And finally, Quote of the Week

The last word on this week’s Seinfeldian freakout goes to Red Tory:

I wonder if all the indignant liberal folks appearing on TV and fulminating in blogs that have been asserting Harper and the Conservatives were nefariously plotting to undermine gay marriage by stealth utilizing the legal system will now admit they were being completely hysterical and apologize for their baseless allegations?

Oh yeah, that’ll happen… about the same time as Santa Claus pulls up to my front door in a turbocharged sled with a dual exhaust and a 6″ lift kit loaded down with cases of Johnny Walker Blue Label, Peruvian Flake and winning lottery tickets.

UPDATE:  Whoops!  Second quote of the week… let’s give it up for BC Waterboy, commenting over at TGB:

As per usual with harper’s government, there is more to the story than meets the eye. When I reflect on the ongoing campaigns that the reformers engaged in to discredit the liberals, the tv ads, the mail out “voting” cards on who would handle such and such issue, I see this is a well played card to again, discredit the liberals, and to have harper come out appearing to be a moderate. (on an issue I really do think he wants to disappear, but his base won’t give it up). Harper is a brilliant strategist, he knows exactly what he’s doing, and it’s no different than this issue. He also had to have known that the unorganized left would over react as well, thus making them look like idiots. We keep falling for his tricks time and again and until we beat him at his own game, say hello to the naturally governing party, the western reformers.

I’m still not convinced the PMO had prior knowledge: Harper really looked to be blindsided by this thing.  But when it did raise its ugly head, the PMO knew exactly how to spin it to take maximum advantage of the overreaction: as a Liberal problem with HarperGov riding in to the rescue.

Top Democratic strategist Rahm Emmanuel once said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”, a political tactic that works as well in Canada as it does in the USA.

25 Responses to “And finally, Quote of the Week”

  1. 1 Torontonian Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    But it was a diversion from the concern over the pipeline, wasn’t it?

  2. 2 JJ Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    No kidding: on Thursday morning, at about the same time everyone was freaking out over Harper’s Hidden Agenda, the price of oil plunged $3 in about 2 hours. I wonder if something was happening? 😯 😉

  3. 3 fhg1893 Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:10 am

    I’ve posted a lengthy comment about the pipeline.

    I’d urge everyone to think really carefully about the pipeline. You know, in a *WINK* *WINK* *NUDGE* *NUDGE* is that you’re final answer-we’re not going to be able to afford to give the aboriginals currently opposing the pipeline anything at all, not to mention ordinary Canadians, if the pipeline doesn’t go through sort of way.

  4. 4 JJ Monday, January 16, 2012 at 8:02 am

    When the oil price dropped I looked around for a reason and found one immediately: there was a chamber of commerce speech on the economy that urged action on the pipeline, a vague response from Obama, as well as several news stories about it (all of which ran in the Globe the same day as the gay marriage story).

    I doubt it actually adds up to anything, but it appeals to the conspiracy theorist in me (yes there is one, it’s just very small, on a short leash, and wrapped in heavy-duty tinfoil).

  5. 5 Peter Monday, January 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    But when it did raise its ugly head, the PMO knew exactly how to spin it to take maximum advantage of the overreaction: as a Liberal problem with HarperGov riding in to the rescue.

    Uh, JJ, I’m not sure I’d give them too much credit for being fast off the mark with that particular spin. I think they’ve had quite a bit of practice with it.

    “People, the shit’s hit the fan over at the DOJ–some legal crap involving gays from England wanting to divorce in Toronto. The Boss doesn’t really understand it, but the press is creaming him and he’s not happy. He wants our spin by noon. Jamie?”

    –“How about: ‘Of course this is sad, but I think it might be a message from on high about how unstable gay marriage can be and how wrong divorce is.’ The fundies will love it.”.

    “Jamie, half our caucus is divorced. You want the god-botherers going after them too? Why not just send the Dippers money instead? Liz?”

    –“How about ‘If they don’t like our divorce laws, maybe they should go back to where they came from.’ You know, the tough-on-refugees line.”

    “Sorry, Kenney would have a fit and there’s a byelection coming soon in Layton’s riding. Besides, apparently it’s only these two. It’s not like they’re being smuggled in by the boatload. Paul?”

