Lloydminster is absolutely terrified of the potential that he is a watered-down (or not so watered-down) Dubya? The Liberals certainly do.

The Conservative party must work to make Stephen Harper appear more fully human. In case you didn't know (and I’m speaking to you - Conservative strategists), humans are often funny, compassionate, kind and warm. They are not always vindictive, petty and consumed with questions of efficiency. Liberal-minded Canadians aren't really compelled to vote for the Tandy Roboleader currently on display - no matter how much Martin and his cronies need the boot.

Am I the only one who thinks that not only the "organized crime" comment from Harper was dead on, but that most likely the Tony Soprano's of the world are probably jealous of the Liberals? After all wasn't it some Italian Mafia guy in prison for life in the US who said that Gagliano was "a friend of ours." Wasn't Gagliano rejected by the Vatican as an Ambassador? How soon do we forget.....
Gomery said the corruption was a crime, and Gomery said it was an organized effort thus we have Organized Crime. Albertans and British Columbians understand this, as well as Quebeckers. Why not Ontarians. Would acknowledging organized crime at the highest levels "make us more American?"
What the hell is wrong with Central Canadians?

I'm with Joe.

"Organized Crime" does not mean Joey Soprano - passing envelopes of (taxpayer funded) cash in a restaurant qualifies, too. I think the more times PMPM stands up to protest (or sends that little piece of crap Brison to do it for him) the more he tars himself with that brush. There is nothing worse for a politician than to be quoted claiming that he is not a crook (just ask Dick Nixon). Even better if PMPM's defense is "We're not that kind of crook."

Sorry to threadjack here, but I'd like to bring attention to some new data in the Don Cherry debate from Nov. 15, recent Statscan data proves that Quebecers are far less inclined to physical violence than the rest of the country, something that a few here denied rather ..um..aggressively. Link below, pardon the interruption, please return now to your regular programming. http://snipurl.com/k9rw

Sigh. Canadians. As long as I live in this country (and it's going on 15 years now), I will never get used to the tradition of maintaining strict conventions of courtesy in the face of blatant Liberal wrongdoing. We must not say what everyone is thinking!*

The only problem with Harper's comment is that it's not polite, and that's about the worst accusation you can make about someone in Canadian public life. Because speaking plainly about the known behaviour of the Liberal Party of Canada is too reminiscent of (gasp!) American-style campaigning for delicate Canadian sensibilities.

Coyne's been hammering away at some of the more mysterious implications coming out of Gomery testimony--hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash dispensed, witnesses fearing for their lives--plus RCMP warnings of organized crime infiltration into government and the courts, but has utterly failed to disturb the studied incuriosity of his colleagues in the media.

But you're right that it's a dumb tactical move, and I suppose that was your main point.

*Because then we'd no longer be able to pretend that the Liberal Party is fit to govern, and that would mean--horrors!-- we'd actually have to elect someone else.

recent Statscan data proves that Quebecers are far less inclined to physical violence than the rest of the country, something that a few here denied rather ..um..aggressively."

No - what people denied was that it had any link to Don Cherry; that it was in any way related to what the rules of hockey "should be;" or that you had shown any relationship to national origins.

Sorry - that's a swing and a miss.

Alas, once agan I'll explain my point of view. I said that Cherry was the progenitor or a proponent of the assault-o-philia that's widely embraced in anglo Canada, including by those hanging around this somewhat cranky blog. I say it matters little whehter Cherry encourages it or inflames it, but he plays a role. You asked for data, I gave you some irrefutable stuff. Now you're back to that shell game about what I said.

Here's a diagram of my argument, please tell me where you consider it flawed.

Premise 1-Don Cherry has a big influence among young adult anglo Canadian males.

Premise 2-Don Cherry advocates fighting as a way of settling disputes.

Conclusion: Young Canadian males are influenced by Don Cherry to favour fighting as a way to settle disputes.

Seems pretty clear to me.

just - first, you started your discussion with the assertion that the rules of hockey should be changed to prohibit fighting 'because of danger to the participants.' You then went on some tangent about Don Cherry, although you did allege that the (presupposed) anglo "bloodlust" could be seen as well in soccer hooliganism. Sorry - where is the link to Don Cherry? I don't recall him on any UK soccer broadcasts, but perhaps I don't get out enough. Your evidence that there is a 'bloodlust' in anglo culture is based on anecdotal tales of bar fights, and the asserion that this 'bloodlust' doesn't exist in Quebec is merely that; an assertion. It is even plausible, so long as you exclude observations like pur laine bike gangs. Of course, you hold that they are not a valid counter example, because other (non pur laine) groups in Quebec have a long history of gangersterism. You overlook the fact that the groups you cited, the Irish and Italians, are also not anglos so not only does their long involvement in crime have no bearing on the bloodlust exhibited by pur laine quebecois like Maurice Boucher, it also holds no bearing on the alleged violent tendencies among anglo Canadians - inside or outside Quebec.

You dismiss the only political killing in recent Canadian history, carried out by pur laine Quebecers in the name of creating an explicitly ethnic Quebec state (take a wild guess which ethnic group it will serve), since it was "an accident." Okay - I get the picture: any counter example doesn't apply for whatever reason, while any hunch or flight of fancy that matches your conclusion is "evidence."

Here's my argument for you, tell me where you find it flawed:
Premise 1) Quebec City has a lot of churches and old buildings.
Premise 2) Quebec city gets a lot of snow, and has a cold winter
Conclusion: Churches and old buildings cause snow and lead to a cold climate. Who needs Kyoto? We'll just build churches.

Well I'm not even sure how faithfully you're reading my posts. Yes, I referred to the dangerous anglo Canadian bloodlust and yes I contend that fighting in hockey is dangerous to the participants, it sends a crazy message to viewers, and many other things which I've gone on at length. Where's the contradiction in that? Yes I suggested that the anglo culture suffers from the glorification of pugilism. I then provided some pretty and recent strong statistical evidence supporting my main contention, that Quebecers are far less inclined to street fighting than the rest of Canada. Anyway, take the time to check out the link I posted above, it's a study on the rate of assault in Canadian cities. Montreal was by far the place with the least tendency to assault others, which is exactly what I've been suggesting all along. It pretty much seals the deal here.

Sure - if you wander around in circles long enough, sooner or later you may come across an idea. If you come across enough of them, some might overlap. BFD

If you have no counterargument, dismissiveness and baiting might be your last refuge. But you have an alternative. You could re-read my posts and reflect on what I've asserted. It's all entirely clear and well-supported, but you seem mired in this pit of denial that you've dug yourself into. I urge you to lift yourself out of it.

If you have no counterargument, dismissiveness and baiting might be your last refuge. But you have an alternative. You could re-read my posts and reflect on what I've asserted. It's all entirely clear and well-supported, but you seem mired in this pit of denial that you've dug yourself into. I urge you to lift yourself out of it.