Team Olbermann

I don't watch MSNBC, so this is my first real encounter with Keith Olbermann's commentary:



Hot damn! I totally see why people love this guy. And I've gotta say, I agree with most, if not all, of what he says.

The way Hillary Clinton's campaign has handled Geraldine Ferraro has been disgusting. This failure to condemn what is racist hate-mongering? Way to prove Samantha Power right. And I'm not going to say anything about the double-standard illustrated in the contrast between Power's resignation and Ferraro's--I think Olbermann says it all.

Like Erik, I'm really starting to tire of all this crap.

Stars and Stripes-Gazing

I've been following the primaries--with particular interest in the Democratic ones--in the U.S. fairly closely lately. Although I'm a Canadian and therefore can't vote, I nonetheless consider it important to know what's going on politically with our largest trading partner.

As I mentioned, the Democratic primaries are garnering most of my attention. I know it's too early to make predictions (and that the pundits have so far been thwarted at every turn), but--given that there are even Republicans who are unhappy with the state of affairs in the U.S.--there seems to be a sea-change brewing, and it seems that the Democrats, if (and ONLY if!) they can stop the divisive squabbling, may be able to tap into that and use it to real advantage.

Now, I'm not sure who'd I'd rather have leading the Democrats in the next election. While I'm leaning towards Barack Obama at the moment, I have gone back and forth on this matter and I have lots more time to do the same. I do know that if the U.S. is to elect another Republican president, I'd prefer John McCain, who is both intelligent and moderate, to the evangelical Mike Huckabee (need I point out what's happened to the church and state divide since the current evangelical commander-in-chief assumed office in 2000?) or to Mitt Romney, who--perhaps irrationally on my part--just doesn't sit well with me. But I digress...

Watching the Democratic debate on Monday night got me thinking seriously about who the eventual Democratic nominee would pick as a running mate--a choice that is arguably just as important as that which Democrats are making in the primaries.

Seeing how the candidates interact with one another, I'm beginning to suspect that should Clinton receive the nomination, she'll pick Obama as her running mate; however, I think that if Obama gets the nomination, John Edwards will be his VP candidate. Despite their differences, the rapport between Obama and Edwards seems collegial and generally respectful. Not so with that between Clinton and Obama.

I still think, though, that despite the hostilities, Hillary Clinton will need Barack Obama if she wants to succeed beyond the Democratic convention. From what I've been reading, a lot of people--whether they be Democrats, independents, or Republicans--still don't like her. She is a polarizing figure; much has been made, on the other hand, of Obama's unifying, bipartisan appeal.

But don't take my word for it. I'm far less knowledgeable about U.S. politics than all the talking heads that have been proven wrong by primary voters; my predictions should be taken with an even smaller grain of salt (if that's possible.) Still, I'll continue to watch and to think about all this regardless.

Very busy.

To tie you over, feast on this morsel from Slate.com: Hillary's "Experience" Lie. Some excellent points here. I'm glad someone finally pointed that out.

Ontario Votes 2007: Thoughts after the election

1.) This Liberal platform point, which will be effective immediately (i.e. they plan to pass the bill as soon as the legislature convenes), is stupid. Well, not the holiday part, but the fact that it's supposed to celebrate "family." Aren't there already enough holidays that celebrate families? I mean, there's Mother's Day, Father's Day, Grandparents' Day. According to Dear Dalton:

"There is nothing more valuable to families than time together. And yet it seems tougher than ever to find, with so many of us living such busy lives," McGuinty said.

"That's why, on the third Monday of this coming February — and every February from now on — Ontarians deserve a new statutory holiday — Family Day."

Isn't the entire Christmas season family-oriented?! And Thanksgiving? Where the hell is Single Persons' Day? What about a day celebrating our life choices?! Must we wait until we marry ourselves à la Carrie Bradshaw?