    –“Hmm, how about ‘this human tragedy is the result of Liberal ineptitude and my government intends to fix it, blah, blah.’ You know, the high road crap.”

    “Brill, Paul. Positively brill. I love it. In fact, I’ve always loved it. Somebody get me the Boss.”

  6. 6 fhg1893 Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Since we’re on the topic of homosexuality, social conservatives, and progressives anyway, I’m about to do something crazy. I’m going to gift-wrap and hand the left a wedge issue so explosive, that, if used properly could possibly split the Conservative party so hard that they’d be utterly vanquished in the next election.

    Incidentally, I don’t think that the left can stomach the truth of the matter. It depends on just how desperate progressives really are to see the defeat of Stephen Harper. Given everything else that we’ve talked about, my guess is, not that much, and this little comment will be completely ignored, just one more voice among the throng.

    Also, I’m going to be declared homophobic because of it, perhaps not by JJ, but by, well, everybody else. And while we’re at, we’re also going to slaughter a few progressive sacred cows.

    And when I’m finished, we’ll see just how badly the left wants to beat Stephen Harper. As I said, my guess is not badly enough to actually do what I’m about to suggest. I never implied it was going to be easy, so here’s the blunt version: to defeat Harper could cost the left tremendously, probably will cost the left tremendously. But, it will give the socialists at least one more kick at the can.

    So whada’ya say, hear out an unrepentant shit-disturber? Last warning, your world might just be turned upside down.


    Okay, here it is: there is some possibility that the prevalence of homosexuality is linked to the quality of a person’s nutrition. Remember a few years ago when scientists observed a difference between heterosexual brain response and homosexual brain response? A gay brain and a straight brain?

    So what? you might say, that doesn’t mean anything.

    Well… Not quite. You see, what you eat can have a very strong influence on your neurochemical response. There’s a shit-ton of science to back this up, and it all starts with Dr. Weston A. Price, and Francis M. Pottenger. Now they studied physical degeneration as a result of poor nutrition, and we’ll revisit their ideas a little later.

    Now, I don’t mean that you can “cure” homosexuality by feeding a gay person lots of broth, I believe that by the time a person identifies as gay, that ship has well and truly sailed.

    But. According to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, and as evidenced by her work with autistic children, and what she terms GAPS (Gut and psychology syndrome) patients, (my daughter seems to have been dramatically helped by her research – not because we were afraid of her being a lesbian, because she was bordering on autism!), the influence of nutrition on the brain begins well before birth, possibly well before conception.

    In other words, my hypothesis is that in accordance with the findings of Doctors Price, and Campbell-McBride, that any offspring produced by well-nourished parents, who remain well-nourished throughout childhood, have an extremely low chance of identifying as homosexual, and an extremely high chance of identifying as heterosexual.

    In other words, it could be possible to significantly decrease the population of homosexuals through proper nutrition. And I shouldn’t need to inform anyone that such a trend matches exactly with social conservative desires. Wha? So how is this a wedge exactly?

    Here’s the fun part. Just about everything you’ve been told by the main-stream media about what you should, and shouldn’t eat is dead wrong.

    Weston A. Price was a dentist, born in Newburgh, Ontario, (and he’s Canadian by birth!? OH! The IRONY!) which may have been known at the time as Rogue’s Hollow, he made his practice in Cleveland, Ohio, around the year 1900. In clinical practice, Price observed increasing tooth decay, and what he termed “dental deformities” in America’s children, which was not present in their parents. Parents and the older generation had no, or few cavities, but their children had terrible teeth, and many other problems. Since the industrial revolution was at the time in full-swing, Price theorized that nutrition, specifically the sudden changes in nutrition, were playing a role in harming the children’s teeth.

    Eventually, Price and his wife began touring the world to try to discover if there was anything behind his hypothesis. Since the industrial revolution had not swept the entire globe at this point – just North America and parts of Europe, it was easy to find a plethora of indigenous peoples who were still eating the diets they’d been eating for centuries. He believed two things, first, that those people still eating their traditional diets would have a very low, almost zero, incidence of cavities and dental deformities, and second, that he’d find them eating a mostly plant-based diet.

