Skip to main content

we have our share of stupid

yes, i like to make fun of the country to the south and their government. i feel entitled. i've had to put up with years of crappy economy because our major trading partner thought it would be a great idea to start some new wars in the middle east. [although as someone who does an increasing amount of shopping on line, i do kind of like the whole collapse of the currency thing took our dollar from around $0.62usd to being on par for the last few years and the foreseeable future.] but despite the comedy gold that is routinely offered by politicians below the 49th parallel, i am occasionally reminded that my view of their shenanigans is afforded by the immense glass house that i inhabit and that i probably shouldn't go pelting rocks in their general direction.

witness the current media uproar over comments by tom flanagan about viewing child pornography.

tom flanagan was a senior advisor to our prime minister for many years. it's important to understand that, because a lot of times, reporters get a little over-zealous and start linking people to political campaigns when they really didn't do much except hand out some pamphlets or ask people to sign petitions. this isn't one of those cases. this is a guy who worked really closely with our current prime minister.

he also worked on the campaign of alberta's provincial wild rose party, a very romantic sounding name for a party that was established because the right-wing conservative party was a little to soft-edged for some. [for those of you who don't know, alberta is kind of like our texas, but also our nebraska and wyoming and oklahoma.] he had more recently made the transition to media commentator, which is kind of like being put out to stud for a back-room political operative. you get to just shoot your mouth with other partisan hacks and they give you money you probably don't need. [although, occasionally up here, they actually manage to choose some pretty incredible panelists. witness the triumvirate of dalton camp [conservative], eric kierans [liberal] and stephen lewis [new democrat] who for years discussed the state of canadian affairs on the cbc's excellent "morningside" radio show.]

tom flanagan is no stranger to controversy. he distinguished himself a couple of years back by saying that someone should do the world a favour and murder julian assange from wikileaks. ok, i'm being unfair. he said "assassinate", which sounds way more covert and cool. he said someone should assassinate julian assange. so apparently, the guy who advises our supposedly tough-on-crime prime minister is totally fine with citizens of other countries being given a hemlock soda if they do things that piss him off.

but this week, flanagan decided that he needed to speak up for the rights of one of a particularly vilified minority: consumers of child porn.

no, seriously.

flanagan apparently feels that it sets a dangerous precedent to prosecute people for their "taste in pictures". i'd no idea until that moment that child pornography was a "taste". seems akin to calling a lynch mob a sports team.

flanagan also went on to insist that he never looks at child porn himself, although he somehow ended up on the NAMBLA mailing list for some time. really? dude, how long did it take you to figure out that you should probably get the hell off their mailing list? if someone played a practical joke on me by signing me up for their newsletter, i can tell you that i would be screaming blue murder the second the first one arrived to ensure that i never, ever got assaulted with their propaganda again. tom flanagan apparently thought he could just ride it out and also thought that this was a totally appropriate thing to share with others.

but it gets worse.

as it happens, flanagan wasn't having a stroke or on bad mushrooms. he was actually responding to a question about similar statements he'd made in 2009. that's right. he'd already held these views for several years and was attempting to defend them.

of course, there is now a real calgary stampede on the right to put some distance between the man and the politicians he helped elect, with those on the right trying to scamper away from the association although, one must note, none of them seemed terrifically upset about the comments from 2009. or the comments about how julian assange should be killed. it's only now that there's a video of him voicing this opinion that flanagan [who's said he "regrets" the statements] really seems to have crossed a line.

their theatrical revulsion has received media publicity, but i have to wonder: if this guy has held these sorts of opinions for years and has worked extremely closely with various conservative political organisations, how did they not know about this? i mean, not everyone discusses views on child porn over a few beers, but surely this is the sort of thing that must have come up when discussing, say, legal policy about the possession and distribution of child pornography. if his views were ok then, why aren't they ok now that everyone knows about them?

it's a rhetorical question.

i just wanted you all to know that my government is apparently advised by people who think that selective murdering is cool and that child pornography is a lifestyle choice.

Comments

Shadowy Lady said…
OMG I hadn't heard this yet! Maybe coz I've been (and still am) overseas. And can I add randomly that I think Harper looks awkward next to almost anyone.

Being in the Caribbean and spending time amongst the ppl as opposed to being in a resort has got me to appreciate the great country we have though. I'm a Liberal, but I take Harper and his selfish renaming of "Canadian government" to "Harper's Government" over how ppl live here.

Can you tell I miss home? LOL!
morelikespace said…
You make a good point, in that we do have a lot of advantages here. All the more reason to safeguard what we have...

as long as you're here, why not read more?

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…

making faces :: bette davis lips

the inscription on bette davis' grave reads "she did it the hard way", which should tell you something about the kind of life she led. indeed, she was known as a fighter, taking on studio executives at a time when that simply wasn't done, unless you "never wanted to work in this town again". even when she lost a legal battle against warner brothers that forced her to see out her contract, she was able to parlay her return to the screen into better roles that secured her legacy as one of the greatest icons of the screen. she was the first woman ever to garner ten nominations for best actress at the academy awards and the first woman ever to be president of the academy of motion picture arts and sciences [the people who give out the awards].

that bette davis ever became a movie star, let alone one of the biggest movie stars in the world, is kind of remarkable. after all, she wasn't conventionally beautiful, although her face was certainly unforgettable. …

making faces :: eyes without a face

these are indeed strange times, my friends. no one living has ever seen anything like this because there has never been anything close to the current set of circumstances in the modern world. sure, people will make the comparison with the spanish flu epidemic of 1918-20 but the fact is that things were very different then and those differences are not limited to the technology we now have available. that has an effect, of course, but consider the other factors: the world had just been through the most destructive war in its history. aside from the fact that millions had died, millions returned home injured in body and mind and there was little in the way of a social safety net to protect any of them. in many countries, "peace" was hardly peaceful because the political fallout of the great war plunged many nations into civil wars. so in that way, we're in a better position now because we don't have an entire generation of people walking around who are already severel…