Of course, I'm not serious about a Single Persons' Day. However, what I am serious about is my distaste for designating a statutory holiday "Family Day." It's discriminatory and, quite frankly, superfluous. There are more than enough occasions to celebrate family. Just make the day a stat. Or, better yet, scrap the proposed February holiday and move it to November. Why, after all these years, is Remembrance Day in Ontario not marked by the cessation of work?! While I am a pacifist, I think that if anything merits celebration in this province, it's the sacrifice of our servicemen and women!

2.) Caroline Di Cocco, the only Liberal cabinet minister to lose his or her seat, is blaming the mayor of her riding for her defeat. No, not because he undertook a devious, counter-Caroline campaign, but because he pushed for the disclosure of the cost of the new hospital. Di Cocco was quoted in the local paper as saying how one doesn't discuss costs when one's trying to get contracts signed. Whatever. A memo from the health minister was sent to the hospital board on August 14th, quoting the cost as more than double the initially projected cost. This memo was carbon-copied to Di Cocco; she claims she didn't see it until October 1st--the reason for this being, according to today's London Free Press, that she was busy with her re-election campaign.

And I say that, ballooning hospital costs aside (N.B.: the $314 million price tag doesn't include costs associated with decommissioning the old hospital, architects fees, etc.,), these are reasons enough to lose a seat! First, as a member of provincial parliament, your first responsibility is to be accountable to your constituents, not to get yourself re-elected. If your constituents want to know how much money for which they'll be "on the hook," it is your responsibility to inform them to the best of your ability, regardless of the state of contract negotiations. Such is the principle of transparency that should be at work in all contracts that are signed with the private sector on behalf of the public.

Second, if, as Di Cocco maintains, she did not see the memo, she was also in remiss of her duties. While I understand that the volume of correspondence must seem daunting at times, it was her responsibility to ensure that she was kept abreast of all developments associated with the hospital contract. If she hadn't heard anything, why wasn't she making inquiries?!

Caroline Di Cocco has no one to blame for this loss but herself. While I am disappointed that her riding instead went to a Conservative, she didn't earn herself another mandate.

3.) To illustrate to the misinformed/non-believers/whatever you want to call all those who voted against proportional representation why we need proportional representation, I calculated the percentage of the 107 Ontario legislature seats won by each of the political parties and compared it to their share of the popular vote, which was reported in the local newspaper here. The results are as follows:

Liberals: 66.4% of seats/42.1% of popular vote
Conservatives: 24.3% of seats/31.6% of popular vote
New Democrats: 9.3% of seats/16.9% of popular vote
Greens: 0.0% of seats/8.1% of popular vote
Other: 0.0% of seats/1.4% of popular vote

How can you not be disgusted by the fact that garnering almost 17% of the votes cast (excluding spoiled ballots, of course) will get you under 10% of the seats in legislature?! Or that 8% of the votes won't you anywhere?! Hell, even if you're further to the right of the political spectrum than I am, how can you not be annoyed by the fact that your party's support isn't accurately reflected by the make-up of the legislature?!

Ontario Votes 2007: Thoughts on the referendum

Though the result wasn't unexpected, I can't express how profoundly disappointed I am by this result nonetheless. Why people would choose to maintain the undemocratic status quo of a first-past-the-post electoral system is beyond me. Yes, there were some flaws in the proposed mixed-member-proportional (MMP) system; however, as a system, it is much more effective in registering the "will of the people"!

"They" are saying that voters didn't know what was going on as far as the referendum. To my clueless fellow voters I say, "If you don't understand the question, DON'T CAST A BALLOT EITHER WAY!" With the right to vote comes the responsibility to educate yourself about your choices. If you can't be bothered with the responsibility, then you don't deserve the right. It's like operating a car: when you don't drive responsibly, you risk harming everyone who may share the road with you. Ditto voting.

But I cannot fault my fellow voters alone.