    He was completely correct in the first instance, and completely wrong in the second. What he found was a very low incidence of cavities and dental deformities among any group of people eating their traditional diets, who had not yet adopted modern foods. The moment that modern foods became introduced into an indigenous diet, cavities began to appear in increasing numbers. He also discovered far fewer health-problems in people eating their traditional diets, almost zero. Virtually no heart disease, virtually no cancer, or any other kinds of ailments that plagued American society back home. And what’s even more ironic is that their diets were almost entirely based on animal products, meat, fish, eggs, butter and animal fats! Grains, when they were used were NEVER EVER served “just so.” They were ALWAYS prepared very elaborately, though soaking, pounding, souring and fermenting.

    Anyway, I’m not going to write a book on Weston A. Price, a few have already been written. You can find all of this information, and more, at I also highly recommend the two-hour information packed DVD, Nourishing Our Children, which can be found at:

    Okay, now how about that wedge?

    Well, if you understand the principles advanced by Doctors Price and Campbell McBride, it’s essentially this: a good portion of the problems with our nutrition are caused by big companies who like to screw with it. Have the light-bulbs started clicking on yet?

    Okay, let me spell it out for you: the primary culprits behind the poor state of our nutrition are those responsible for agribusiness. Monsanto, Del Monte, Kraft, General Mills, Saputo, and they all go hand-in-hand with big pharma which loves pushing dangerous new vaccines and untested drugs down our throats. They aren’t curing the health epidemic, they almost entirely to blame for making it.

    Wedge? Where’s my freaking wedge!?!

    If the social conservatives want to get rid of gay people, what they’ve got to do is get people to eat nutrient dense foods, and a big part of that involves KILLING fiscal conservative darling Monsanto! The wedge is to make them fight each other, by taking the big gay-bugbear of the socons, and making it mutually exclusive with the big-food, big-pharma darlings of the fiscal conservatives! Which will the Conservatives choose: promote healthy eating, and possibly reduce the incidence of homosexuality, or, continue to prop-up their insanely greedy (and they are greedy) psychopathic corporations. I’m not sure if they can navigate that minefield, I’m not sure they can decide. But play your cards right, and I think it’s possible to split them, probably enough to get progressives back into power, both in Canada and in the US. Happy now?

    So why do you get the feeling you’re missing somethin’…?

    That’s because you are. All those soy-based alternative diets? All that feel-good, environmentally friendly, touchy-feely vegetarianism? All those feel-good fad-diets? Yeah, that’s all leftist bullshit. The inuit are some of the healthiest people on earth, and they almost never see a vegetable. All they eat is MEAT and ANIMAL FAT. FAT FAT FAT FAT FAT GLORIOUS ANIMAL FAT! Remember I said that this was going to cost the left dearly? HA! I’m just getting started!

    Along with Monsanto and company, Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration would need to be scrapped.

    Minor? Okay, here’s the big one. This wedge presupposes that the left has the ability to admit to its self that homosexuality isn’t strictly speaking normal among human beings. Ouch. BIG ouch isn’t it? That’s right, you kinda have to throw gay people under the bus. Not immediately of course, just sort of… down the line. You sort of have to get into bed with the socons to make this work! Talk about irony.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against gay people, and I couldn’t really give a damn what the left does with this information. Mostly, I just think that a wedge between the soccons and fiscal conservatives would be a lot of fun to watch. Plus, I think I would derive some pleasure watching the left tie themselves in knots trying to figure out what to do. And of course I could be totally wrong on the nutrition angle. I doubt it; my kids have perfect teeth, excellent health, and have pretty much treated my daughters possible autism using nutritional principles. So, I don’t think I’m wrong, but I sure as hell could be. I have no particular interest in seeing the population of homosexuals shrink; it doesn’t affect me, or my family much at all. I just happen to be open-minded enough to accept that homosexuality might just be abnormal. And, what’s the worst that could happen? Probably, nothing will happen, or JJ will decide that this is too much and finally decide to get rid of me, though I’d still like to read your posts JJ, they’re almost always good for a chuckle, though, somehow, I think she’s more open minded than that. At best well… Some things I enjoy like raw milk will finally be legalized. My daughters might have an easier time finding suitably healthy mates. And I might be able to short sell the living shit out of Monsanto and make an absolute killing. That would be the sweetest icing on a very deliciously ironic cake. And yes, it is possible that a few generations- oh, did I forge to mention that this kind of thing takes two or three generations before it really starts to have and impact? – a few generations down the line, there might be some decrease in the proportion of the homosexual population versus the heterosexual population.