To Elections Ontario, the body tasked with running a referendum education campaign, I say, "Shame on you!" While I can speak of only my own riding, if it is at all exemplary of the those across the province, the referendum info sessions were poorly promoted. Consider this in concert with the failure of newspaper ads and flyers to clarify the benefits of each choice of electoral system, and it's easy to see why MMP failed!

And so while I am frustrated right now, I am by no means defeated--I remain an ardent supporter of proportional representation--and neither, really, is the idea of proportional representation. This referendum failed to be a catalyst for change not because voters don't want proportional representation, but because they don't understand it. This failure is Elections Ontario's and not democracy's.

Why am I not surprised?

CIA spied on left-wing Canadians in '60s, '70s: documents
B.C. professor monitored in spy operation calls it 'utterly shameful'

The Central Intelligence Agency spied on Canadians critical of the Vietnam War during the late 1960s and '70s in an operation code-named "MH Chaos," CBC News has learned.

The U.S. spy agency targeted university professors, students and other Canadians who the agency believed were espousing left-wing ideas.

[Read more here.]

Know what? Given the domestic track-record of the current U.S. administration, I wouldn't be surprised if they were spying on us lefty Canadians even today. 'Cause, you know, it really is a socialist paradise up here. All policy aside, even one of our national colours is red! *Rolls eyes.*


[Image via Wikipedia.]

And on that note, happy 140th birthday to the socialist paradise I know and love, and a very happy Canada Day to all my fellow pinko Canucks!



(As an aside, I've been fortunate enough not only to see Gordon Lightfoot live--and yes, he's just as good as he is on his albums!--but to go backstage and get his autograph! Please excuse the fawning...)

EDIT: And in honour of the day, here are a few videos by Canadian artists you may not have heard of, if you live outside of Canada...

"Freedom" by The Nils


"Smile and Wave" by The Headstones


"Top of The World" by Rascalz featuring Barrington Levy and K-os


"History" by Controller.Controller


"Any Day Now" by The Watchmen (This was one of my favourite songs in high school.)


"One More Astronaut" by I Mother Earth (Another favourite song from my high school years...)

Intolerance is intolerance is intolerance.

It seems that Suzanne Menghraj's post at Guernica's blog--a response to this New York Times op-ed and the comments it generated--was written just for me--so I wouldn't have to write it myself.

Though I was made aware of the NYT piece only upon reading Menghraj's post, Menghraj's response articulates many of the thoughts I've had upon encountering intolerance towards Catholics/Roman Catholicism over the past year and half.

Some of Menghraj's points that particularly struck chords with me are as follows:

Toner’s article and the lively comments it prompted remind me of an observation my mother, a former nun, voices now and then: Catholicism, she says, is the only religion it’s okay to bash these days. [...]

I find the targeting of Catholicism particularly frustrating: partly because, thanks to an immensely open-minded and compassionate Catholic mother, I had what appears to be an uncommon early experience of the religion (I’ve got a conscience, but I’m pretty damn near guilt-free!) — the Church of intolerance and guilt and conservative values is unrecognizable to me as the Catholic Church; partly because I’m as appalled by the Catholic hierarchy’s responses to contemporary (and not so contemporary) issues — need I name any one of them? — as the next freedom-loving person is; and partly because for all the harm Catholics did as they colonized the New World (not to mention the harm the Church’s clergy and followers have inflicted in the five hundred years since), they have played tremendously important roles in social justice and civil rights causes. And partly because I’m not really a practicing Catholic; the two or three times per year I go to church I go either to think in the solemn context of the Catholic mass or to participate in a ritual I find comforting. I don't go because I think the religion’s establishment has got it all right. It obviously has so many things wrong.

[...]

Catholics for whom belief is a private — not public or political — matter exist everywhere. I’ve met far more of them than I have Catholics who can't make the distinction between private belief and public law. Those who don’t have the capacity to make the distinction are far more impaired by conversative [sic] ideology than they are by Catholicism.

Like Menghraj, I don't regularly attend mass (I'm not proud of this; I'm just stating a fact.) While I find both solace and beauty in the ritualistic and symbolic aspects to Catholicism, there is a profound disconnect between my own beliefs and Catholic doctrine where issues of gender and sexuality are concerned. Notwithstanding this, though, I find that the faith in which I was raised not only informs but underscores my pacifism, my environmentalism/vegetarianism (Catholicism teaches that humans are to be stewards--not consumers--of this planet), and my desire for social justice.

But the fact that Catholicism has such a socially liberal dimension does not matter to those who would blame it for the conservatism, hypocrisy, and outright evil of some of its adherents. And it matters even less to the so-called "liberal" intellectuals who speak to me with scorn, treat me as if I were stupid, not because I'm Catholic, but because I believe in a higher power period.

The status of women in Canada? We're not that important, apparently.

What this is is the beginning of an attack on women's rights in Canada.

So long as an economic disparity between men and women in this country exists; so long as violence against women persists; so long as women are shamed for breastfeeding their infant children in public (SkylarKD has posted on this a couple of times this past month); so long as there are roadblocks to a woman's right to choose, there is need of a government office dedicated to addressing and defending women's issues!

How is the Canadian Heritage Department (?!?!) going to help women "more directly" than Status of Women Canada? How are we supposed to fit into their mandate?

I have never felt more acutely a sense of alienation from a federal government which not only fails to represent me, but believes it is not expedient to address me and my "issues."

All of them puppets and villains.

Is it too much to hope that one so seemingly humourless as Stephen Harper has suddenly acquired a sense of humour?

According to Don Cherry, when he visited Parliament today, Harper met with him and "asked him to run in the next election."

Serious or not, Harper's offer was turned down. Cherry reported, "You know what I told him? I'm too great on television, I can't."

Don't get me wrong, I love Don. I especially love the dynamic he has going with Ron McLean. What I don't love is undignified behaviour in the House of Commons. Though perhaps Don would fit right in? Cherry, himself known for his lack of propriety and decorum (which is, confined to Coach's Corner, perfectly charming), was booed by some members of Parliament during his visit to the House on Tuesday. It's more than unfortunate--it's disgusting--that this sort of behaviour in the House of Commons has become, well, commonplace.

I'm reminded of one of my favourite episodes of Seinfeld: "The Fire." In this episode, Kramer brings Toby, a co-worker of Elaine's, to see Jerry's comedy club act. Toby heckles Jerry throughout his entire set.

Incredulous, Jerry shouts after the show, "Booing and hissing are not part of the show! You boo puppets! You hiss villains in silent movies!"

Likewise booing and hissing shouldn't be a part of the circus they have up in Ottawa. In fact, it shouldn't be a circus at all! Maybe if members of Parliament tried to adopt some semblance of civility, if not respect, they'd actually accomplish something? Maybe they'd even become the kind of people I want representing Canada to the world?!

But then again, maybe I just need to have a sense of humour about this sort of thing.

Half-ass it like Rona!

This is too little too late.

Great minds think alike. (And others don't think at all.)

It's hardly surprising that Becky should also choose to post about The Hour and George Stroumboulopoulos. And it's also unsurprising that Becky, too, has some reservations about dear George...

The Hour, having been relegated to CBC Newsworld for the past two years, made it's debut on the main network tonight. I've watched this show off-and-on since its Newsworld debut, and it's become somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me; however, I'm not sure how much longer it will be at all pleasurable.

It's interesting, somewhat bittersweet, to see how a show that originally purported to provide coverage of news that mainstream media ignored--replete with as much manufactured "edginess" its CBC packaging can afford--and that tacitly promised unintentional camp in spades can degenerate into the sort of pap that tonight's interview with Belinda Stronach was!