    So, now you know. I’m guessing the left does nothing all – they seem too busy fighting each other at the moment. Prove me wrong progressives. Prove me wrong.

  7. 7 Scotian Monday, January 16, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    What’s scary was that I was enjoying the arguments being presented here (And I will give you this, it is a novel and perhaps viable way to create a split within the Conservative coalition of Harper’s when you strip away all the slams at the those socialist lefties and their beliefs you were doing within this comment of yours, although I do think you give it a bit more weight in terms of viability than I think it deserves, as you treat it as almost a sure thing whereas I would treat it more like a moderate to long shot but with potential to work) until the second to last paragraph where you said something which really disturbed me, and I bet you no more understand why than you think those “lefties” you are talking about can understand your argument here.

    That line was “I just happen to be open-minded enough to accept that homosexuality might just be abnormal.” You just happen to be open minded enough, IOW you are saying that unlike so many of your fellow travelers you are more tolerant and open minded that you can accept a position which in your circles is clearly not the majority position, to accept that homosexuality might just be abnormal, IOW that you think it is possible that homosexuality is merely an abnormality instead of the abomination so many other NA conservatives view it as, and that is a generous and broad minded position in comparison to the norm within your circles. Yet you think this proves/shows you are not homophobic/intolerant in any real manner?!? You don’t have to be out there screaming smears at gays or marching against SSM to be homophobic you know, and this sentence alas reads very homophobic indeed from someone that honestly doesn’t realize it and thinks they are truly not intolerant of such, self delusion/deception, another human trait that knows no boundaries of politics, indeed anything we humans have to define ourselves with.

    That is how your sentence read, and that you wrote with with apparent a complete lack of awareness of just how not just condescending but genuinely homophobic in tone and substance it really reads as is more than a little disturbing. Up until know I didn’t have any opinion as to whether you were or not, but with this you have given me a lot of reason to think you clearly are yet think you are not (which is very common among those that fail to see their own intolerance whatever they may happen to be, human nature and all that), which is all too common among those with various types of xenophobia, they almost always think they are not the real bigots but those others who are openly proud of it are, not understanding that there is no sliding scale of acceptability to intolerance, it is a bright line sort of thing, you either are or not, and most people are about something, the usual question is how much, how ingrained, and towards what group(s) (if it is as opposed to say against specific individuals) and if possible to answer why.

    I wasn’t going to touch your comment once I finished reading your proposition, but I couldn’t get that sentence out of my head for some time after I first read it. I finally realized I had to deal with it because it shows a mindset that I find very dangerous and more than a little common in the modern NA conservative mindset even among those that appear more rational than many of their fellow travelers. I grew up influenced as much by traditional conservative values and ideals as I ever did progressives, like JJ I am very much a mix of both and I have always made a major distinction between traditional Canadian rooted Conservativism and that practiced by Harper and his fellows. BTW, I would note that the fiscal conservatives who are so pro corporate are not part of traditional Canadian Conservativism, true Canadian rooted Conservatives distrusted corporations and big business enough that they believed strongly that the government played an important role in economic interests in terms of things like Crown corporations within vital sectors. While they did not believe in a common economic structure they did believe in a mixed one with a strongly nationalist bent being added via the use of the government and Crown corporations. The idea that the free market is the be all and end all goal of conservativism comes from our American cousins, it is NOT rooted in traditional Canadian conservative thinking and principles. Just thought that needed pointing out as well.

    I am not going to further debate the issue of what kind of homophobe you are, by that one sentence you have already shown there is no point in trying, you truly cannot see your own intolerance and by offering that sentence up as evidence of in your mind proof that you are not intolerant and/or indifferent to the issue you have shown I cannot ever have a meaningful discussion with you on this matter. Your mind is already made up, you are convinced of your own rectitude, and you are unfortunately a classic example of that part of the population that allows intolerances/xenophobias like homophobia to still have a place that thinks they truly aren’t aiding such. It is something we see more openly whenever any minority group finally starts gaining real equalities within a society, as members of this group love citing how they aren’t really the intolerant ones and it the overreactionary ones supporting/demanding the equal rights that are the real extremists as well as the few shrieking bigots who are openly proud of their naked bigotry, which is not where most of those that make up a prejudiced group within those societies that have yet to grant/accept full equality to all actually are.