Irritating me even more than Stronach's increasing adeptness in talking around questions (the girl is learning to play politics, and she's learning to play well! Ladies and gentlemen, I think she'll be in Parliament for a while!) was George's softball questions, schoolboy-ish giggles, and coy smiles. (The giggles and the smiles were few, but still. There were enough of them.) He may know his music--I don't think I could ever accuse him otherwise--but George is not a journalist. Irony and sarcasm can get one only so far...

Where is the alt-news show (I emphasize show since I know I can find plenty of alternatives to mainstream North American news coverage online--especially since I can also read the news in French and in Italian--or at the newsstand) that doesn't insult my intelligence in its privileging style over substance? I love The National, but it doesn't cover everything.

EDIT: Someone's finally put this interview up on YouTube. Am I too harsh on George? Decide for yourselves:

Proof that Stephen Harper's Government will Fall in a Vote of Non-Confidence Sooner than You Think #1:

"'There will have to be constitutional changes,' Harper says."

Implicit (or EXPLICIT?) Double Standard

Can I be candid?

Belinda Stronach was raked over the coals for crossing the floor to the Liberals in 2004. Why the hell would David Emerson think that he's above criticism for defecting to the Conservatives?

Fucking double standard.

An Update:

Ohhh...! I feel so silly--this explains Emerson's attitude:

Conservatives sputtered with rage after the defection of Belinda Stronach last year, disgusted by a lack of ethics and demanding that MPs who switch political parties face the music in a byelection.

But many are singing an entirely different tune now that they're in power and Liberal David Emerson has joined them. Carol Skelton said just months ago that she was sick to her stomach when Stronach defected to the Liberals.

The Saskatchewan MP even introduced a parliamentary motion to restrict the practice of party-switching, but won't be bringing it back anytime soon.

"That was last year," Skelton, now the minister of national revenue, said Thursday.

"We talked about it and I decided not to proceed with it. It's one of those matters that is debatable."

[...]

Ontario MP Harold Albrecht appeared to be softening the position he advocated during the election. He campaigned on a promise to ensure floor-crossers face the electorate anew to confirm their switch in allegiances.

"I expressed that, yeah. I would prefer that when someone crosses the floor they would have a byelection," he said Thursday. "But I want to talk to my colleagues about that."

B.C.'s James Lunney, who supported a proposed law to force byelections after Stronach defected, now indicates he's not as supportive any more.

He said he's discovered some wisdom in floor-crossing. Party leaders would have too much control over MPs if they were not free to switch caucuses on matters of principle, he said.

Ontario MP Garth Turner was one of the few who spoke publicly about his unease with Emerson's move. On his web site, he posted a letter from a furious constituent.

"I am feeling incredibly betrayed by Stephen Harper," said the letter.

"This is more of the same crap that the Liberals have been serving out for 12 years and which made my blood boil.

"The lies, the deceit, the arrogance. I couldn't wait to vote those bastards out and vote in some integrity and honesty. But this! This is a betrayal of my confidence in Harper and the Conservative party."

Turner said he campaigned on the idea that MPs who switch parties should be forced to face byelections. And he still supports the idea.

"I think anyone who crosses the floor, ultimately, should go back to the people for ratification," Turner said.

Let's talk ethics.

Parliamentary ethics--as paradoxical as that may be.

The Conservative Party touted their ethics package as one of the crown jewels of their platform. Promising to clean up government, they insisted that they'd work in constituents' best interests. "Stand up for change," they implored.

Instead, constituents in the Vancouver Kingsway riding in British Columbia re-elected Liberal David Emerson--a man who crossed the floor to both the Conservatives and a cabinet post a mere two weeks after the election. The voters of Vancouver Kingsway clearly did not want a Conservative M.P. representing them:

Emerson easily won the riding by a margin of 4,592 votes, garnering about 44 per cent of the total ballots cast. The NDP candidate came in second, followed by the Conservative candidate.

In fact, said Conservative candidate garnered only 18.79% of the vote.

So I'm not surprised that the Vancouver Kingsway Liberal riding association is calling for Emerson to repay the funds used to re-elect him as a Liberal. (I am surprised that each of the 20,064 people who voted for Emerson aren't calling for it, too.)

Emerson, on the other hand, does seem surprised--and generally pissed off--that anyone would have the gall to ask that he repay the campaign donations, and run in a by-election as a Conservative candidate. (Incidentally, the New Democratic Party included a proposal for an Accountability to the Electorate Act--which would require M.P.s who switched parties to resign and run in a by-election--as part of their ethics package.)

Now, what be the ethical thing to do, David? Really, I know you're not required by law to repay those funds or run in as a Conservative in a by-election, but aren't you at least required to try to be ethical?!

If a newly-minted Conservative is at all indicative of our newly-minted Conservative government, it would appear that the Canadian electorate is in for more of the same unaccountable, disrespectful governance.


Edited to add:

Will the new government be haunted by ghosts of Conservatives past?

I know that legally he was exonerated, but in the court of my very public opinion...? I'm not convinced yet. And given that the fifth estate's just illuminated a few more things, I'm even more skeptical.

Boneheaded Stephen Harper Move #1

Tony Clement is the new Minister of Health??!! Riiight... 'Cause he was so impressive as Ontario's Minister of Health!

Proof that silver linings do exist:

- the N.D.P. made significant gains in the number of elected Members of Parliament;

- one of the London ridings (London-Fanshawe) elected Irene Mathyssen, an N.D.P. M.P. Too bad she doesn't represent my riding (which, again, idiotically elected a Liberal M.P.);

- the lovely-and-amazing Tina Keeper--most of you may know her from the C.B.C. series North of 60--is now an M.P. Sure, she's a Liberal, but I can't hold that against her; she's far too lovely-and-amazing;

- the Bloc Quebecois lost seats and a percentage of the popular vote in Quebec; and

- at least it's only a Conservative minority win: a win that might help Canada see some much-needed electoral reform. (It'll be a cold day in Hell before the Liberals, who--historically--have fared so well under our very undemocratic system, introduce any of those initiatives!) Cold comfort, I know, but I'll take any form of comfort I can get.



But the clouds do still exist:

- Svend Robinson wasn't able to defeat Hedy Fry;

- the N.D.P., while it has made significant inroads, still doesn't hold a firm balance of power. Nor do I think we can hold a balance of power again until we either a.) regain the federal seats/momentum we lost in Saskatchewan back in 2004 (I miss you, Lorne Nystrom!); or b.) win at least one seat in Quebec--a feat we have yet to achieve;

- the Conservative stances on same-sex marriage rights; Kyoto and climate change; deep integration with the U.S.; bulk water exports; health care privatization; education; aboriginal affairs; the G.S.T.; et cetera; and

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper--I'm surprised my computer didn't implode after I typed that.


Tonight, I leave you all with Tommy Douglas' (that's "The Greatest Canadian"/Keifer Sutherland's maternal grandfather for those of you who aren't up on your Canadiana) call-to-arms.

But first, sleep. New Democrats have got to get their sleep now, if we want to be a thorn in the great Conservative Side.

It's sad, but...

I am mostly in agreement with Paul Martin on this one.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jack Layton has betrayed N.D.P. policies and ideals, he certainly has focused an inordinate amount of time and energy campaigning against the Martin Liberals at the expense of critiquing Conservative policies. Jack has virtually let Stephen Harper and the Conservatives "off the hook." And I'm not happy about that.

What makes me even more unhappy is that, increasingly, the N.D.P. campaign has seemed more like a campaign against the Liberals than a campaign for a progressive, socially responsible and fiscally accountable government.

But more on this later (and there will be more! I've LOTS of ire in store!). I have to finish preparing a presentation on Foucault's "Of Other Spaces" for my Archive in European Culture class tomorrow.

Promises, promises.

Election promises are good for nothing but a few laughs.

A Liberal federal government would pay half the tuition for students in their first and last years of post-secondary education, Paul Martin announced on Thursday.