    I truly do believe that you hold no real malice per se in your heart, but that in some ways is what makes your kind worse than the open haters. Yours is the same sort of intolerance that helps illustrate the reality of the concept of the banality of evil in human nature/society sad to say. Feel fee to respond/defend yourself, this is as far as I am going, for as I said you already revealed yourself as far as I am concerned with that one sentence which triggered this response from me.


    Sorry if this causes you any problems, I really tried to leave it alone, but that sentence, especially in its context was more than I could ignore as much as I wanted to, and I am sorry for any problems it may bring, but for now at least this is all I have to say on this point/topic to this person, there is no point is turning your blog into essentially open warfare on this when it is obvious there can be no real resolution. I don’t know if you will read that sentence the same way I did, but I suspect that pretty much any bi or gay person who reads that sentence will have much the same reaction as I (and my wife, she reacted the same way too, it was after I ran it by her that I decided I had to speak up) did to it for much the same reasons. I truly believe the person doesn’t see it themselves, and I also get the sense that there really isn’t any malice or hatred openly in his heart towards gays, but that also underscores what I mean about that sort of intolerance being one of the worst kinds because it is the foundation stone upon which so many more open haters can rest on and see their views as having majority (or at least large plurality) support. Not to mention how it illustrates the banality of evil itself in action.

  8. 8 fhg1893 Monday, January 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    That line was “I just happen to be open-minded enough to accept that
    homosexuality might just be abnormal.”

    Also, I’m going to be declared homophobic because of it, perhaps not by JJ, but by, well, everybody else. And while we’re at, we’re also going to slaughter a few progressive sacred cows.

    I sincerely meant both of those statements. Got them in one Scotian.

    I’ll not treat your comment in detail, you’ve given up, so it’s of little consequence.

    My only thought in that particular sentence was to challenge the dominant left wing mantra that we must view homosexuality as “normal.” That is something that I simply can’t accept. Gender object choice as being innate, when an estimated 10% of the population gets their “wires crossed” so to speak, but the rest of the population does not, then I can’t consider that normal. I object therefore to the left-wing demand that I need “re-education” to consider homosexuality “normal.”

    However, this says absolutely nothing about acceptability. Reading acceptability into an argument about “normality” is something I also find distasteful. While it’s true and I’m sensitive to the fact that the social conservatives have used the “normality” argument as a cover for disenfranchising and abusing minority groups, I don’t share in their dogma. I’m against persecuting anyone, and am in favor of freedom of association, but for reasons I’m about to mention, that’s not enough, is it?

    To be honest, I thought about commenting on the acceptability and hands-off approach that decency demands that we take when we encounter the private matters of two or more consenting adults, but I decided against it for a simple reason.

    Even if I made the best presentation possible for tolerance, given the sensitive nature of the subject, and the proposal in question, would you, or any among you believe it? If you do nothing else, think about that. I’m proposing something that might result in a significant decline in the incidence of homosexuality, given our sordid history, and if I was proposing it by any other means, well… it’d belong on Stormfront now wouldn’t it? My only defense is what I’m saying is essentially, just feed people properly. Nourish them in accordance with traditional diets, and let history judge their efficacy. Radical no?

    So, I invite you to ask yourself, would you have believed me? You talked about the blinders that we wear, I believe we’ve found yours.

    Perhaps its my own cynicism, but somehow, I think if I’d brought up “normal” vs. acceptability and tolerance, you’d have written me off instantly a social conservative – to wrapped up in my own sense of what ought to be to offer anything useful. I suppose it’s the experience I’ve had with progressives.

    I am not going to further debate the issue of what kind of homophobe you are, by that one sentence you have already shown there is no point in trying,

    Two last things. About this in particular. I’ll agree that I hold a hatred for a certain entity. But I think those blinders of yours might have caused you to miss it. I propose a test. See if you can find who I think the real enemy is here. If you get it wrong, then you’re conclusions are also wrong – you picked the obvious mark, instead of my real target. But if you get it right, then perhaps you’re correct also.

    And one question. How would you suggest that I approach the issue?

  9. 9 JJ Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 5:46 am

    😆 😆 😆 *applause*
    Too funny, and probably exactly how it went down.
    As brilliant a strategist as Harper may be, his Quick Response Reflex obviously needs work or “blame the LPC” would have come right off the top of his head when he was questioned about this thing by the media.

  10. 10 JJ Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 5:49 am

    I think you might get a lot of “tl;dr”s

    That aside, I had trouble understanding your premise here, maybe because it’s so early in the a.m. Sorry but I’ll have to come back to it later

  11. 11 BC Waterboy Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 6:21 am

    fhg’s on to something but it’s much simpler than that. No need to do so much work at the expense of the gay community. The pig-ignorant homophobes that make up a great deal of harper’s base are not going to sit by forever while their hero moderates his views and throws them under the bus. This could be just the thing to fracture that charade of a party, which too many Canadians forget, is essentially the western reform party. I don’t believe for a second these people will keep their hands off gay rights and I don’t believe for a second that harper didn’t know about this latest media debacle. No matter how it’s spun, it was designed to keep votes, but in the end this will bite harper in his big bulbous butt and I can’t wait to enjoy the show.

  12. 12 BC Waterboy Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 7:03 am

    Just for clarity…the attacks on gay rights will be subversive, there may be mechanisms built into the “office of religiulous freedom”. After I wrote this, I also concluded that harper could easily be painted as a baby killer and homosexualist by a pr machine skilled at reverse psychology. I’m surprised that these people still bow and curtsy to him/

  13. 13 fhg1893 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 7:43 am

    First of all BC Waterboy, I think you’re being too hard on the social conservatives. Don’t get me wrong, I have no particular love for that branch of the CPC, but they get one vote same as you and me, and they can vote for whatever particular ideology they want. That’s one of the things keeping you progressives out of power I believe. Gun owners and evangelicals can, and do, vote.

    Second, as far as their particular wants are concerned, it’s a lot harder to get them to fracture than that. They have an especial hate-on for Chretien, and Trudeau, neither of which are entirely undeserved. They respect the NDP, but seem them as even worse for their particular agenda. What you should understand about that is that for them, like for gun owners, the CPC is the only game in town for them. If you think that they’re going to sit on their hands, and let their most hated enemies retake the country out from under their noses, you’re seriously deluding yourself. Think man! They despise absolutely everything about the LPC, and they consider the NDP just slightly better that communists. Where does that leave them to go? Green party? The ship has sailed on the Liberals, they’ll NEVER vote Liberal again no matter what, but if the NDP listened to their concerns, and at least made some token gestures, like, throwing a bone to rural Canad, then that block of support might begin to break away. But I have serious doubts about that, the NDP is too married to the gun registry for that.

    And third, your assumption that if they don’t get results they’ll turn on the fiscal conservatives is misguided, there’s quite a lot of overlap between the two groups on fiscal issues. Sometimes, it would seem that the only thing that distinguishes a fiscal conservative, from a social one, is that the social conservative is slightly more preoccupied with abortion access, the “gay agenda,” and the country’s “moral purity,” than they are about where the money is going. When it comes to government spending, the CBC, and pandering to Toronto, trust me, they’re not about to throw their alliance under the bus, not when there’s still so much that Harper can do.

    What you’d have to do is get them to actively fight against one another by placing their interests at odds. Take the things they care about and make them mutually exclusive. It might not work, the Canadian socons might not care enough about gays to turn on the fiscal conservatives. And they might not care to wait for the “problem” to fix its self, especially if they feel they can just demand a number of laws. If you wait for the government to defeat its self however, mark my words, you’re going to be waiting a good long while.

  14. 14 Terrence Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:24 am

    If you are evil and want to have a good time, try throwing Harper’s booming silence on certain issues in the face of young, particularly naive social conservatives.

    A couple years back, I was at the Manning Centre’s conference, making a nuisance of myself. Three very pretty young women staffed a booth for one of the anti-choice groups. Of course, this meant it was time to engage in conversation.