The "50-50" plan, which would pay a maximum of $3,000 in each of those two years for students enrolled in a Canadian college or university, is part of the Liberals' training and education platform.

"Our world is changing; it is growing more competitive. Tomorrow, as today, a quality education and the right training will be the keys to success," Martin said.

Speaking in Waterloo, Ont., Martin said students entering their first year of college or university in the fall of 2007 would be eligible to have half their tuition paid.

More at the C.B.C..

To take care of the financially deserving students, the Liberals have promised to allow Canada Access grants to be awarded during each of the four years of an individual's undergraduate career--this, I think, is a good thing.

However, the offer to pay part of students' tuition is fundamentally flawed, as it benefits only those students who are working on their first degree or diploma. It does nothing to benefit those of us who, generally, see higher, deregulated tuition fees--those of us who are working on masters or doctoral degrees, law degrees, medical degrees, et cetera.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell (prove me wrong, Liberal Party of Canada!), there are no provisions to ensure that the government assistance is limited to academically deserving students. True, education is never a waste of money; funding students who don't bother to attend class is.

Rather than risk squandering taxpayers' money, why not roll-back tuition fees and impose an extended, nation-wide tuition cap? I understand that this is the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, but the federal government provides some post-secondary education funding in the transfer payments it doles out to the provinces. Perhaps a more confidence-inspiring promise, then, would include financial incentives to provincial governments that reduce and cap tuition?

It would be nice to see a little more creative thinking where government initiatives supporting post-secondary education are concerned. This goes for the provincial governments, too. (And what about greater transparency during the process of allotting federal transfer payment monies to their promised destination?)

Most important, though, all the talk needs to end. Only action might stifle the laughter of cynical voters.

The lighter side of election campaigns

Courtesy of the C.B.C. are these only half-humourous suggested image make-overs for the leaders of the four major parties:

Rock the Voters
Pop-culture advice for our party leaders
By Rachel Giese
November 30, 2005


The campaign buses are headed out across the country. The candidates are primed. It’s Canada Votes… Again!

To lighten up what promises to be a retread of the last federal election (only a lot more nasty), we’ve done a little image consulting, taking a page from former U.S. president Bill Clinton. The Arkansas governor was trailing incumbent George Bush in the polls in 1992 when he made an appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show. Wearing dark sunglasses, he played Heartbreak Hotel on his saxophone. That appearance turned the race around, and made Clinton America’s first rock and roll president. The same might just work for Canada’s next leader.

Read the whole article.

Glad I won't be having Christmas dinner Chez Jean...

Governor General criticized by sister over Boisclair jokes

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean is weathering fresh controversy over recent comments she made about André Boisclair, the frontrunner in the race to lead the separatist Parti Québécois – and this time the critics include her sister.

[...]

On Saturday, the province's newspapers were filled with a new uproar over comments Jean made at a recent National Press Gallery dinner, which is typically a light-hearted gathering where politicians and reporters make fun of themselves and others.

In her remarks at the dinner, the Governor General joked about holding a lunch for Boisclair, who recently admitted to using cocaine while he was a Quebec cabinet minister.

"We can have sandwiches and coke. Well, should André Boisclair, decide to attend, it will be coke for sure."

Boisclair always follows the "party line," she said.

The comments outraged some people in Quebec, including the Governor General's sister, Nadeje Jean, who accused Jean of going too far in a story she wrote in the Saturday edition of the Montreal Newspaper La Presse.

"You have disregarded your duty to respect the strictly symbolic nature of your position," she wrote. "You have also had the bad taste to put your feet into political waters."

"The next time you are asked to make a toast, avoid speaking out of turn and mocking ... all those who aspire to make Quebec a sovereign country."

[...]

The Governor General's Office has refused to comment on the controversy, only saying that Jean's sister is a member of the Parti Québécois whose comments were clearly made for partisan purposes.


Read more courtesy of the CBC.