    The women had placed several photographs of themselves with Stephen Harper around their booth. I asked them why they didn’t have any photos of themselves with Jack Layton or other prominent figures from the other parties. They looked at me like I was crazy.

    “Well,” I said. “What has Harper done for your cause relative to any of the other people I mentioned?”


    “Abortion is still on-going, isn’t it? Why hasn’t Harper stopped it?”

    “He can’t! He only has a minority!”

    Smiling an evil smile, I pressed on. “But he could at least try, right?”

    “He’d lose the election!”

    “So let me get this right. You’re saying that Harper is allowing the murder of children to continue, in order to maintain political power? And you are proud to display photos of yourselves with such a man?”

    “Um. You sound like… one of us?”

    “Never mind that. If you are happy to show your face with someone who allows the murder of children to continue for political gain, then why not put a photo of Jack Layton up in your booth?”

    Then, because they really were pretty girls, I stopped, let them have my email address, and turned the conversation somewhere else.

    I’m not claiming any of this was fair on my part. But I’m going to do it again at this year’s conference. Now that the Conservative’s have their majority, it should be even easier to bring their rather conspicuous silence to the attention of any social conservatives I meet.

    And I bet not one of them will have heard the sound of this alleged “dog whistle”, in the form of a single argument from a single government lawyer, repudiated almost instantly.

  15. 15 JJ Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Ha! Terrence the Troublemaker! 😈 Right on…

    Given Harper’s total lack of interest in either of their Big Two issues, I can only assume that socons continue to support him because he keeps a few knuckledraggers in his caucus that he allows to make just enough noise about those issues to keep them interested. There’s really no other explanation, since Harper himself is by all appearances a moderate social liberal who’d fit right in with the LPC. (He’s actually more socially liberal than some in the LPC.)

    As for this supposed “dog whistle”, I checked Lifesite and they seem to have heard *something* but they’re not buying it. The comments with that article contain the usual predictions of “man-dog marriage” and wailing over the “homosexual takeover of Canada”. Nobody sounds particularly optimistic about Harper revisiting the issue. So if it was supposed to be a dog whistle, it was the wrong frequency.

  16. 16 JJ Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Agreed, it’s an interesting situation. (See Terrence’s comment below, and my reply.) I think it’s still too soon after the Reform Party disaster for any serious cracks to develop in the CPC, although I think it would be neat if they did 😆

  17. 17 JJ Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Having read through your comment again, I’m still pretty baffled by it. But your premise seems to be that homosexuality is abnormal, so get rid of it? Left-handedness is abnormal, so is red hair and a bunch of other genetic traits (actually so is white skin and blue eyes, vis a vis the world population) — to me this is no reason to try and breed any of these traits out.

    The last time someone tried this it started a world war.

  18. 18 JJ Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    These are my thoughts too, although I don’t know if it’s been long enough yet since the Reform party handed Jean Chretien 3 consecutive majorities. Also the reform party was about more than just social issues — it was also about the rural/urban and east/west divide (“the west wants in”), which is addressed now by Harper.

    But socons are so obsessed with their Big Two issues that they may eventually get weary of only being given token attention. At some point they may convince themselves that what they want is what everyone wants, or what they can FORCE everyone to want if they’re in power, and they’ll take a hike from the CPC… maybe the Christian Heritage Party will start running candidates in all the ridings, and socons will vote for them.

    That’ll be fun 🙂

  19. 19 BC Waterboy Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Hi fhg1893, thanks for the info, but I’m pretty well-versed on what this issue is about and not particularly naive or deluded, but thanks just the same. 🙂

  20. 20 fhg1893 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm


    Upon reflect, I got too caught up in trying to explain the science. While I believe that over time it would decrease the proportion of the homosexual population, that’s not the goal, even if it looks that way.

    And even your comments suggest a genetic component to homosexuality, a “gay” gene. The science I’m considering acknowledges genetics, but stresses environmental factors.

    The goal, is to convince the socons that the homosexual population can be decreased by stressing traditional nutrition, AND, the entity that is preventing this is a combination of big agriculture, and big pharma. If they agree to the first premise, the second will flow on its own. The trick is getting them to agree to the first, that you can decrease the likelihood of any given individual from identifying as homosexual by choosing nutrient-dense foods, something that big agriculture, and big pharma have resisted tooth and nail. It’s in their financial interest to keep people buying recombinant wheat pulp that comes out of box. And that’s where the fiscal conservatives come in. The processed food business is insanely profitable.

    Make social conservatives declare a war on big pharma, and big agriculture, and you have your wedge. If enough of them believe that it will work, and there’s enough evidence to make it plausible, it won’t be long at all before they turn on each other.

  21. 21 fhg1893 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    The trick is getting them to agree to the first, that you can decrease the likelihood of any given individual from identifying as homosexual by choosing nutrient-dense foods,

    Just to clarify: this process needs to start per-conception. By the time a child is born, I believe it’s too late, and even if it’s not, it would still be important to make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive to test the hypothesis. If it doesn’t pan out in the short term, which it wouldn’t because you can’t make a gay person straight by feeding them lots of broth, well, they’ll give up, and the twain will be back together before you know it. It has to start with the parents, which would mean that they’d need a very long multi-generational study to disprove the hypothesis, and so, if they’re convinced enough, they’ll cling to it long enough to effectively eliminate them as a political force for the conceivable future.

  22. 22 fhg1893 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    Hi fhg1893, thanks for the info, but I’m pretty well-versed on what this issue is about and not particularly naive or deluded, but thanks just the same. 🙂

    Well, that’s what I get for trying to tell anything at all to a progressive…

  23. 23 fhg1893 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    At some point they may convince themselves that what they want is what everyone wants, or what they can FORCE everyone to want if they’re in power, and they’ll take a hike from the CPC.

    Well… I guess we’re arguing about how long that process will take. My guess is a long time – much longer than the left is inclined to think. But then again, the left still thinks they’ll beat Harper next time, and we both know that unless things change real soon, it just won’t happen. Not impossible of course, just no signs of it.

    I may seem like I’m in with the socons, but other than what I pick up by reading the blogging Tories, I don’t have any links with them. I confess, it’s a blind-spot. I honestly don’t know how they feel about Harper now that he’s got a majority.

    If I had to guess, I’d say that they’re happy to be patient for quite a while longer. For one thing, the government has a lot on the agenda, and there are only so many parliamentary hours in the day, even with a majority. And there’s the tough on crime stuff which should help pacify them at least for the time being, even if it isn’t one of their two sacred cows. And they know full well that Harper is the only game in town for them. They have to know that there’s zero chance with any of the other major federal parties; the LPC even voted to adopt a policy to decriminalize marijuana. They also have got to know that they aren’t big enough to make a real go of supporting the Christian Heritage Party. They have to know that if they drop the CPC, their two sacred cows will be swiftly pushed backwards, they’ll have sunk money in CPC coffers and they’ll have nothing to show for it.

    Their only alternative would be to continue propping up the CPC, while trying to build their numbers. If they drop Harper for anything less than a real crack at advancing their two big issues, they’ll have lost everything, and when they finally get another chance, they’ll be farther behind than ever. They can bluster and threaten all they want, but they’d be foolish to give up on the CPC now. If they wanted their agenda advanced, they’d best do it by continuing to get more and more socons to sign up for the CPC. Bide their time, play the long game, gradually take over the Conservative party until their influence is so strong that they can’t lose.

    Of course, this all presupposes that they’re not stupid. It is socons we’re talking about here, and there’s always the chance that they’ll arbitrarily decide to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  24. 24 Terrence Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 7:09 am

    “I want to make it clear that in our government’s view, these marriages are valid,” said Minister Rob Nicholson, at one time rated pro-family, on Friday.

    LOL, “at one time…” LifeSite does this passive aggressive thing really well. I’m surprised they didn’t throw a [sic] after the word “marriages” in quotation.

  25. 25 JJ Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Lifesite’s use of quotation marks is vastly disproportionate to the size of its readership, and it’s rapidly depleting the world’s quotation mark supply.

    We hit Peak Quotation Mark around the time gay marriage was legalized… alternative punctuation hasn’t caught on yet, but it’s only a matter of “time”

Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change


  • 633,168
[Most Recent Quotes from]


%d bloggers like this: