Yes. Perfect. I can't believe those simians haven't had a house cleaning of the boor contingent. Maybe there were no women around to do it for them?

And how I feel for poor Peter. Now he knows how David Orchard felt. Lets all pause and reflect on the following fact: every last one of these people are the lowest of the low. No matter which way you look at it they are all duplitious, exceedingly ambitious scum.

(power-hungry hypocrites)

thats how i view the conservatives

Oh yeah, that’s just what we need: a bunch of guys with the mindset of socially and intellectually retarded teenagers running the country.

I'm not the only one that sees the conservitives that way?! wow! Everything we seem to hear is how they will lead us into eutopia with their worped propoganda.

This reminds me of the recent ruckus after Harvard's president made essentialist claims about women's lesser abilities to climb to the peaks of the ivory tower.

Professor Elizabeth Spelke's responded with an exposé of the ways gender perception shapes the analysis of behaviour. Besides finding that average male academic candidates were better rated than average female academic candidates (when a m/f name was applied to the same Harvard app), she discussed a study which I found mind-expanding (in terms of raising my own self-criticism especially):

"...a child on a video-clip was playing with a jack-in-the-box. It suddenly popped up, and the child was startled and jumped backward. When people were asked, what's the child feeling, those who were given a female label [for the child] said, "she's afraid." But the ones given a male label said, "he's angry." Same child, same reaction, different interpretation."

More of that study and the Harvard debate are at http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge160.html

Who is Peter MacKay to be whining about his broken heart like he has one? Hey MacKay, does the name "David Orchard" ring any bells?

This article sums up my feelings about the Conservatives to a Tee. Good work, Shannon. (Maybe someone should take pity on Colin MacKenzie at the Globe and Mail and email him the URL, so he can sort out his editorial head from his buttocks:

)

You got that right. Well written well done.
JWL

Shannon was right to liken the whole thing to high school. Is it not perfectly obvious that the majority of people seem intellectually and emotionally ossified at around the point they left high school? The marketing industry tells us 'yes'. Look at how we're pitched products on a daily basis.

And why is it still a woman wielding the mop in TV commercials?

Factor in the generational effect and you've got some pretty scary attitudes among our elected reps and their appointees. Remember what happened to the woman who blew the whistle on some Canada Post execs? Wasn't she called - of all the epithets! - a "single mother"?!

I don't really buy the story that Billionaire Belinda Stronach has been seriously hard done by. If she were a male rich kid, with no post-secondary education, who had gone into politics seeking the national leadership of a major party as step one in his new career, how would Shannon Rupp react?

If a such a male trust fund brat later betrayed that party for another, which could offer him an immediate Cabinet post, would it be considered just too rude for words if people made rude remarks?

If he left behind a female MP with who he was reported to be romantically involved (Rupp reports, distortingly, that the affair had been broken off by the decisive and clear-thinking Stronach, but as Rupp well knows this is clearly contradicted elsewhere), and that woman MP gave interviews to the effect that she felt hurt and betrayed, how would Rupp react? And how would Rupp react when this woman was dismissed sarcastically by some of Rupp's fellow journalists with phrases like "You were on a break? You knew he was unhappy? But still, you had no idea? Uh-huh. And these clowns have the audacity to claim Studly’s not too bright?"

What about it Ms Rupp? Is it sauce for goose and gander? Or do you need your day in the sun?

mercilessly ridiculed in terms equ

I don't know if you are a man or a woman Shannon. I do know you are a hell of a good writer.

http://www.ajh.ca/images/prettywoman.jpg

Time for an Oscar Wilde break that should comfort those hurt by Ms. Stronach's heartfelt attempt to save the country:

"A true friend stabs you in the front"

Looks like we have a few sore losers here. Budd, the point is worth taking that no man, "spoiled trust-fund brat" or not, would ever be subjected to that backwards backwoods cousins-mating-cousins style of verbal abuse. How do we know? Because no one called Peter MacKay a whoring gigolo in the national press when he betrayed David Orchard, did they?

Is it just me or has anyone noticed that all the mealy mouthed, childish sexist responses seem to be attempting to make her the villain in this affair. Thus moving the focus away from the fact that the conservatives have a serious problem within their party.
I read somewhere this morning where someone was outraged at the fact she even Thought of crossing the floor. Helloo. Crossing the floor is and has been for hundreds of years a part of the British Parliamentary System. Let me see. What system governs Canada?
Wake up Conservatives. The day of reckoning is near. By the way, I'm all for the NDP. They haven't been given a chance to screw up Federally yet. And Layton seems pretty levelheaded.

Great article!

Belinda Stronach was the best hope the Conservatives had to pretend that they weren't all a bunch of theocratic neanderthals.

Not only did they drive her out of the party with their puerile policies, they are proving her to be correct in her appraisal of them by their nasty gutter-mouths & sexist statements.

Belinda Stronach was one of the conservatives brightest stars, the picture of Progressive Conservatives and Reform/Alliance getting along.

Come tuesday the Canwest press paints her as a light-weight, poor speaker barely capable of tying her shoes.

So if this kind of person was a star in the Conservative heaven, what does it say about the remaining C and D list conservatives?

Thursday is going to be a very interesting day.

An interesting development no doubt, possible involving some element of principle, but in my experience with politics, more like involving also more than a wee drap of ambition, male or female.

And hell, men insult each other in way more colourful and hurtful language than she's endured, at least just as. Come to think of it, women can insult each other and men, at the very least, the equal of men.

I can even remember some of the fights my daughters had with each other. Hell the knew how to cut with each word epithet and insult, certainly better than me or my brothers would have dared use on each other.

Sexism there is, but I don't see it to any great deal as an example here, in the way this daddy's rich girl has been described or treated. That's just politics and being pissed off, as no doubt her former Neocon side-kicks are.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Which applies to both sexes.

Besides, all them Neocons are whores and political sluts, male and female. :-)

yes belinda is a saint. i feel honoured to live in a country where an ordinary billionaire can become a cabinet minister overnight.

does magna recieve any federal aid?

Alright, Coyote, I'm taking you up on that. Show me where the gender-specific insults were published in the Globe and Mail, Torstar, or even the usual slop-buckets when MacKay let down Orchard. Show me the references to his loose sexuality and low intelligence. They should be archived if they were reported. I don't recall anything that any national paper considered fit to print. The double standard is loud and clear.

(And no, for the record, I don't think Stronach's a saint, or more importantly, not an opportunist, but she's sure a lot smarter than the crowd she used to hang with.)

It seems to me that Rupp raises Stronach as an interesting case study in gendered media, political and career commentary -- not as a defense of Stronach as the best politician ever!

Let's face it, she defected from the Conservatives to the Liberals -- so of course she is not the average Tyee reader's ideal coffee conversation date. She is a Canadian, white and very wealthy person who happens to face negative stereotypes as a woman, in spite of these privileged identities.

That is the intersting aspect here, similar to the study wherein Lawrence Otis Graham (American, male and very wealthy, facing negative stereotypes as a black man) went undercover as a bus boy at a country club that, in spite of his privileges, he was not allowed to join.

Graham found that he was able to learn a lot more about his peers' racism with a towel over his arm than in conversation with them as an "equal" -- and given Harper and the gang's harangueing of Stronach, I expect she is going through a similar epiphany of late.

I think they call Belinda Stronach "Belinda" for the same reason they called Stockwell Day "Doris."

And "Doris" had no easy ride of it either and for good reason.

I just have no response to Belinda Stronach, none at all. One way or the other. Zero on the richter scale.

Shannon Rupp’s article has left me in shock. Since I really don’t read the press media or watch TV my only access to what happens in Canada is through CBC Radio or this very Tyee. I cannot fathom politicians to have used words like slut and whore. She should sue them.

Vancouver has been kind to a few high-powered women like Nini Baird, Celia Duthie and Carole Taylor. I miss Celia and I am glad Carole Taylor is back. And, of course we have Carole James. And Harper could only hope his wife were half the woman Mike Harcourt’s is.

So I welcome another woman in Canadian politics and I admire her (yes admire) her ambition and sense of strategy.

As for the media calling her Belinda there is something in that name. I met at least two strippers in the 80s called Belinda and all were blonde. There is something in the name that makes me think of voluptuous, almost unfemenine. Perhaps some in the press have seen the same in her name. Like it or not we have to take Ms Stronach seriously.

I myself see Stronach as not very politically bright if she is looking at a long term career. Aren't Liberals and Conservatives vastly different? How can one go from wanting to be the leader of one camp, so obviously believing in the rhetoric, to now moving across the floor to another leadership position in that camp. Did the beliefs change overnight? No, just the opportunity was seen for personal gain. If I were in her constituency I wouldn't vote for her again, because who knows what she believes in and who she is representing. She might have her day in the spotlight now, but it won't last.

There aren't many Tyee articles I agree with, but this one is spot on!

If Belinda had walked across to the liberals and became a backbencher, then yes, one might believe the issue.

But, to be immediately appointed a Cabinet Minister smells of bribery. The Liberals on the Federal scene are masters of bribery!

We need to cleanse the whole Federal governance process, and we definitely need to put the Federal Liberals outside of that process.

There's an aspect of contemptuous familiarity, comfortable collegiality or celebrity worshipfulness in referring to someone one does not know personally by their given name. Everything's contextual.

I admire Belinda Stronach. I don't care that she's filthy rich. Being wealthy is not a consideration that automatically excludes people from being taken seriously.

I have for her a not dissimilar admiration to that which I hold for Carole James.

It is neither an easy nor a thankful task for a woman, perhaps even more in our Cosmopolitan world than in decades past, to seek political power and influence. To do so in the face of the many factors that mitigate against it takes quantities of courage and determination that most people never have to acquire or demonstrate.

I wish for her the same freedom to choose how she proceeds as I wish all women.

Many times in our past history a person has emerged from the rank and file of ordinary political endeavours to become an agent of positive change. In every case there was no real prior indication of what we might expect.

We have no real idea what this woman might be made of or what she might have to offer. Much as we had no solid idea of Ms. James 18 months ago.

Let her play it out. In the fullness of time she'll prove something to us, one way or another.

Don't throw her into the fire just because it's hot.

I suspect she is often called Belinda, not because of any grand sexist conspiracy, but because she has cultivated that moniker as familiar and saleable. If the author had checked her web address, she'd find it to be (GASP!!!) bedlinda.ca.

And by the way, some of us folks out of the working class really resent snide stereotyping like "slumming" (guess that means hanging out with poor people).

I don't know how bright or strategic Stronach is. And I don't want to underestimate the use of "dipstick... but an attractive dipstick" or "whored herself" as terribly sexist coming from the mouths of those who used the terms. And I definitely see the headlines as belittling, demeaning and fairly exemplary of not only the right wing media but, more, as pretty illustrative of all those hidden and sublime sexist underpinnings many of us, men and women, hold.

However, fact is (as sdgreen noted above -and I never agree with him) if Martino had said: "Look, Belinda, I appreciate the finer principles you're showing here, what with concern for rising separatism, the conservatives' moral agenda, etc. but I can't offer you a portfolio. By all means, take a seat on the backbench and we'll let you head up some committees but that's all. Welcome to the fold, Belinda." Stronach would have went back to her party, mums the word, and shut the fuck up and voted the libs down.

Sure, the ever present split in the cons would have reared again, but not until later.

And one more point which I think Rupp is way off on. The cons aren't in bed with Duceppe et. al, as separtists. The sudden rise in popularity of the Bloc can be laid at the Liberals' feet alone. The cons want to vote down the government, the Bloc, (naturally) would take any chance at all to fell a government... but to claim that they're in bed together is BS. And I hate the Conservative party, and have a strong distaste for liberals too.

Having said all that, I fully believe there's a definite double standard not just in politics but in practically all institutions. Just my two bits.

Ouch, Percy. "bedlinda.ca" Ouch!

regarding my comments at end of post above: and not just a double standard regarding gender, as Percy pointed out.

Shit, when men insult, swear and threaten each other, it's scarcely even seen as newsworthy. It's too commonplace, especially in politics.

And I'm not questioning her intelligence, relative to the crowd(s) she runs with, up there in the rarefied ruling class air.

Thank you for a great article. What Mrs. Stronach did took guts and courage and I think anyone with morals within the Conservative party will have to question the motives behind Stephen Harper. The old motto is that Absolute Power corrupts. I only hope that we do have an early election so that Canada will be rid of Stephen Harper for ever.

Did you see Peter MacKay on TV today? In his *gum boots* no less, nursing his wounds back at the ranch? Poor little farmer boy. Har har har. Too much.

All I can say is that I am glad Stronach did what she did. I don't care about her politics otherwise. Anything that harms the neoconazis is fine by me. But man, are they sore losers! And losers are exactly what they are, for they lost one of the few people that wasn't a complete knuckle dragger.

Try cover of Dose today for Blonde Ambition.
Great article. Thanks

belinda.ca. Isn't that mildly interesting. Thanks for this.

I've never really even looked at her before now. Really, she is a very "average" looking woman, with a face that has very straight angular and jutting lines-, dare I say, almost masculine, but for the make-up. (Now I'm for it. But since when did I give a twaddle about that either.)

I would certainly not describe her as especially "a beauty". Yes, average looking is, I think, the appropriate description.

Though I could be very attracted to her money. :-) But then, I have always been just a frustrated gigolo, or male whore. :-) (It was mostly just that I wasn't particularly marketable either. Too average.)

Who is the main man, with whom I almost always agree. (He and "the other woman" in my life, Lynn, of course. :-)

I just found the article I had read earlier on another defection. It was David Kilgour who crossed the floor from the Liberals to sit as an independant. And now he is Outraged that Ms. Stronach is doing the same, albeit in reverse. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

I'll admit to a little bias. Ms B.S. got up my nose from day One, when she thought it might be nice to take over the Prime Minister's job of running my country. Her credentials? None, that I could detect. Her Dad gave her the top Magna job, then stuck around like a ventriloquist. I don't think she even finished high school, did she?

Next (somebody must've told her), she decided to get an M.P. job and learn something about Parliament. I prayed that Newmarket-Aurora would have sense enough to drop-kick her through the goal-posts of life. But no. She was elected. And by the way, she was sold as "Belinda" during her campaign so that could be why the rest of us call her Belinda. Although I prefer B.S.

Then she pointed at the job of Leader of the Opposition and said, "Daddy, I want THAT now." Didn't work. Good thing.

So she jumped the bones of Peter MacKay (who had just double-crossed David Orchard) and I thought I could read the chicken entrails as to where all that was going. But no, I guess it was too slow.

With giblets flying all over the carpet, she double-crossed Peter and Stephen and the party she helped create (she wasn't "comfortable" with them now) and ... well, now she's Minister of Human Resources charged with implementing the Gomery recommendations. Holy Ratzinger, does it get any crazier than that?

This woman is Stockwell Day with hair. She is a hanging chad, snapped up by a guy who needs another vote to survive.

Guaranteed: nothing good will come of this. If she gets her hands on the levers of power, watch out. If she doesn't ... watch out. Sorry.

I'll be curious to see if Belinda can handle a ministerial portfolio.
There's nothing sexist in the observation that
she's a high school drop out who often speaks like one ("like, y'know"), and whose Conservative leadership platform consisted of the vaguest generalities and cliches: "We need to bake a better economic pie". Or, that her CEO position at Magna was more appearance than reality. Magna personnel have revealed that Frank, her Dad, still ran everything of even slight importance (maybe that $50 million+ he pays himself each year for "consulting", is slightly more justified than many believe). She's "Daddy's g-,(uh, sorry) -child"
I wonder how much input Frank has into her political career? If it's anything approaching
his Magna influence, we should be concerned.
The Magna story has an ugly side. Magna has serious corporate governance issues, especially
regarding dual class voting shares, where Frank owns a minority of shares, but his shares carry
majority voting power. That's how he can write himself a cheque for $50 or $60 mill. a year.
Teachers' Pension Fund is a large shareholder. They and others keep pushing for corporate governance reform at Magna,a public company, so far unsuccessfully.Frank's attitude is, if you don't like it, F.O.
I'm afraid Belinda/Frank is the opposite of Eliot Spitzer in the U.S. who is making huge strides in cleaning up corporate ethics and criminality there. She represents corporate sleaze.Maybe she'll feel more at home in a party as sleazy as the Liberals.
As for the "sexist" comments, when Swarzeneggar
became Calif. Governor, there were all kinds of
jokes/ridicule playing on his he-man "Terminator", all braun no brains image. I didn't hear anyone complaining this was sexist. There were lots of references to Trudeau and his charming, lady's man, rose in the lapel style. Sometimes it was used unflatteringly.Is it so much different?
In the Vander Zalm era there was lots of criticism of his smooth, charming style without substance.
There is too much political correctness in the complaints about sexism and Belinda. It's a distraction from the real issues about her character that some of the "unacceptable" comments were, in fact, trying to address.

Great copy Shannon, but I hear the criticism is now coming from people of her own gender and it's terribly feline in nature.

I've always been puzzled by Belinda. Yes, she comes with a reserve of cash, business savvy and experience that may appear greater than it really is and she can certainly turn heads.

But in first listening to her when she ran for the leadership, she talked more like a social democrat than a conservative.

I doubt she has a deep understanding of what poverty is all about simply because her life has never taken her behind that curtain.

But she appears, at least to me, to have a sense of wanting to improve things for others and a willingness to look beyond her own experience.

She identifies with men of the left, at least in the US, until Peter MacKay caught her interest.

In fact, to me her relationship with MacKay was the only thing that might warrent the airhead and dumb blonde jabs thrown behind her back.

I suspect she would come out in the top half of the class if all MPs were given IQ tests.

Hey, we all make mistakes and now she feels she is correcting one or two of them. I'd say go for it.

I'm just curious if David Orchard will look her up and thank her for dumping the now broken hearted MacKay.

Somehow, I just can't get too teary eyed over the karma that appears to have lit upon MacKay. It's almost poetic.

Trudeau never made any bones about being a lady's man. There's a huge difference between called a ladies man and "Whore". Style without substance has a much different connotation than "Whore."

If Schwarzenegger is the only other example you can come up with, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. He's the sexist clown who couldn't keep his hands off female co-workers. Any attribution of sleaze was entirely justified, although I notice how conveniently that's forgotten.

As for jumping poor Peter MacKay's sorry bones, BCMary, obviously they had no lasting appeal.

No, there's definitely a double-standard which has nothing to do with Stronach's abilities or character, and everything to do with her uppity gender ideas. It's amazing listening to people justify it.

And, Coyote, whether or not men commonly get called names or not, the point is that national press only saw fit to print them when they were directed at a woman.

This outrage is a bit much. Sure, it's sexist to say she "whored out to power," especially if you are unaware of male whores -- I'm not sure what kind the good reverend Abbott was thinking about.

However, the tittle tattle about personal lives isn't bizarre -- it is, to me, exactly the sort of thing that real people talk about. "Who's doing who" is the great telephone sport. She was bonking Mackay? I didn't know that. This tidbit adds quite a bit of human texture to the situation. It's not the whole story obviously but it is a part, doncha think?

Awesome article.

I love Budd Campbell's question... "Is it sauce for goose and gander?"

There are some big leaps of logic made in this article, "whoring one self's for power" isn't calling Stronach a slut, it's calling "the deed" one, used in politics all the time, often with stronger intent against men.

And a dipstick is more about being a flake or a dilettante, than about dimwittedness, lots of dipsticks are as a dumb as a fox.

None of these are complimentary but this is politics, as you say, not high school.

And women aren't admirable just because they go into politics, they're admirable because of what they do there. Though politics ranks right up there with piracy to me.

Do you think Corky Evans is sitting home brooding because some people who don't personally know him have the audacity to call him...( no, not that!) Corky?

C'mon as women aren't we more than this?

Coyote, the least average guy I know, right up there with George Galloway. :-)

I'm not outraged, Ron. Bonk whomever you wish - better that than bonk the country, as they say. But Shannon's right about the hypocrisy of those who accuse Belinda of shifting her allegiances from Conservative to Liberal when the Conservatives are willing to cut a deal with the BQ. Didn't Harper study his history? I know Harper's from Alberta but Mulroney - a Quebecker - cut a deal with the separatists and where did that get us? What is Harper smoking?

This story and the subsequent comments in this thread have missed the real issue(s:

1) What immediate impact will Ms. Stronach's defection have on tomorrow's vote?

2) Why didn't Ms. Stronach choose to remain as a Conservative and simply vote to support the budget; or abstain?

3) What is the likely medium to short term impact on the fortunes of the Conservative Party?

4) What is the likely medium to short term impact on the fortunes of the Liberal Party?

5) How far is Paul Martin prepared to go, to maintain power? They can deny this all they want, but the optics look fishy.

So Ms. Stronach's ex-colleagues said some nasty things about her. So what? If a prominent Liberal or New Democrat had pulled off a spectacular defection like this, his or her ex-colleagues would likely have some equally strong comments to make. Would Shannon Rupp be hurling charges of sexism?

By playing the gender card, Shannon Rupp is hindering the debate on the above four questions. I truly believe that these questions need to be answered before the public accepts that this defection was based on conviction; not blind ambition or a pay-off.

When it comes to Ms. Stronach's personality, I tend to agree with BC Mary. No strong feelings, but don't see how anything good will come out of this.

Then write that article, Sail_junkie, the one Shannon Rupp didn't write, the article which isn't about the gender card that Stronach's former colleagues played when they chose their language and made their remarks. Ask your four questions in that article.

This article is about the gender card.

Steven Harper acts like a petulant child who cannot get his own way!

Yes, I saw Peter in his gum boots. I couldn't help but chuckle. If I was in media, I'd be tempted to run with that story as well.

Putting Belinda aside, I think this defection says more about the Conservatives and their lacklustre performance than anything else. That the Conservatives aren't completely poised to take over, from a Liberal government that has actually stolen money, is outright incredible. But, that they are actually losing key members to that minority government? Unbelievable! If Stephen ever wants to form government, he'd better cut loose the fundamental religious part of his party. He has to ask himself why the social liberal/fiscal conservative does not trust him or his party. Until he figures that out, we are stuck with a parliament that is either so fragmented that it is rendered unworkable, or a government that has nothing to fear about getting re-elected. That is not good for democracy. Good for King Paul, but not for the rest of us.

Hey, I like using first names. I gotta do this more often. ROFL!

I really dislike the women,and no doubt her motives are entirely selfish.That said,you'd have to be a complete twit not to see through the sexist nonsense spouted by Harper and his fellow clots.I despise Harper with a passion,and was quite happy to see how predictably he reacted to this whole sordid affair.

OK. Here's the deal...Paul Martin is no fool. There is no way that he simply offered BS a cabinet post over rack of lamb and a bottle or two of fine Bordeaux. This is a win win win situation. The first win is Paul gets some extra time to stickhandle out of Gomery debacle. The second win is that BS gets a promotion and some new friends. Problem however...BS is too disruptive and begins to contaminate the caucus with her vision of saving Canada. Oh what to do? The big liberal machine prevents BS from winning her seat. If you think I'm joking, please recall there was a long time female cabinet minister from Hamilton who lost her seat in a rather unusual fashion. The Conservatives will not take BS back and there is no way she could be Prime Minister with the NDP. Third win...presto BS is out of politics and on to her next escapade.

I think that it is a really interesting piece. The timing of Belinda's defection is a little too coincidental with it preceding BC's provincial election and making the Liberals appear more palatable to voters - I wish she would have waited until today to pull her coup on Stephen Harper (no love lost there). Welcome to the real world Peter McKay, where people are dumped every day and stll manage to attend to their work - boo hoo - sour grapes...

I only hope that this strategy will keep the wolves from the door and parliament in session so that the budget can be passed. The money spent on a federal election right now would not be money well spent.

Time will tell the tale!

Shannon: Great and entertaining writing. I agree that the criticism has been styled as sexist and should be condemned as such. BUT: lets look at the facts. Belinda is really just Daddy's (Frank's) little air-headed, ambitious trust fund brat. Daddy couldn't be PM so now he's buying his little baby girl the job through money, influence and her marching orders. Belinda who can't have an independent opinion without a teleprompter suddenly has a flash of consciousness in which she is compelled to do "the right thing" and switch horses. So PLEASE cut the noble rhetoric. All sexist comments aside, Belinda is a crass and ruthless opportunistic woman. Don’t make me gag because she’s not worth all the ink or time of day.

OK...so my win win win theory did not attract any attention! How about this...older married guys like Paul Martin really fall all over 36 year old bleached blondes like BS. Particularily after a few bottles of wine. However, BS is dumb like a fox. She has seduced Mr. Martin into allowing her into the liberal caucus. After she learns all of their strategies and when it is clear the Conservatives will win the next federal election, she will defect back to the Conservative party just in time to save Canada, again! I'm really trying to make some sense out of this political madness.

I thought the win,win,win strategy was hilarious. Just been too busy doing other computer work to say so up til now.

Since when is political madness supposed to be sensible? I leave you with Ebert on Yoda and the early editions of Time Magazine: "Backwards ran the sentences until reeled the mind."

Wow! a5a42627... almost a John le Carre novel you have there. Makes perfect sense to me...

Crazy Frazy seems to think Belinda is not smart. Crossing th efloor is a sold as paliament itself. Ms Stronach is both smart and hot and had the perfect appeal for the Neocons to have their corporate media create her as a rising star for all their groupies to adore. She is a rising star with a silver spoon in every aperture and now she has played one group of neocons for the saps they are by joining another group, with a multi millionaire shipping empressario to keep her. Fear not, the flock will mindlessly buy the media spin when Paulie finally falls, and seeks reelection.

Meanwhile Jack has played Paulie like a fiddle for the sake of pushing through some pretty darned important money for day care and students. That will be mostly ignored by the “media”. On the other hand, Mr. Harper smells power and goes to bed with separatists in order to get his early election. But his real colour is shown by Honest Ed who agrees to stand down so the Tories will not be penalized by their absent seriously ill member, and they can have enough votes to commit Hari Kari on a budget the nation does not mind, regardless of some smelly scandal orchestrated by Pepper Jean, while the ambitious Paulie sat in the wings coveting his job. Subsequently, Paulie becoming orgasmic about being King of the Hill, prematurely chased “Pepper Jean” out of office, before he could fall on his own “sponsorship” sword . Big Mistake “eh, mebbee”?

As a Christian fundamentalist Anarchist I must divert to commentary upon MS Rupps unkindly reference to “fundamentalist Christian influence” .
She besmirches the name of great men like JS Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles, and the greatest Canadian, TC “Tommy” Douglas. (Methodist/ United Church and Baptist)
My sister attended Tommy’s Baptist church as a parishioner; he was pretty fundamental in his gospel.
There are a number of fundamentalist Christian bretheren who have toiled for God’s people, in all parties boldly working for social justice, egalite, liberte, fraternite. Tony Abbot might not be a good example, regardless of his professed belief.

Finally who the heck is Barbara McDougal? Her comments quoted on CBC (World At Six) today really showed the traditional view of women during her tenure with her gang of guys, including Peter’s daddy, in the days of Lion Brian.

Great thread! I like the inflammatory nature of the article and the way it stirred the pot.

Stronach talks in sound bites. Well coached clearly, and good at sticking to talking points. But, as the CBC noted last night, she's dished up her share of insults and aspersions along the way.

"Whored herself out". I saw/heard that comment on the tv. Shocking and very bad manners. But, not surprising given the messenger. So, I think it's a bit rich to decry the Conservatives as redneck hicks and then cry foul when they confirm your thesis.

Personally, I think she's telegenic and equipped with an animal cunning that's as useful in politics as brains. Should go far. I find her sudden change of heart suspect, but to be honest I've pretty much ignored her until yesterday. Maybe she really does feel like this move, while opportunistic, is a good thing for the country.

I had never realized crossing the floor was as much a tradition of Parliament as some are saying. It's IMO not the honourable way of doing things I've always considered to be the accepted standard in our society.

Just a macroscopic observation: isn't it weird how insideous sexism is in the "progressive" West? As we peer down our superior noses on the supposedly backward attitudes toward women in the "old world" - such as the Middle East and South East Asia - they have no problem electing women to head their nations (without mentioning her hairdo or overbite in the process). - Pakistan, India, Malaysia, and even Bangladesh have all had women at the helm of their countries. And here we are, in modern civility, talking about whoring blonds jumping between parties and leaving embittered lovers along the way (if it doesn't harken back to evil Eve who stole the rib and left a stomach ache that has yet to heal)... Hyprocrisy is something we may have caught like a disease from our southern neighbour - where the lady can be a First but only if she is standing behind her man. Is there a vaccine - or is it a lifetime chronic ailment we'll suffer?

I do not see any problem with any of the comments made in reference to Belinda Stronach's crossing of the floor in parliment. I believe she has proven on more than one occasion to be a "dipstick." This is obviously not the worst name to be called, and should not be over critiqued. As for the comments "whored herself out for power." put forth by Tony Abbott were a very graphic and fitting description of Belinda's political move. Paul Martin was shopping for a Conservative MP, and apparently Belinda was, literally, selling herself. To prostitute or whore, is to sell onself out to someone else. This is exactly what she did. As for the Liberal's calling these comments "sexist" and playing the women card, I did not hear any referance to sexual orientation within those comments, besides "beautiful." If a Liberal member of parliment would have crossed the floor, there would have been nasty comments from the Liberal party too. Especially if they were just about to try to vote to bring the government down. What Belinda did shows that she has no integrity, morals, or even common decency to tell her boyfriend Peter Mackay what she was up too. Hmm, I think she will fit right in with the Liberals. For more of on Belinda, check out cantory.blogspot.com.

so jack layton sodomizing paul martin is great for the country, yet harper sleeping with the bloc,thats bad.

they should all take the summer off and slumm with the rest of us...

A great article.
Belinda's move just may have prevented the
Neo-cons from forcing an early election, which
in my estimation would result in the Bloc
becoming the Official Opposition.
I seem to remember Lyan Brian help create the Bloc.

And don't underestimate politicians of the
female gender. We had two in BC who had the
gonads few men could carry in the face of BC's
version of Liebralism.

DGB sez, "As a Christian fundamentalist Anarchist I must divert to commentary upon MS Rupps unkindly reference to “fundamentalist Christian influence” .
She besmirches the name of great men like JS Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles, and the greatest Canadian, TC “Tommy” Douglas. (Methodist/ United Church and Baptist) "

I belive there are two types of Evangelical Christians - those who believe in the social gospel and are progressive and those who use the Bible to rationalize the existence of capitalism and the various prejudices they have. I think us progressives and libertarians have to keep the two groupsseparate when we talk about so-called fundamentalism.

dbvxblb ... tripped over your name (Oh God, is that racist?) ... but definitely want to endorse your prediction. Defeat the member (Jeez, that's sexist!) from Newmarket-Aurora. Gone. Done. Neat. Next?

And Holy Ratzinger, you've just made me approve of electoral corruption.

Couldn't we just campaign to get the twit defeated?

tornado: Well said . The problem is we have set the bar in politics way too low. And we are too easily fooled by those who opportunistically straddle that bar with one foot on each side of it....just in case....

Steven Harper is a great Canadianwho merely wants the best for our country. The hidden agenda is this.
1. SAme sex civil unions instead of same sex marriage. ( hardly radical, mirrors the Europeans )
2. Tax breaks for people raising children ( no national daycare program ) I heard Paul Martin say on the subject that it could be "as big as national healthcare" What a frightening thought.
I am really scared.

Let's practice a little reverse gender-specific name calling here and show what it really sounds like:

Harper and his boys are just as opportunistic as any other boars with erections, and now they're squealing like mad because there's no one available to molest.

Okay, now print that in a national paper on the front page.

http://www.salon.com/comics/lay/2005/05/17/lay/index1.html

Terry Moore on CFAX yesterday had a segment during his afternoon talk show where he was indignant about some MLA's somewhere ( not federal Conservative MP's ) had called Belinda a whore for betraying her constituints. He asked the callers if they would tolerate there daughters or wives being called a whore.
The response was overwhelming. Each caller would have used even stronger language if there was a word to express it ( slut ) Even little old ladies that called in called her a whore. Nobody, not a sole was on his side. She is probably the flakiest person ever to have sit as an MP. Good riddens to bad rubbish.

From today's Star:

And this:

And this:

And, finally, this:

It's the same reason why Tony Blair and Labour won in Britain again.

Belinda's Hot!

Stephen harper is a great Canadian??
How about a vindictive, power hungry, sexually repressed fraser institute neo-con traitor. Now that's some name-callin' - just kiddin harper you're a great guy!
Atleast this fiasco has caused a lot of the conservatives to show their true colors as human beings. Better for the previously bamboozled to find out now than after a private members vote. Hey look Mom - we got the death penalty, a ban on abortions, missile shields galore, complete abrogation of environmental responsibilities, legislated hate laws aimed at gay people, a massive shift in the distribution of wealth to favor the rich and corporate elite and this is just the first day of the conservative government!! (oh yeah we also are going to beat the waves with whips until Poseiden himself doth sue for mercy!)
Mr. Harper,I wish to elevate myself above the fray, above the level of acrimonious juvenile taunts so I will quote a man of great wisdom and intellectual maturity, Nelson Muntz:
"HA HA!!!!!!!!".

I think the point I want to make to both Te Aro Arahina and Shannon Rupp is the same. I believe their protests of sexism and mysoginy are largely fake, and indicate more than just some sort of thin skin.

Rather, the contrived, indeed well-rehearsed outrage is the product of a well-crafted personal political strategy that has worked for them for quite some time. That's how they put these fake analyses together without a hint of humour and without having to spend much time on it. And among other adherents to their faith there's an audience ready to applaud on cue.

Let me just separate the general political considerations from the pompous, and coming from Liberals like Ann McLellan, totally insincere critiques of the personal coverage.

I don't want an election right now, so I am actually quite happy with Stronach's move. And if it had been any other Tory MP, fine too. (How would Rupp or Te Aro react if some BC male Tory MP, say James Moore, had crossed and then been ridiculed as, say, a "cheap prick"?). I agree with Bel, ... er, {gotta be careful here} [Ahem] Stronach's contention that Harper's unofficial alliance with the Bloc carries risks if it goes to far. But at the same time, I don't want to get into some kind of McCarthyist treatment of democractic separatists, whose votes on various progressive issues are appreciated.

Te Aro contends that "the point is worth taking that no man, "spoiled trust-fund brat" or not, would ever be subjected to that backwards backwoods cousins-mating-cousins style of verbal abuse. How do we know? Because no one called Peter MacKay a whoring gigolo in the national press when he betrayed David Orchard, did they?" Well, that's just not accurate in my opinion. Maybe Te Aro doesn't get out much? McKay was excoriated by people on the left for betraying the poor wretch Orchand (a compleat fraud in my opinion, ... glad as Hell McKay had the balls to make good use of the guy, then hang the faker upside down). There were numerous epithets. If not enough of those epithets had explicity sexual connotations, well, maybe that's an omission that needs correction. If Rupp or Te Aro want to supply some male-bimbo metaphors, the way I see it, it's a free country and they can blast away.

Personally, I have always thought McKay and his father Elmer qualified as reasonably Red Tories, perhaps in the same mold as the late Dalton Camp, and that McKay was a serious talent who beared watching in the Tory party, especially when he let Harper take the leadership at a time when he wasn't ready and there was a risk of a Martin sweep. I don't know what McKay's French is like, but if that's up to standard he could be a successful Tory leader post Harper. So for me, I would like to save the anti-McKay ammunition for when it's really needed, and to use the real ammunition, not the pea-shooter stuff about whether or not he was a nice or icky boyfriend to our new found feminist hero and Loyal Liberal Belinda Stronach.

Apparently some posters think it's just too cheesy of McKay to now appear on his old man's farm in gum boots. A photo op, to be sure, but how is this any cheesier than all of Belinda Stronach's own paid publicity and campaign gimmicks, none of which ever showed the slightest inclination to down play her looks, and all of which put her on a first names basis, etc.

Is there sexism in our society? Sure there is, but the notion that a Billioinaire can be portrayed as a victim in any meaningful sense, no matter what jokes are told about them, is just way too god-damned much for me. People who can peddle that kind of non-complaint have seriously warped priorities.

The Conservative Party wil not
1. Call for the death penalty
2. Effect any change to the abotion laws.
3. Go to war.
4. Rape our enviroment.
5. Hate gay people.
6. Rob from the poor.
They will , however, work for a change in Canada from being a leftist, American hating, flakey, lily-livered excuse for a country with intentions of being Frace like.
All Canadians should relax and let this party have it's chance. Or are we saying that the Liberals should run this country forever? The NDP will never get elected, so what are tou saying.

Testify, sister! Fantastic article, thanks.

When harper refered to the liberal/NDP alliance as "a deal with the devil" what, specifically was he refering to? Was it :
-money for environmental protection measures
-funding for affordable housing
-aid for those in desperate need
-development of sustainable energy sources
-other similarly "evil" stuff i can't remember

Yes, in the darkest depths of hell, Satan himself was put to shame with this diabolical plan. How he must of shook his mighty claw in frustration, again his demonly status usurped by that damned Jack Layton!!

Well written article. However, I'd be a little cautious of praising Ms. Stronach for her political boldness - she has yet to prove herself as a Liberal (actually, I don't know if she has a criminal record...).

I do think she holds potential for the Liberal Party, but I still hold reservations towards anyone who only a year ago ran for the leadership of the same Conservative Party she just left.

At this point, I don't know whether she's power-hungry, or legitimately realized the rednecks by whom she was surrounded (eg. Randy White).

"American hating, flakey, lily-livered excuse for a country with intentions of being Frace like" says Ron Erwin.

Ron: That's a quite a manifesto and so inspiring, almost uplifting... if you're neo-con-nazi.

Some kind of pledge of allegiance you've got, its bigoted negativity never said better....
"we will not hate gay people", "we will not rape our environment", "we will not rob from the poor"...

Ron Erwin you are deluded. Please recall the ridiculous Stockwell Day rising in the HoC to berate our real leaders for not supporting our friends in battle. He pulled a Hedy by saying that an illegal Scud missile had been launched against Kuwait when, in fact, it was part of their allowed arsenal.

As for hating gay people, well, the Liberals harbor a few bigots as well. However its clear that the Deformed Tories would enact anti-gay legislation if they could. Just look at sleazy Harper's divisive attempt to bring conservative ethnic groups in to oppose gay marriage.

Its the same for the death penalty and abortion. Or have all those western Deformers who are now "Tories" suddenly changed their previously and clearly expressed (in public) views?

The extended Liberal rule may not be ideal, but try looking into Harpers eyes and ask yourself what you see. I see reptile.

And the point I want to make to you, Budd Campbell, the point which bears repeating endlessly, is that Belinda Stronach is NOT the issue. I couldn't care less about her. How Conservatives and the mainstream media react to women is. Not that I would stop them from showing their true colours at all, at all, at all. No sirree. You Conservatives just keep calling us by every name in the book every time you go on radio, just to remind us of what you're really about and who you really are behind all that sham concern for our rights and wellbeing.

But for these same clowns to sputter righteous indignation(hypocritically) about how they were so-o-o-o victimized by someone who was smarter at their game than they were .... well, that's what I find rich enough to capitalize on. And so I will.

RRRRRRRRAAAAAWWWWWRRRRR!!!!
;-p

Did Stronach leave in the way she did because of Blind Ambition or as a matter of principle?

The 3rd alternative is that she wanted to f***
Harper and his gang of angry white men (and angry white man wannabees)over.

If that's what happened, good for her.

I loved this piece, Rupp. I thought Stronach was more of a liberal (big or small L) when she tried to get the Conservative leadership. So she's a bit opportunistic, eh. So what. As you suggest, that's a pretty common characteristic among politicians. Do I recall McKay and Harper double crossing a prairie farmer somewhere in their past. Oh, yeah, David Orchard, I think.

The longer this thread stretches the harder it is to find any rational thought in it.
Everybody's taking partisen shots at this party or that, this politicians or that, this gender or the other.

Please keep in mind that of all the players caught up in this little whirlwind there is nary an innocent, especially some of those politicians who are now bleating the loudest about how they were betrayed and or let down.

Note for Ronb Erwin: Can you promise us in writing the Conservative will not do any of the six things you have listed above.

And Ron I do want to correct this misunderstanding you seem to have about us "flaky leftists".

We don't hate Americans, rather most of us despise the political leadership in that country and the two party system that is controlled by big corporations and war mongers.

If truth be told, I would much rather be stuck on an deserted island with many Americans far sooner than to discover I share an island with ass-kissing toadys who dream of having a green card and the ability to force my children to go to war to support big fucking oil.

Finally, let me asnwer yuou last question. People are saying they don't trust Stephen Harper any more than they trust Stockboy Day to do the right thing.

Let's face it, both of those "leaders" are entrenched deeply in the Alberta dominated radical faction that still thinks everyone, especially those dang easterners are trying to steal their precious bodily fluids and ravish their women who otherwise are happy at home baking apple pies.

I think that's what Harper tried to explain to Belinda the other day and you can see the reaction now, can't you.

This dream that you can take that wacko, cowboy mob think and gallop carrying a Christion crusader's colours into Ontario, Quebec and points east in a victorious stampede
is just to bizarre for words.

Moreover, I think Harper just pissed her right off with his, "you'll never go anywhere in this party" crap, and she was pretty well overwhelmed by a need for revenge.

re: flakey Canadians, see above, I rest my case.

Oh, Allan. He'll promise us the Moon and back in writing. Just like our premier.

We've heard it all before.

The Conservatives have changed their stance on abortion, they now only oppose half-birth abortion. The death penalty would probably bring up a good debate, but I don't see them changing anything that big anytime soon. The Judicial system does, however, need a HUGE makeover. There have been cases where murder has been commited, and the criminal gets out of jail within 7 years. Or perhaps the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka case? She is posed to be released soon, yet she participated in the murders. And I, for one, would not mind seeing Robert Pickton get the death penalty, but that is just my opinion. As for the Conservatives going to war, It wouldn't have happened. Reason: The liberals have Raped the militairy for all its worth. (Oh wait, maybe I can't use that word, I might be accused of being "sexist...") Its more dangerous to Canadians to be operating our military equipment let alone fighting in it. As for stealing money from the poor, lets look at Alberta's very right wing conservative party. Hmm... no deficit for alberta, huge job creation, all major cities reporting boom's, highest payment calculation for transfer payments (which is based on average income, among other things see http://cantory.blogspot.com/2005/05/little-lesson-on-transfer-payments.html)... all and all, that looks pretty good to me, and they are even more right winged than the federal conservatives. As for "hate gay people" They have promised a system much like the european system. Civil unions as opposed to changing the traditional form of marraige. Now a days, you wouldn't survive if you "hated" gay people. The liberals have wasted enough of my tax-payed money. Its time for change.

More true colours ...

tornado: Alberta's situation has a lot to do with oil and little with governance.

The Conservatives are just the Reform Party in more politically correct drag. (And they've just lost their more politically correct poster girl.)

They are the biggest danger to the sovereignty of this country... the Liberals aren't far behind.

Te Aro Arahina, yes, promises, promises, promises, just like the jobs, jobs, jobs, one of these current betrayed whiners used to promise us before he got elected and sold most of our jobs to the Americans in exchange for a position in Pittsburg.

Questions for tornado, does that mean you've stopped your gay-bashing or just gone underground with your feelings?

Also, as much as the allegations against Robert Picton paint something pretty horrible, wouldn't Conservatives at least let the man have a fair trail before pronouncing the death penalty?

I would have to say that the Liberals are the biggest danger to the sovereignty of this country. The longer the Liberals stay in power, the more the unrest in Quebec grows. Lots of people in Quebec are unhappy with the Liberals, not with the country, and don't want to seperate but there are quite a few who are changing their minds every day the Liberals stay in power. There is more danger of seperation with a corrupt Liberal government than with a Conservative government.

Allen, this just shows how ignorant you are. Show me where I was so called "gay bashing?" I have never said anything which could be labeled as such. And as for the Pickton case, of course there would be a fair trial, did I not ellude to changes in the legal system? Everyone deserves a fair trial, I just assumed you realized this as well. But we all know what happens when you assume...

Tornado, conservative social policies are the scariest threat to our country that I've ever come across. This bears repeating over and over and over ...

It reminds us of what the true stakes are here.

Liberals working with NDP have a better vision for this country than Conservative Blocs.

Tornado spins 'round the salient point in perfect politician's fashion.

We are talking about deeply held attitudes and beliefs, not political practicalities forcing policy climb-downs. The Deformers wanted to go to war. They said it loud and clear. And too many of them are hardcore rednecks, even if they trim their sails to, as you note, "survive".

So will they acknowledge they adjust policy to survive and gain power? No, they lie about being principled and sticking to their guns.

Signed, a gun owner who believes in a strong military...but not the idiocy of the "Conservatives".

You claim that the Conservative social policies are the "scariest threat to our country that I've ever come across." Yet, you cannot prove what is so "scary" about them. You keep eluding back to the Conservative/Bloc alliance, and support a Liberal/NDP "vision." The Liberals keep fueling the Bloc's support, and the NDP would abandon the Liberals if things don't go their way. Once the Liberals are out of Quebec and out of power, support for the Bloc will once again die down. Before the Liberal sponsorship scandle, Bloc support was way down, and the Liberals even one provincially. The only thing that will save this country is the Liberals losing power. What is so "scary" with the Conservative social stance?

tornado, I think some of that hot air you're furiously blowing around here has truly marred your vision.

As much as I am not a fan of the Liberals or Paul Martin, you dream of killing off the Liberal Party and then starving the Bloc to death, is simply off the wall and shows how tenuous your graps on Canadian politics really is.

Why don't you just dream of us all being millionaires, the complete removal of personal income tax and a new contract with Santa Claus that will see him arrive twice a year?

Tornado, its not about policies. Its about the real attitudes and beliefs that are revealed by the ill-advised public outbursts of a large number of their members. Thats whats scary. Policies are only so indicative of intent because they change with the prevailing winds. God bless Randy White for making that point clear on more than one occasion.

What's so damned scary about the Conservative social stance? Nothing, if you're a priveleged white, educated heterosexual male or dependent in a western society with good health and a steady job or pension cheque.

For everyone else ...

Whoops, I forgot to add "Christian" to that list.

Skip, you are right about additudes and beliefs of certain members of the Conservative party, but they are obviously elected to represent the general beliefs and values of their region. Let us not forget the Liberal outbursts, such as those made by Carolyn Parrish, or the "stripper-gate" scandle Judy Sgro has been involved in. There is political rouges in both parties, but you refuse to admit that they exist in the Liberal party.

Gee Ron, so all the nutbar Christian right-wing groups in Canada and the US who have been supporting this party and driving so many of its policies are going to just fold up their tents and leave quietly?

Yeah, and I just bought a bridge yesterday.

I think Stronach's move was opportunistic as hell, but quite frankly, anything that stabs the Alliance (sorry, they are not "Tories" in any sense of the word in my book) is perfectly fine by me. Harper and his buddies are power hungry, ignorant, petulant losers who believe that everybody in Canada should fit into their narrow little white-bread, married, female-subservient Christian world (aka "family values"). I'm NDP through and through, but I'd vote Liberal if it meant smacking down the Alliance, and I'd sooner cut my own throat than support any political group driven by a faith based "socially conservative" agenda.

Martin is a devout Catholic, but it's very interesting how little you hear about it, while Harper's flaks trumpet what a good little Christian he is at every opportunity.

I'd actually like to thank Harper and his party for their nasty, personal public denunciation of Stronach - they couldn't have provided the Liberals with better ammunition if they tried. Instead of being classy and restrained in the media, they acted like a bunch of teenage sore losers who wanted to "get even". I can guarantee that this will make many Canadians think twice about voting for them. We want thinking adults running this country, not knee-jerk extremists.

Aren't we forgetting another Conservative and federal leadership contender who crossed the floor to become Liberal premier of Quebec? Namely Jean Charest. Did he get the kind of reptilian namecalling from his former cronies that Belinda received? No, but if Harper wins his fight for an election without a plan for dealing with Quebec (which appears likely to give the BQ and perhaps even the PQ the reins of power) or even a chance of getting some of his party elected there, he's the crassest opportunist I've ever seen. To recall a famous Hollywood saying, Lie down with dogs and you'll wake up with fleas (Mae West).

I just want to reply to Te Aro Arahina, who said "... Belinda Stronach is NOT the issue. I couldn't care less about her. How Conservatives and the mainstream media react to women is. Not that I would stop them from showing their true colours at all, at all, at all. No sirree. You Conservatives just keep calling us by every name in the book every time you go on radio, just to remind us of what you're really about and who you really are behind all that sham concern for our rights and wellbeing."

The media may indeed be treating Belinda Stronach in sexist terms, but that is how she marketed herself politically, as an attractive, eligible woman from a fabulously wealthy background. As for her romance with McKay, that was fine publicity when it was on, and now it's even better publicity for her when it's over and she is the proud dumper not the sad dumpee.

What is more important here is how you carefully dodge in two directions at once. First you say that Stronach is not the issue, it's the general treatment of women by the media. Then you immedidately go back to talking about the Stronach case as if it were proof that women in general get this kind of coverage. (Which page are you on now?)

Tell me, do you seriously think that Carole James or Christy Clark has ever had to put up with this kind of tabloid treatment? Of course not, because they never ran their campaigns the way Paris Stronach did.

Go ahead, Budd. Keep showing those true colours. We want to see what Conservative thinkers do to rich, attractive women who exercise power, so we can make sure that Conservative thinkers are kept from power.

Oh, and just to belabour the point, Peter is no stranger to dumping others, himself.

Tornado, you have mis-read or ignored the content of my posts. I've very clearly expressed reservations about the Liberals and politicians in general. In fact, I had to retype my words to you re. the spin. I was going to call it Harper-esque until, of course, I realized my mistake in not including all politicians in that.

Our society as a whole (or, rather, a bunch of fragments) is severely degraded at this point in history. That, in my view, is a clear result of the total triumph of "me first" materialism. As the Onion recently pointed out, the "me" decade is now about 40 years old and those values are entrenched in each political camp regardless of any window dressing.

The slick Liberal wants his big ships at any cost and Bubba on the farm wants his big trucks at any cost. And we still measure the health of our economy by the health of the auto industry. Hmm. Would you like a side order of Kyoto fries with your Magna Auto parts?

And just look at Alberta's horrendous pact with the devil: oil and gas uber alles. Forget about advocating for lifestyle change and progressive policies, these people are drunk on money.

I do believe these people, Liberal AND Conservative represent their constituents. That's what's most terrifying. It signifies a total moral and ethical decline in the population at large.

Decline? Let's put that into some sort of historical perspective, shall we?

There are no bans posted on church walls in my community. Nor are there public gallows and pillories. Nor are the hospitals a euphemism for the workhouse. Nor are there stakes in the town centre for witch-burnings. Nor is beggaring a family handed-down tradition.
Bankruptcy laws still allow for debt alleviation in the face of personal catastrophe. Assaults are not considered justifiable punishments. Women and racial minorities are allowed to vote. Religious freedom is our law, including the right to be free from religion. Of course, this is a list and lists can be expanded and elaborated and exceptions made ...

But, overall, our society is much more ethical and moral than in the past thanks to the progressive citizens within it.

Average looking? Coyote- she's hot :)

Is there a fan club? A t-shirt? She rocks!!!!!! And the Conservative boys are revealing their true colours- and who they really are- 10 yr old boys.

Let me put it another way; as a case of massive potential and opportunity squandered. No matter how good we look compared to the dark ages, or life in Liberia, The Congo or Iraq (or parts of America), we have still failed and are sliding backwards because as the most prosperous and powerful and free society we continue to be governed by our true nature and not our best intentions. Walk into a classroom today and ask high school age kids about notions of "common good" and see if you get blank stares or not.

"It's all about moi" I'm afraid. Sure, we're civil. But for how long? The social democratic experiment is not assured of success. Nor is the idea of secular rule. And, to return to Shannon's point, sexism is the norm.

I'm with you overall, but the very term "progressive citizens" seems largely relegated to pockets of the pacific northwest! ;-)

Yeah, Skip, I know what you mean, although you would only have to go back to the 1950s to 80s in our country with regards to most of the progressive reforms I mentioned. Not everyone is stuck in some sort of self-centred materialistic experiment with social Darwinianism.

I despise that the only gratitude I experience towards the Liberals is keeping us out of Iraq, but the fact that they depend on the NDP --- well, that's another story. That's the only promise I see.

The Sexist issue is a red herring

She crossed the floor for political ambition and a chance to yield power. Corruption corrupts and Paul Martin dangled the jewels of power in front her and she fell for it. If she had class and morals she could have declared herself an independent. This way she would not taint herself and not piss off the people that voted for her and the Conservatives.
As for the name calling, it is not surprising that betrayal causes people to become angry.

As I have said before the Liberals are rift with corruption, the only way to clean up the party is to boot them out. Keeping the Liberals in power is voting in support of corruption and graft. Also the Bloc is the offspring of the Liberals, so don’t blame anyone else.

She is in for a bitter time, she will have few friends on either side of the house and no respect from anyone. I can only imagine the bitterness in Long time Liberals who have worked hard only to be passed up by someone who care nothing for them or their party. She is likely to be a one election wonder and will not be elected again.

As for off topic discussions here, I think Canada should have gone in with the US to remove Saddam, guess I have this thing about murderous dictators. At the very least we should not have tried to stab our ally in the back and could have refrained from commenting. By the way I was a soldier and even if it were me being sent there I would still think the same way. Tornado is correct, we could not have gone in even if we wanted to, our military has been gutted to where we can’t even keep a regiment in the field for any length of time. Our people (read our Fathers, moms, sons and daughters) has been facing death in Bosnia, Afghanistan and other places without proper support or equipment and where is the outcry?

Talking about off-topic ...

Whether Stronach has any lasting power isn't relevant. What the old boys called her is.

That's what this article is about.

From Te Aro Arahina we get:

"Go ahead, Budd. Keep showing those true colours. We want to see what Conservative thinkers do to rich, attractive women who exercise power, so we can make sure that Conservative thinkers are kept from power."

"Oh, and just to belabour the point, Peter is no stranger to dumping others, himself."

Someone is indeed showing their true Liberal Red colours Te Aro. The point I have been trying to make is that, just as it's fair ball for the media to give McKay the tabloid treatment for his various exploits, so is it fair ball for them to do it with Stronach.

I am glad to see you have finally admitted than in BS's case we are not talking about some hard-working Patty Smith goes to Washington type. We are talking about "rich, attractive women who exercise power". Now let's see if you can bring yourself to admit that the power she is so used to excercising comes not from her own hard work and talent, but is inherited from her billionaire Daddy.

I will just re-emphasize one more time the fact that women like Carole James and Christy Clark, or Joy MacPhail who was quite the dresser and a former model, and had more than one man in her life during her years in politics, never had to endure the kind of tabloidization that Stronach has for one, simple reason. Unlike Stronach, Joy was never trading politically on this stuff. That was a fact about her that sort of came up once in a while, but mostly it was her acerbic and incisive political mind.

You know, there's nothing more boring that listening to one of the self-righteous Conservatives from the religious right, the Chuck Strahls of this world. And there's nothing quite as funny as listening to a self-righteous Liberal like Anne McLellan, or better yet, Irwin Cotler, the Min of Liberal Govt Infallibility. He's really a joke.

The 1st basic point in the article suggests "(Belinda) is being taken to task for having the audacity to make a career decision"

It seems to me that this isn't just a career change of moving from one accounting firm to another but more along the lines of going from being a Priest to a Rabbi and I think it reflects highly on the integrity (or lack there of) of the person. Given the words and actions of the first couple years of her political life, how are we to trust her in this next stage of her "career".

Look, Budd, your remarks reveal more about who you are than they do about Stronach. That's the plain and simple fact. And Peter's problems are not that he was dumped, but that he's such an opportunistic hypocrit about it, boo-hooing for the cameras ankle-deep in the muck for his press conference at daddy's farm.

(You talk about tabloidization as if it's something someone who is rich, successful, attractive, and young, unlike Joy MacPhail, with all due respect, actually has to seek out to have happen to him or her.)

Here's the secret: You are allowed to be young, attractive, sexually powerful, rich and priveleged, white, connected AND exercise power without getting pilloried for it in the national press ... as long as you're male.

Is that funny enough for you?

Because I truly find the whole thing hilarious in a "watch-what-blew-up-in-their-bassackward-faces" kind of way.

Here's a Quebec fact. One of our houseguests, this week, is bilingual from Montreal so French is what he speaks and reads most easily.

He heard us talking in heated terms about something called "Belinda". He understood that one of us was FOR Belinda as a courageous, principled WOMAN ... one was willing to wait and see how Belinda's strategy plays out ... one was from the U.S.A. and didn't give a damn, and one (moi) thinks Ms B.S. is Stockwell Day with hair.

The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star were on the breakfast table. But our friend said, "I'll go to my laptop so I can read about this Belinda in French. It will be quicker for me that way."

Know what? He couldn't find a thing about her in French. Ha!

Regardless of her motive, what she did was good for the country at this time. We surely do NOT need an election (which would cost taxpayers almost $300 million).
And, if Harper and his Conservatives should happen to win a majority of seats, is Quebec ready to accept a PM from, and representing the west? I don't think so.
Besides, the Tories, or any other party linked up to the Bloc leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
Quebec has everything to gain and nothing to lose by bringing down the present government. Do we have to remind ourselves that the PQ is a party dedicated to separatism?

I can't help but notice that Peter MacKay isn't so crushed, heartbroken and devastated by this experience that he just couldn't make it to Ottawa for the vote ...

Sorry, Jack. I know what you're trying to say, but I think Quebec has more to lose than anyone else if they succeed in bringing down this government --- in the overall picture.

Well, I shouldn't waste time on this but for what it's worth I find it hard to believe that Te Aro Arahina is fooling anyone, herself included.

"Here's the secret: You are allowed to be young, attractive, sexually powerful, rich and priveleged, white, connected AND exercise power without getting pilloried for it in the national press ... as long as you're male."

False. And Te Aro knows it. Good looking but not so bright men who have millions from their inheritance are the butts of jokes as well.

"I can't help but notice that Peter MacKay isn't so crushed, heartbroken and devastated by this experience that he just couldn't make it to Ottawa for the vote ..."

I believe BS is there too.

Budd, can you provide an example of the "rich daddy's pretty boy" being made the butt of gender-specific (or not) jokes?

Just one will do.

Love the comment by BC Mary....

Belinda is Stockwell Day with hair....

Way to go Mary....!!!

... And the government stands!

Chuck Cadman went with his constituents' wishes.

"The dumb blonde" went from an opposition party in which she was told had no political future to a key cabinet post in a ruling government.

The NDP have considerable influence.

And we have some time to find out what will really emerge as the Gomery Inquiry digs.

I can sum it up in a movie for you... Its called Billy Maddison. Its chalk full of stereotypes and gender specific "rich boy" jokes.

Never heard of it.

Besides, we were looking for real examples ... in the Canadian press preferably...

Let this be a lesson to sexist Neanderthals everywhere!

for those of you how still have the belief that Gomery is going to solve everything and put the blame on those who deserve it, "And we have some time to find out what will really emerge as the Gomery Inquiry digs.", as Te Aro Arahina so quaintly put, listen to this. Claus K of the Gomery report's terms of referance goes as follows. "the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization..." This simply means that Gomery will not, because he cannot, put blame on any person, party, or company. What a waste of money.

Martin promised an election within 30 days of the Gomery Report's publication. It's entirely correct that a public inquiry shouldn't be a criminal investigation. That does not mean, however, that the RCMP are disavowed of their obligation to pursue the matter should criminal activities emerge. Besides, I think we have a right to hear the whole story and elect our officials accordingly. We still strive to keep mob-lynchings a product of the dark aged past.

That Mackay made the vote and wasn't so heartbroken to do so... Is that a serious point Te Aro?
Rupp has made a pretty strong commentary on how media treats ambitious and powerful ugly/average/attractive women. Overall I say it holds. But I find the sexist comments and commentary re: Belinda's Bounce really don't say much at all. It's kind of easy when someone's really pissed at a "buddy" for f***ing them over to say "Well.... YOU'RE UGLY!!" or "OH YEAH, WELL YER A DUMB RETARD" and that's what the Cons are essentially doing. I DO appreciate the arguments against this sexism or any schoolyard bullshit but look... Belinda's getting fried because she's a complete opportunist. She wouldn't go independent and she would never have taken the back bench. The words used to express the disgust of many of those who are disgusted are knee-jerk reactions. As Coyote said, men are insulted and curse and swear at each other on a steady basis. Obsessing over the sexism of this is a waste of time. Belinda's Big Bounce reeks of opportunism (so what if the bulk of politicians are same!! so it's all good in the game of politics?!!) So p*** on her but I'm sure glad she's done it!!!!

No, it wasn't a serious point, jtothemfk. I was just getting tired of the ad infinitum "Look at poor little Peter all forlorn and blubbery in the rain" crap, as though what he did to David Orchard didn't count as adishonest, opportunistic sell-out, and as though he was pilloried the same way Stronach was in the media.

I'm just heartily sick of the double-standard.

Wow. Did Tornado have to cite a fictional movie for an example?

Yup. That's exactly what he had to do.

And, after I checked the imdb, I found out it wasn't even a Canadian movie.

Skip Tracer wants to knos if there are any examples of a '"rich daddy's pretty boy" being made the butt of gender-specific (or not) jokes?

Just one will do.'

OKay, just one. Prince Charles. Satisfied?

Oh right! ... And exactly why was Prince Charles the butt of these gender-specific jokes? Could it have been because he and his family so publicly paraded around his official function as the Monarchy's ruling sperm-donor? I see the parallels so clearly ...

After all, if Belinda Stronach was selling her sexual favours, the words "prostitute" and "whore" would've been accurate ....

they were't calling HER a prostitute or a whore, they were calling what she did prostituting or whoreing. This is exactly what she did. She whored herself out for more power, and Paul Martin bought into it. It should be quite obvious by now that Paul Martin was trying to buy anyone's vote, it was caught on tape. Belinda sold herself to the Liberals, which is a nicer way of saying she whored herself out to the Liberals. I guess that would make Paul Martin a Pimp, Eh?

Nothing sexual about what she did. Period.

This is too much fun!

Fear my brains and my all-powerful vagina!

RRRRRRROOOOOOWWWWRRRRR!

3 entries found for whore.
whore Audio pronunciation of "whore" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whore
Check out #3. there you go. A whore doesn't have to deal with anything sexual.

Is that a Canadian dictionary, tornado?

Or is that one of those wiki-web-based version where every tom, dick and prick can go and edit the definitions to suit his or her purposes?

Because my dictionary makes no reference to that third definition there.

Oh, I've got it! It's the SEXIST dictionary. Let's you call everyone whose principles don't line up with yours a WHORE. How conveeeeniant!

Do they have a definition for sore-head? Because mine does: grumpy, irritated, aggrieved, touch, as in "a very sorehead about his defeat."

Now you're boring me.

Do they have a definition for sore-head? Because mine does: grumpy, irritated, aggrieved, touch, as in "a very sorehead about his defeat."

No fan of Tornado Te Aro but I think the Boring Crown goes to you

I would love to continue this battle of wit, but I never fight an unarmed person. Especially when they are proven wrong and act very immature, completly destroying all credibility.

Oh, I'm so crushed and heartbroken. Maybe I'll just waft myself away to my daddy's farm and call a press conference.

I won't even go there.

I guess it's a matter of individual taste. :-) Mind you, I always had a sign out that said, average women were allowed to park their slippers under my bed. :-)

Is it sexist to say that I think B is probably a spoiled rich kid who isn't very bright?

I hate to agree with Tornado about anything, especially since he only seems to be here to post links to some dimwitted Alberta conservative blog where he does the Stephen Harper pary line-dance, but the debate over whether "whore" has a non-sexual meaning reminds me something Lenny Bruce wrote to explain why he used the word hooker rather than prostitute: "The word "prostitute" doesn't mean anymore what the word "hooker" does. If a man were to send out for a $100 prostitute, a writer with a beard might show up."

That being said, it's pretty clear that the paleoconservatives, in legislatures and elsewhere, who are using the word chose it specifically because of its sexual connotation. Indeed, they seem to be burning up the thesaurus looks for synonyms, all of them sexual. Or perhaps Tornado's dictionary has a non-sexual definition for "harlot", a delightfully archaic term some wordsmiths on the right are flinging in Stronach's general direction.

Lynn as usual hits it right on. Harper's destiny is to become first American governor of the new state of "Canamerica".I'm glad you are still here.

I love CMD's little story about a reporter answering the advert for a $100 prostiute.Sort of reminded me of Will McMartin (Sun 05/18).

By the bye does anybody remember Senator Hazen Argue. Lost the leadership of the Fed.ND's to "Tommy" and a year later joined the Libs.
The guy was my Assiniboia Constiuency (Sask.)MP. I taught his kid, a pudgy kid like his old man, but I think he and his sister turned out really well.

Anarcho,thanks for the excellent point to consider re fundamentalism.Right on.

Hey Budd, I hate to spoil your brief crowing session with some facts but a) HRH the Fresh Prince of Wails isn't pretty and b) its his mummy that's rich.

Next.

Great story, Shannon. The casual reference to "Belinda" is belittling, but often necessary because of the equal fame of her father, who generally pops up in most stories about Belinda Stronach. Same goes for "Hillary,' whose husband continues to enjoy prominence as an author, philanthropist, backroom fixer, etc. This drives headline writers crazy, of course. "Clinton Unveils Darfur Relief Effort" - which one, the New York senator or the ex-president who just launched a developing world foundation?
It's a valid point, though, and was certainly evident in the casual references to "Carly," a.k.a. Carleton Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. Mind you, she seemed to encourage the one-name moniker, seeking informality.

5 entries found for prostitute.
pros·ti·tute Audio pronunciation of "prostitute" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prst-tt, -tyt)
n.

1. One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
2. One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.

tr.v. pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing, pros·ti·tutes

1. To offer (oneself or another) for sexual hire.
2. To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.

Couldn't have put it better myself. source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prostitute

Obviously there are some here who have a hard time grasping the english language. To put the word "whoring" into a sentance such as "she whored herself out to power" or "Paul Martin whored himself out to the NDP," is a correct statement. It has no sexual meaning, but gets a point across. Insert "prostituted" into those phrases, and you get the same meaning. There was NO SEXUAL MEANING in either of the statements, just some socialist reporter blowing the statements out of proportion.

Oh and as for the "harlot" comment...

harlot

1. A churl; a common man; a person, male or female, of low birth. "He was a gentle harlot and a kind." (Chaucer)

2. A person given to low conduct; a rogue; a cheat; a rascal.

3. A woman who prostitutes her body for hire; a prostitute; a common woman; a strumpet.

Origin: OE.harlot, herlot, a vagabond, OF. Harlot, herlot, arlot; cf. Pr. Arlot, Sp. Arlote, It. Arlotto; of uncertain origin.

Source: Websters Dictionary

(01 Mar 1998)
Source: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=harlot&action=Search+OMD
Thats just for you, cmd.

And to Skip Tracer's Comments:
"Prince Charles was placed second to the Queen in assets, with an estimated £346m mainly tied up in the Duchy of Cornwall estates, which include a slice of south London."
Granted, he is not the pretty one, but I know of lots of women who consider his boys to be, so lets just use prince Harry.
"The Queen Mother was said to be worth £53.5m, Prince Philip £28m and Prince William £22m, inherited from his mother's estate. His younger brother, Prince Harry, was said to be worth £25m because he had been slightly better provided for because he would not inherit the Duchy of Cornwall."
Don't you people "google" anything before you ignorantly blurt it out?

The only "point" you've made is that Chuck is rich. I was merely pointing out (following-up to someone else's comments) that it was his mummy who is rich and that he's not a pretty boy so he's really not a good example. All you've done is wasted time Googling to help me out on that front. So thanks for that.

Please now tell us all about how wee Bill and Hank are subject to treatment similar to that faced by women. And, no, you may not cite a fictional U.S. film as an example.

Never mind "Tornado". Why not change your login to "Gust of Wind"?

Tornado,
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Alas, this is not one of those times. The fact that there's an alternate definition of whore (and prostitute and harlot) speaks to the thoroughness of lexicographers. It doesn't excuse your co-religionists on the loony right, who clearly chose their words in an attempt to suggest an element of sexual impropriety in what was, by any measure, a political decision.
If you honestly believe that there was NO SEXUAL MEANING (your bold, your caps) in what was said, you no doubt also believe that the organ between your legs exists primarily for the purposes of the evacuation of urine. And that calling someone a name derived from that organ means only that they are full of piss (and, one presumes, vinegar).

I think Belinda finally realized how unbankable Harper is with Canadian voters.... (even when he's smiling, he doesn't look happy) and she let her ambition override any political beliefs she MAY have had.
Do I think she can lead? No.
Do I think she will politically fall flat on her ass? Yes.

Although I think the subject's been discussed to death....
I recommended this website to a friend - who hasn't got around to viewing it - however, who wrote this to me a short while ago.... which may bear repeating....

"Didn't have the time to check that website in any detail but it sort of sounds like a bunch of disgruntled leftists who think their views automatically constitute the truth. However, it may prove interesting on occasion. As far as I'm concerned Belinda could have expressed her views within the confines of her own party, without betraying what she supposedly stood for. That would have shown strength of character! Going over to the Liberals was the easy way out....and attributing all these idealistic motives to her are bullshit. She knew she was not going to get anywhere in the Conservative Party (though why the rush to the top...?..she is a newly elected MP after all and there is such a thing as earning your stripes), so this gave her an opportunity to further her own ambitions and jump ship while appearing to "save the country" all those $$$ . She may have prevented a dubiously necessary election but SHE IS STILL A TURNCOAT. As one commentator said yesterday...how much opposition to her views would she have gotten in Daddy's company...?...so she doesn't know how to handle the non-asskissers."

Liberal Party Promoters Te Aro Arahina and Skip Tracer have certainly been absolutely determined to prevail here, insisting that Billionaire Blonde Bombshell Businessowman Belinda Stronach (belinda.ca) shall be seen, by one and all, as a victim of crude Tory and Tory media taunting. How neanderthal, how sexist, how typically Myron Thompsonish, how totally Albertanish, how un-cafe-latteish, how gauche, how intolerably unfashionalbe and unchic, etc., etc.

In other words, Te Aro and Skip are deeply concerned about the important things in Canadian politics, which are the political fashion statement needs of the urban stupid (not to mention insincere).

Skip is upset that Prince Charles doesn't qualify as a rich man who gets ridiculed because (1) it's his mother's money, not his dad's - a debating point which says a helluva lot about Skip's real view of equality - and (2) he isn't good looking. Well, maybe he isn't good looking. But Te Aro doesn't help Skip's argument too much when she describes Charles as the Royal sperm donor. It looks like David Herle will have to put the cubicles a bit closer together in the Liberal war-room so that Skip and Te Aro don't contradict each other.

An interesting piece of information appeared in The Hill Times for Monday, May 16th, on page 2, where "Heard on the Hill" by Sean Durkan reports on the goings on at the D'arcy Magee pub in Ottawa the week before. On the nite of the last big vote (I think this was the previous Tues, which would make it May 10) Liberals gathered at the pub. Also there were Belinda Stronach and Peter MacKay, she mingling cheerily among the mostly Grit crowd, he sticking to a corner. However, when Scott Brison entered the bar, MacKay and Stronach quickly left together. So, contrary to what author Shannon Rupp reports, as of the previous Tuesday, MacKay and Stronach were still very much together, and Stronach was of one mind with MacKay in avoiding even innocent social contact with any ex-Tory like Brison who had switched sides to the Grits.

That was just one week before she joined the Martin Cabinet as Min of HRSDC, the largest spending department in the entire federal government, and one which does a fair bit of work in helping out certain industries with their HR needs, ... like how about the auto and auto parts industries, just to name a completely arbitrary example.

If Rupp had checked The Hill Times, she would have known about this when she wrote the article above.

In any case, thanks to Chuck Cadman and Carolyn Parrish, we have been saved a summer election, and there will, thanks to Jack Layton and the NDP, be some additional social spending over the next two years. While I don't find it hard to especially listen to MacKay muttering about how hurt he feels, I do mind very much listening to him, and other Tories, prattle on about how irresponsible this additional expenditure is. What is irresponsible is reducing national revenues below the point where the state can perform its functions, whether in the social spending sphere, or in other areas better liked by conservatives, such as law enforcment, highways, and defence.

Loved CMD post about the $100 Prostitute, you win a prize for that one!

In regards to the use of the terms Whore & politician. A quick google search will turn 173,000 hits. A quick review of the heading should the term “Whore” being used quite a bit in regards to male politicians. In fact I will argue that the two terms where quite well linked long before women became part of the political scene.

Mind you I have met female prostitutes who have displayed more morals and principles than Belinda, so perhaps the apology should be offered to them?

Another guy who took my lighthearted challenge over Chuck being used as an example of a pretty boy with daddy's money way too seriously. As for "Liberal Party supporter"? Well, then you really can't read.

Oh wow, this thread is moving fast... Te Aro, I've been loving your posts. (You subscribe to 'Bitch' right?? That's a compliment, by the way, it's a great feminist mag). The whole issue of Belinda "whoring" herself out, and the meaning of it in this context, is kind of irrelevant since no one really knows what is going on deep in the either Liberal or Conservative party anyway, and unless we've been sitting inside her head and her life we don't know how smart she is, what her motives are, what she is capable of (time will tell). It's the assumptions that are indicative of something that cannot be denied- as Te Aro said in an earlier post- a good-looking, extremely rich, privileged, powerful WOMAN has got to be, for some, a very, very scary thing. She's got it all (and she's single). She's got it all and she did, perhaps, very little to get it, and I say good for her. She hasn't negatively impacted any lives yet, dropped bombs on innocent children, stolen people's livelihoods and so I say go for it, Belinda, let's see what you do with it and let us judge your motives later on down the road.

Keep it coming Te Aro, and Budd... what a great discussion!

I guess El Gordo gets tossed around a bit- but I'd say he sort of piled it on himself, and my mum thinks he is quite good-looking...

Oh, Budd, you just keep hammering on the irrelevancies. The point has never been what Belinda is or isn't. The point is that, in calling her those names, the Conservatives revealed themselves as backwards. And no, not one single Canadian paper has described any male counterparts as whores or prostitutes within the last quarter century as far I recollect. So stop acting like a jackass.

Belinda is clearly smarter than anyone wants to give her credit for. Will she fall on her ass?

Here are some simple facts:

She expressed that the budgets Martin proposed were good for her constituents and the nonconfidence motion was troubling her. What does Harper do? Instead of asking her what his party could do to make her constituents happy, he bawls her out for mentioning this publicly and tells her, in no uncertain terms, she will have no future in his party.

It looks the person who fell on his ass is Harper.

Now Belinda has a nice plummy cabinet post in a ruling party. Her constituents have the tax support she was angling for. The Bloc is still isolated. The NDP can keep working to alleviate the pressure on our social support systems. Furthermore, if she keeps playing her cards right, and serves her constituents by giving them what they want, she could very easily end up as the parliamentarian who saved Canada.

Smart lady!

Cheers, Fi. Never heard of "Bitch" but will look for it next time I'm at my bookstore.

Fi and Te Aro, I love ya, but I agree with the point Budd Campbell is making here.

My problem with this article (and I have enjoyed many of Shannon Rupp's articles) is more about the journalism, the bending of the truth to make a point. The juvenile comments by the Harperites are revealing in themselves, but hey it's certainly not going to help them capture the women's vote, so let them sink themselves.

Still... the facts are important. "Whoring out" is about the deed not the person. The fact is no one called her a whore or a slut. As I've said before many "dipsticks" are as dumb as a fox. The fact is no one called her stupid. And if you can't defend yourself against being called a dipstick, you better get out of the political kitchen, the heat's going to get way hotter than that.

And Peter Mackay, and I'm the last one to defend him, ( as allan alludes to above there is a certain poetic justice about it all) did not call her a heartless manipulative slut, but the article above implies that. I saw the news clip,and he wished her well... and Stronach who you are portraying as a victim, not only didn seem one bit affected by the break-up but more like the cat that just ate the conservative canary. Reverse the roles as budd says and imagine a man treating a woman this way and then honestly say you have no problem with it.

And it is interesting that Percy alone protested the use of the word "slumming" in the article which has real working class derogatory connotations. When I was going to university I once ditched a guy before we even got out the door for saying "let's go slumming in the east end".

This is more about the nasty world of politics than sexism. For examples of rich, white men that you ask for.... How about the Kennedy and Rockefeller men? John F Kennedy Jr.? Handsome, rich, white...had to deal with all the innuendo and a lot of it very sexist. How many times was he on the front page of People magazine in his swimming trunks?

Hey, I'm glad Harper fell on his ass, better than it happening to this country. But, don't fool yourself, this had a lot more to do with the back room machinations of a desperate Liberal party trying to survive than Belinda Stronach as hero. The Liberals saw someone who was as greedily opportunistic as them, who was used to getting what she wanted and fast...just like them. They group hugged, and this motley crew of spoiled brats made the deal. None of them admirable in my books but ironically, a good deal for Canada itself, in the end. Finally we benefit from this band of thieves...and Stronach is now one of them.

The real heroes here are Jack Layton who cleverly used a minority government in the best possible way... and Chuck Cadman who is a rare one in that he at least knows why he wants to be a politician.

Sorry for, as "sirj" would say, my blathering on...

I was just blown away yesterday by Stephen Harper's choice of ties.

I thought the man had crawled out of a dumpster or something when he opened his suit jacket and allowed that long skinny thing to dangle down way below his belt.

Can you spell T.A.C.K.Y.?

And don't even get me started on that Alberta haircut which was probably thrown in when he bought that discount warehouse suit.

But hey, old Steph' sure looks cute when he loses and it should be noted he has proven why he is leader rather than that whining Peter MacKay guy who blew his nose so many times in the past few days that everyone now realizes it is of Pinnochion dimensions.

No wonder the chicken crossed the road.

Er, ... excuse me Te Aro Arahina, but who the Hell is calling who a jackass?

First you tell us the Stronach is not the issue, it's the media, and then immediatley after that you say:

"Belinda is clearly smarter than anyone wants to give her credit for. ... Here are some simple facts: She expressed that the budgets Martin proposed ... Now Belinda has a nice plummy cabinet post in a ruling party. ... she could very easily end up as the parliamentarian who saved Canada. Smart lady!"

So is Belinda Stronach the issue for you or not? And I notice that you chose not to respond to the material from The Hill Times.

Let's put it this way, Budd. If it was Peter and not Stronach who crossed the floor, and all this country's national papers and a few blowhards on a bulletin board were huffing and puffing about his morals and ethics, I would be just as happy to mop up the floor with them. Of course, the invective directed at him wouldn't be gender-specific -- since males in this country are exempt from being called such things in our national press -- so that part of the argument wouldn't be necessary.

The Conservatives made some big mistakes. HUGE mistakes, and they are being properly spanked for them. Let's go through the list again:

They joined with the Bloc to force a nonconfidence motion and propel our country into an unwanted election.

They tried to push through this election before the Gomery Inquiry came to conclusion.

They tried to squash a much-wanted budget amendment which everyone except a few corporate slavers wanted.

They tried to squash one of the few progressives in their party who spoke up that this budget amendment was what her constituents wanted.

Then they told her that she had no future in that party.

Then when she left, they went through a whole hypocritical, sexist sturm-und-drang about broken promises, apostasy, her sexuality, her brains, her integrity, her worthiness, yadda-yadda-yadda ... blowing their carefully cultivated masquerade as progressives.

They blew it! And it's Schadenfreude time.

And no, I don't care what some gossip columnist says about the comings and goings at cocktail parties --- without any proof to offer whatsoever that snubbing was, in fact, what was happening. I don't read the National Enquirer either (although I'm told it's usually more accurate than the National Post.)

Examples: Jack Horner. Male Conservative politico, crossed floor of house to Liberals. Became a Minister. Dumb as dirt. No sexual innuendos.

Example: Bronfman junior. No education to speak of. inherited it all from Dad and Grandad. Has managed to blow just about all of it on boneheaded business deals. No sexual innuendos.

'nuff said.

PS. I couldn't agree more with her rejection of Harper's constant grandstanding and chasing after power at all costs. First time in nie on twenty years that I have thought well of a conservative. Last PC I respected: Flora

I find it sad that there's no wit left in our society, and mouthbreathers resort to crude epithets that would embarrass the raunchiest of current rap stars, and would get any of our sorry butts fired out the door if we used them in the workplace. It was a breath of fresh air to read Shannon's piece; she savaged her targets with aplomb, and plenty of knee-slapping and memorable lines. Are there no wits in the political world? No wonder so many people can't be bothered to vote.

ripponfalls, I liked Flora too. Now she was progressive.

Te Aro A', your list sums it up pretty good and thankfully does note that Harper appears to have been the guy who put Stranich on notice her views weren't welcome.

The rest to me, is just what should have been the reaction.

You realize you are with the wrong gang, they do too, so how could anyone but a hyprocrite dump on her for doing what the all wanted anyway. She left.

Yes, she also dumped poor Pete M., but then he has made is perfectly clear, in his little side deal with David Orchard, he operates by the rule that anything is fair in love and in war, so other than being really pissed that she went to the Liberals, what's the issue here?

Lynn, I love ya too. I'm just tickled pink that Jack Layton is the real winner here. I don't like the "slumming" epithet either. And even the names don't trouble me that much. Sticks and stones...

With that, I agree.

I just see that there is a double-standard in the specific language used, and the political sources of it are all a bunch of hypocritics, and it reveals their true colours --- which are a deeper shade of brown than blue. ;-)

Cheers, allan.

Having commented on Ms. Rupp's article a couple of days ago, it's time to comment on the situation.

The most interesting comment was from John McCombe on CKNW when he said that Ottawa is quickly replacing BC as the centre of wacko Canadian politics. BC used to be considered to be the California of Cdn. politics. All parties in Ottawa are hell bent on claiming that title for themselves.

Heard lots of negative comments in this thread about the Conservatives joining forces with the Bloc on this vote. What's worse: joining forces with Separatists for a vote on a specific motion; or condoning the actions of the most corrupt government in Canadian history? A famous American political columnist once said "In politics, the right thing often gets done for the wrong reasons". Both Tories and the Bloc had their own reasons for working together on this. Every time I hear testimony from Gomery I am less inclined to criticize them. The Libs give new meaning to the word "Corruption"

Meanwhile, I continue rejecting Shannon Rupp's suggestions that sexism plays a role in the debate on Belinda. She is a public figure. As recent events have shown, her actions were pivotal at a key moment in Canadian history. For this reason, they deserve close scutiny. I'm sure that her constituents will want assurances that her defection was based on conviction; and not on opportunism or the offer of a cabinet seat. They will have to judge; not the writers in this thread.

I wish Chuck Cadman had voted against the government. However, it is hard to argue against a man who says he was listening to his constituents, especially when their wishes were canvassed in two separate polls. He has been a respected member since he first entered public life; and his actions as an independent MP reflect well on him and on the institution in which he serves.

While Jack Layton may have supported the government for policy reasons, he faces potential pitfalls if he is not very careful. Simply flash back to the 1972 to 1974 period when Pierre Trudeau's minority government was kept in office by David Lewis (the father of the phrase: "Corporate Welfare Bums") and the NDP. When Trudeau finally called an election in 1974, the public forgot Trudeau's sins and gave him a majority while almost wiping out the NDP. Trying to make this Parliament work may carry some serious risks.

Martin and Harper don't look very good at all right now. First, people legitimaely ask if Belinda Stronach's sudden promotion to a senior cabinet post was based on merit; or the need to lock up a critical vote? Second, I haven't heard many strong denials that other Conservative MP's were approached with cushy offers. This just reinforces the stuff coming out at the Gomery inquiry.

Mr. Harper has his own problems. First, Belinda Stronach spoke for the "Progressive" elements of the Party. What does her departure say about the future role of these people within the party? Second, he sounded like he was having a temper tantrum on Thurs. night. And I wanted him to win the vote!

I think statements that he bet it all are over the top. However, his credibility did take a bit of a hit.

I personally don't see what is gained by delaying an election. It has become clear that these people aren't going to accomplish much if we allow them to continue. Niether Martin nor Harper can claim much of a mandate at this point. Even if an immediate election results in another minority gov't, the lesson might force more cooperation than we have seen so far.

"The most corrupt govt. in Canadian history"? What makes the current gang significantly worse than the Mulroney gang?

I'm no fan of the Chretien Liberals or of Paul Martin either, but I don't want the Conservatives and the Liberals to cooperate. Ever. The only thing I can remember feeling happy about when the Conservatives were in power was the Japanese-Canadian Internment and Property Expropriation Redress, and that only came about because the Liberal appointed judges of the Supreme Court told them to pay up.

Conservatives should be kept from any power or say in policy matters. They're too backwards and the things they want Canadians to return to are from circumstances in history that no longer exist -- a post WWII Neville Shute fantasy about the outback. If Conservative values are implemented, we will see:

- the continued wholesale destruction and degradation of our environment

- the continued treatment of corporations to all rights but no responsibilities aside from dividends to their shareholders (the American model)

- the continued concentrated ownership over resources necessary to sustain life (clean water, clean air, energy) in the hands of private-for-profit corporations,

- the clawback of secularism and pluralism,

- the the end of universal medical care and public education,

- the end of women's autonomy over our bodies,

- exploitive trade agreements and ...

Once again, this list can go on and on descending into some ugly 1950s era abomination of so-called civilization. Since the Stanfield-Clark conservative era ended, its successors and reinventions only pretend to be socially progressive to get into power.

How do I know this? Because every time they come near power, these issues pop back up like that weed they call Parasitic Daughter. If these issues were fittingly consigned to that wretched past which no one except the dogma-driven fundamentalists and corporate slaver-exploiter types want to return to, they just wouldn't come up. Not even as talking points. Not even as sexist remarks to the media. It's just who Conservatives are.

So ... better a Martin-Layton coalition, than a Martin-Harper anything except opposition.

Keep those hillbillies out!

One thing I haven't seen in the media is the reaction of Belinda Stronach's constituency association or constituents. Having just volunteered for my candidate in the provincial election I know how hard every one works to get their choice elected, long hours, no pay. When someone crosses the floor, usually they have the decency to consult with their supporters and give a rationale. I've seen no evidence that Stronach did that (correct me if I'm wrong). I hope she's in for a big surprise when she seeks the Liberal nomination in her riding in a few months.

te; that just might be the biggest pile of garbage ever to be printed on this entire site. you go girl!

Te Aro
in regards to what you said we would see if 'conservative' values are implemented,

one question on that

if your mom had aborted you, wouldn't that have meant an end to so-called autonomy over your own body?

look forward to hear your thoughts on the matter

Cee- Uh, I think that would mean she never would have existed to begin with, in which case, there never would have been a "body" for Te Aro's soul- at that point in time, so your question is irrelevant.

Oh, and Cee- because it may be a heads-up for Te Aro when she does answer your question, are you a female or male?

It's a chimera, Fi. Not really worth a pause.

Belinda Stronach claims her constituents backed Martin's budget amendments, dolphin. That's what led to Harper's pratfall.

Fii
thanks for your comment
would be interested to know where you found information on when a person becomes a person. Is there an appointed time that the body becomes a body and the soul is inserted? I suppose to elevate all the troublesome guesswork one could safety assume that the time of conception is when it all comes together. This way one would be relieved of the burden of trying to play God.

I suppose my point is if we interfere in the growth of the "something" that eliminates the possible emergence of the "someone". We have then in fact eliminated that 'someones' ability to have autonomy over his or her own body. Correct me if I am wrong, but I must have missed the day when the privilege of choice was given to some but not others.

So in effect Te, the reason I posed this question is to get you to think of the possible ramifications of this value you seem to hold dear, that it in fact infringes dramatically on the value of others. Your answer, or should I say lack of one suggests you are unprepared or unwilling to face this thought and you use name-calling and misdirection to cover your insecurity. Thats ok, we all do this at times when cornered, but I think it is time to stop running.

interesting, I've never been called a chimera before, oh well, I guess there is a first time for everything

The argument's a chimera, c. Post it in the abortion thread.

First of all Shannon, great article. Secondly there are so long winded folks on this post! It took forever to get to the bottom to post a response. My comment is this, my husband who is arabic says there is an old saying:

"My enemies, enemy is my friend."

I think both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are following this adage of late.

Well, you brought the subject up Te
And you only keep telling yourself that this argument is a chimera because deep down you are afraid to find out that it might be real.

I know you bemoan the fact that these values keep resurfacing, but they will keep doing so because they have not been refuted.
These questions will keep haunting you until you begin an honest search for the answers.
I know you have made a choice, but its not too late to change your mind. There is hope for all of us.

No, I didn't bring up that subject, c. Nor am I afraid. Nor am I moaning. Nor am I haunted. Nor am I dishonest about my search. Nor have you any insight about what's going on deep down inside me. Nor am I insecure. Nor did I call you any names.

But continue with your own reactionary name-calling and unfounded accusations, since they reflect on conservatism, and prove the points I made earlier.

Te Aro Arahina keeps on insisting that Billionaire Blonde Bombshell Businessowman Belinda Stronach is not the issue.

"Let's put it this way, Budd. If it was Peter and not Stronach who crossed the floor, and all this country's national papers and a few blowhards on a bulletin board were huffing and puffing about his morals and ethics, I would be just as happy to mop up the floor with them. Of course, the invective directed at him wouldn't be gender-specific -- since males in this country are exempt from being called such things in our national press -- so that part of the argument wouldn't be necessary."

Yet plainly from the whole context of this thread and Te Aro's posts, personality cults and personality politics are the whole point. To the degree that gender is an element in personality cults of all types, especially pop culture, well, ... what else is new?

This entire episode fits neatly into a larger scheme, in which the philosophically indistinct Liberal and Conservative Parties are given an non-economic "issue" to struggle over, one that hopefully will have immense popular appeal. Te Aro is responding more or less on cue to the bait offered.

"Billionaire Blonde Bombshell Businessowman Belinda Stronach"

"if it was a male trust fund brat"

"in BS's case"

Hypocrit, Budd.

If you want to move away from personality-cult politics, then stop engaging in them, Budd. Keep your attacks directed on Stronach's interest in government bail-out industries and Kyoto accord exemptions for that industry. Leave off with the gender-specific "bombshell" names and focus on what you fear will manifest, and what you suggest to counter that. Address your comments to the Liberal-NDP caucus on that basis alone.

My point in addressing the gender-specific insults is that those were the automatic responses to Stronach's move, just a pile of speculation about her motives, and no proof. And there is still no example of any Canadian male politician that's undergone a similar gender-specific excoriation in our press. So I think that the article stands as valid.

The romantic elements involving McKay and Stronach, plus the obvious attraction that the rich have for pop culture followers everywhere guarantees that this story will have fairly widespread impact on conversational politics across the country. And that will still be going on when the election is called.

Viewed in this light the entire affair is to the advantage of both the Liberal and Conservative Parties, and at the expense of the NDP, since it takes attention away from their fundamental agreement on budgetary policy and instead focusses attention on personality or image politics.

true Te, I myself couldn't know all that is going on within you, "but out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks" and through that you have revealed a little.

you did make a statement that reflected your support of "women's autonomy over our bodies" which I have challenged. The challenge is and what I am trying to get you to see is that though you would gain autonomy for yourself, the one in the womb would lose it, which is an injustice.

So in not replying to the challenge you are saying that you have in fact accepted that your rights are to be upheld, even at the expense of others.

I think if you want to remain honest in your search you will have to either admit that, or prove my statement wrong. This argument is a chimera because you have left it that way.

I'm not trying to attack you as a person, I am only challenging your mind set, which we all need from time to time. If you are going to make such a statement on such an important life and death issue, its definitely worth a pause, abortion thread or not.

Fair enough, Budd, but again, the article wasn't about the failure of romance. It was a commentary, well-taken in my view, on the gender-specific target within Canadian press of only one person involved in that break-up. Public uproar has put an end to that, but it did uncover latent attitudes towards women that are very important for us to observe and to which we should direct attention with the example of what is currently happening in the US as our cautionary tale.

As for a fundamental agreement between Liberals and Conservatives on budgetary policy, I think attention towards these problems is going there in other Tyee columns such as the one about the Political Narrative. The issue of the Stronach-MacKay breakup will continue to make editorial in other papers who have vested interest in steering scrutiny away from backroom deals and negotiations.

So, take part in building that attention and developing that story. But don't simultaneously invalidate a human rights issue in the process. Gender discrimination is an important issue for me.

I said that conservative values include an end to the autonomy of women over their body, c. My comment solely addressed the issue of hidden agendas, but thank you for continuing to reveal them.

Speaking of deflections in our main press, Budd, did you catch today's editorial "Beware the ties that bind too much" in today's The Star?

http://tinyurl.com/cdac9

Hey Shannon - great story. Belinda Stronach did cite the Tories alliance with the Bloc as a fundamental reason for her departure from the party and I give her full marks for that.
The Conservative Party/Stephen Harper are the biggest sluts on the Hill. Go Belinda.

Cee- the abortion debate is extrememly complex and most probably none of us will ever know when exactly the soul enters the body and becomes an individual. At conception? At some point during the nine months? I certainly do not know. I DO know that until that umbilical cord is cut a baby is PART OF the woman whose womb it sits in, feeds from, is utterly dependent on. Until then it can't exist (physically anyway) from the mother. So does the soul enter in the birth canal? Possibly.

Women give birth. If I were to have a child, I would grow it in MY body. As such, I do believe a woman has a certain amount of control over that "life". If I'm going to get pregnant it is because I want to and plan to, and I would personally never consider having an abortion, but I am pro-choice because in an ideal world NOT ONE girl or woman would ever be prenant unless she wanted to be. If there is no autonomy in that respect, and no attempt to uphold such a vision, then why the sudden concern that autonomy be provided to an unborn child? This is a far from perfect world, and until every single mother and orphaned child is taken care of, and until you or I, Cee (if you're female) have walked in the shoes of a pregnant woman who, for whatever reason, has found herself in such a situation, our self-righteous pontificating is pretty useless, I'd say.

Hello Te Aro, I didn't get to read the Star piece because I am not signed up. Maybe I can take this opportunity to bring in some additional material from The Hill Times of May 16th, the day before Belinda Stronach's big announcement.

The article is on pages 1 and 34, titled "The man behind MP Stronach" by F. Abbas Rana, and the header intro reads "Belinda Stonach, who has big leadership aspirations, may be a rookie, but she carries the workload of a Cabinet minister, so says her high-profile adviser and seasoned political veteran Mark Entwistle".

The article begins with this paragraph:

"Billionaire auto-parts heiress and former Magna Interantional CEO Belinda Stronach may be a rookie MP, but due to her unique position as "a new generation politician and a woman, she creates a great deal of ineterest" which means she actually carries the workload of a Cabinet minister, so says Mark Entwistle, a former Foreign Affairs bureaucrat, diplomat and a former press secretary to former prime minister Brian Mulroney. In addition to John Weir, a former principal secretary to former Ontario premier Mike Harris, he is one of the two part-time but top political advisers to Ms. Stronach."

The article notes that Stronach is paying Entwistle and Weir out of her own pocket, not from her Parliamentary office budget. According to Entwistle, Stronach's visibility as a new generation female politician attracts 15 to 20 media interview requests and requests for guest appearances from 20 ridings at any given time.

Discussing a recent Globe and Mail interview that many Tories thought was critical of the party's strategy, Entwistle says in the closing paragraph:

"Politics is kind of a push, shove game in a way. Everybody's goind to readct. When she made those comments to The Globe and Mail, seh was really conveying teh preoccuaptions of her cdonstituents. She wasn't making this up, it was intended to be very constructive, as part fo the overall landscape. She's very supportive of Stephen [Harper] in what he's doing. She believes the budget is flawed, she's appalled by the politics of the government, the way they manipulate the budget process."

So, up to one day before the big move, Stronach was officially very supportive of Stephen Harper and appalled by the Liberal Govt. I wonder if Entwistle and Weir, both Tories, are still personal advisers to Stronach?

Fii - I would agree with you, no one knows (or will ever know) when the soul enters the body. Therefore a discussion of such, while interesting, has no bearing on this issue. To make a decision one needs fixed points. Trying to use an unanswerable question as a fixed point is like using a cloud as a landmark when trying to find your way, you could end up anywhere.

So its best to stick with what we do know. At risk of belaboring my point I will go into what I was speaking of before a little further. If we end a persons life anywhere on their time line, we take away there chance for a future. If a persons life is ended at 3 years, they will not have there 12th birthday, the will not graduate at 18, continue on to have a job, education or relationship, their future is gone, permanently. This may seem all to obvious, but my point is that this carries right into the beginning stages. If we end a persons life at birth, partial birth, 16 weeks, 12 weeks, at the stage of a single cell, we take away that persons chance to come into this world, becomes three years old, enjoy their family on their 12th birthday, graduate at 18 and continue on with a life of their own. At what point you interrupt the time line of someones life doesn't matter, whether inside the womb or outside, the result is the same, they no longer have a choice in their future, it has been made for them, and it is permanent.

Who of us are in any position to make that kind of choice for someone else? You are exactly right that this is a far from perfect world, and circumstances can be extremely grievous at various points in our lives. It is true we can only imagine a fraction of what it would be like to walk in someone elses shoes. But if we see someone in an extremely difficult situation, it is our duty to give our lives to them in anyway we can, for both mother and child. It is no good to counsel her to have an abortion, it a decision she will have to live with the rest of her life, not us. Again I agree it is not a perfect world, but why decide to add to the imperfection? We may think a decision is good, and the right one in present circumstances, but we must not let the good become the enemy of the best.

A decision like this involves two lives, no one has proven otherwise. If there is the option that through our help both can live, then the choice of ending one life is no choice at all. If abortion is not a consideration for you, you should not be offering as a consideration for others.

Circumstances, emotions, world opinions, all change like the weather, its no good basing a life decision on things that are anchored to nothing. The facts have been laid out, and they are indisputable, they are an anchor, they are unchanging, base your decisions on those things.

Do the right thing, protect and love them both.

well Te, its been a interesting discussion, if we can call it that. Your not replying to the challenge has left me with no other answer except you are satisfied in upholding a double standard. I have assumed that, but you have left me no other choice.

I think the only thing hidden here is your own agenda… from yourself. This whole thread and the article points to a double standard in a segment of society which upholds fairness and equality for all, but uses words that would suggest their thinking is otherwise. (Althougth the article seems to resort to the same low level tactics that it accuses the others of using.)

And you have done the same, unloaded both barrels of judgment on those who have perpetrated this but in the process have uncovered that you are harbouring hypocrisy yourself (equality for all, choice only for some). Quickly pointing out the faults of others, but when something is pointed out in your own mindset that needs addressing, you refuse to even look in the mirror.

So really you are no different than the ones you despise so much. I guess it is true that the things we find so repulsive in others are actually the very things that can be found within ourselves. You are not alone, we all suffer from this.

The Conservative Party does not want to publicly acknowledge that people such as yourself are its main constituency, because it knows that most Canadians find that repellant at election time. It's a pretty strong aspect of Canadian zeitgeist, whatever they may feel about issues as they affect them personally, when push comes to shove they will go with an individual's autonomy first and foremost because the alternative is worse. This is the prime reason why Ontario did not go Conservative last election, and why the polls are stacked against Harper this time.

So the political party keeps their fundamental base out of public domain, like the stereotype of the demented relative locked in the cupboard under the stairs, and they engage in these debates only out of public eye, and only when the thread has dropped off the main index -- like this one has. Then pundits like Gordon Gibson in the Winnipeg Freep wonder why-oh-why everyone thinks that Conservatives have a hidden agenda, like this isn't the perfect example.

So, I refuse to debate the issue with you. It's not the topic of this thread. Go troll somewhere else.

Hi everyone! I'm the new guy in this game. Please go to the National Post, Wednesday, May 25 "Editorials Letters". Read Barbara Kay's hard hitting "Editorial". I don't think anyone, man or woman, could have better captured this story. If this is not enough, go to Stephen Somerville's sincere "Letter" on the next page. If this is not enough to end this silly debate, nothing will.

First of all, Cee, it makes no sense to say if something is not a consideration for me it shouldn't be something I'm considering for others. Is that then, why it is so easy for (some) men to point fingers? Of course it isn't a consideration for them (how convenient), so you can get up on your high horse and preach? (Are you female or male??) Te Aro- I WISH I could just let it slide; I'm a sucker, I know.

I believe LIFE begins when the umbilical cord is cut. When the child leaves the womb. So your life timeline doesn't gel with mine. And the soul topic is very relevant. Perhaps the appointed bod(ies) for my soul were aborted several times before I nestled into my mother's womb. How do we know?? Perhaps souls get several chances anyway... There is no fixed point, as you said, and you can't state that and then pretend to know when the life timeline truly begins. For crying out loud, half the people walking among us at whatever age are fundamentally life-less anyway.

Whether you believe it is morally right or wrong is your opinion. Women have had abortions since the beginning of time and will continue to do so. Whether we allow safe abortions to take place or force women to have them under medieval conditions is another thing. In the latter case, we are doing what you so oppose- sometimes cutting that woman's life short. It's a catch-22, isn't it? The imperfections are endless.

No doubt Stronach burnt lots of bridges, or one rather hopes she did. Whatever the press lackeys might have been saying up to the last minute, the big mistake for the Conservatives was telling her she had no future with them. That doesn't leave a person with a whole lot of options.

But yes, I think it's important people keep their eyes focused on it. The next election is a major concern.

The Star article in question was about a pancontinental trade agreement that was being worked out while our attention was diverted by the nonconfidence motion and surrounding hooplah. It's well worth registering just to read that.

Sorry, Fi, under other circumstances ... maybe.

Sorry Fii, that you feel that I am sitting on my high horse preaching at you, that is not my intention. But in my passing by I noticed a crack in the foundation of your thinking and thought I should show you. If we only listen and talk to those that agree with us all the time, we deny ourselves the chance to grow and change.

I know you would like to know my gender identity and possibly my background, but those things are irrelevant to your decision on this issue. The issue is the facts I have presented, not the presenter. The facts are such that they remain unchanged despite the carrier. Making your decision based on my gender is discrimination and should have no bearing on this Human issue. So I choose to remain anonymous so you will remain focused on whats at stake and not use my gender as an excuse to explain your opinion. Speculation on the unknown in this case will only serve to distract from what is known, which as gathered, is enough to make a decision on.

You haven't actually shown how the soul topic is relevant and have provided no substantial evidence to prove your point. So instead of saying "I believe life begins…" you should say "I'll choose when life begins…" Here's why,
if an abortion takes place, the possibility of life is gone. I'll explain,

In following your line of thinking here is what will happen. There is a 6 week old "fetus" and for some unforeseen circumstance a decision is made to stop its growth right there. Now, had we left it to grow it would continue to develop until the time "it" would be ready to come out. Cut the umbilical cord and life begins. But wait a minute, what happened to that fetus that we aborted? it was well on its way to reaching the so-called life stage but its not here. Its not going to have a chance to even get to the life stage. Don't you see? even if we follow your unproven life beginning theory, abortion still takes the chance of that life to even begin, and therefore it is ending it.

In other words, Still under you theory, lets say that those first lifeless nine months eventually produces you. A living, breathing, happy human being. Had that 9 months of growth been stopped, you would not be here. Hypothetically, if you were able to go back in time to the year of your birth and saw you mother consulting about getting an abortion would you still be willing to say "Perhaps souls get several chances anyway"? "Perhaps"? would you bet your life on "Perhaps"? Is it possible you would ask her to stop? This gets personal I know, but sometimes that is the only way we can see the severity of our statements.

All the speculation in the world on when life begins is useless if you are in fact stopping the progression to it somewhere along the line.

You add to your argument by saying "Women have had abortions since the beginning of time and will continue to do so". I don't think you want to be allowing your judgment to be influenced by the familiar excuse of "everybody else is doing it". You have to make up your own mind.

And you have made a good start by engaging in this debate, you are not a sucker, and you don't have to worry about what Te or anybody else thinks, you have to weigh up honestly what has been placed before you and make an informed decision. Whatever you do, don't let it slide.

You might want to start by analyzing what you have already said, in particular
"For crying out loud, half the people walking among us at whatever age are fundamentally life-less anyway." You may have not intended it to sound this way but what I am hearing is that you have a lack of respect for human life in general, and until that is dealt with, no amount of facts I bring before you will make any difference. Can you hear what you are saying there?

So despite the thought that half the people are life-less, and everybody else is doing it and there is a 50% chance that the gender of this writer is male, the question is

Are you willing to decide on behalf of an innocent life, whether it be allowed to enter this world or not?

Te, you may be right that the Conservative Party may be wanting to keep out of the hard issues, not wanting to risk what the media might do with it. Are they watering down their platform for better saleability come election time? Always possible; unethical? worth thinking about. The Canadian zeitgeist is individual autonomy first? Could be. The fact that you state the "alternative" (which is looking out for the life of someone else) "is worse", is quite telling, both on you and Canadian society as a whole.

I did not realize I was apart of the "demented relative locked in the cupboard under the stairs" conspiracy, only let out at night to prowl dropped threads. Actually more to the truth is am recently back from the UK and was looking for information on Belinda Stronach because I haven't been keeping up with Canadian politics. And like ships passing in the night, there you were with a gash in the hull, water pouring in and a list to starboard. Thought I should mention it as I was passing by. I imagine you would like to say, "Mind your own boat!" Yes, that must be done, working on mending several holes at the moment. I am sure on life's journey that will be needed on a constant basis.

But as you have stated elsewhere, "These days, anyone with an internet hookup or wide-band radio can trawl through dozens of outlets, blogs and ezines, and sample any selection of fact and opinion they want. No one need ever open their minds to ponder an alternative point of view."

Just thought I would hold the door open to give you a chance to do so.

If I am hitting a nerve harshly, I'm sorry.

I am not willing to decide, on behalf of an innocent life, whether it be allowed to enter this world. I have never made that decision and never will. But I'm not talking about me. I also don't think anyone has the right to tell any woman she can't decide if she wants to halt the life she is bringing into the world. I still firmly believe it is her decision.

I respect human life as much as the next person- but look at your own way of life, Cee. There are 6 BILLION of us on the planet. Do you know how many are suffering and dying and in pain as we type? What are we doing to help them? How much respect is out there, really?

Perhaps whether you are female or male is not the point (I think you are a man). Your hypothetical situation is a bit much... but my answer is, if I could look back at the year of my birth and see my mum consulting on having an abortion, I would still say this: It was HER decision.

Hi again everyone. See National Post...Further to the excellent Comment by Barbara Kay and the sincere Letter from Stephen Somerville last May 25th, go to May 26 National Post and read Comment by Diane Francis. Wow! Do these three articles nail it. A one, two, three combination punch that puts this story out for the count. Let's move on to what dirt is surrounding Chuck Cadman (he looks and sounds innocent but watch for what might sneak in later) and the Dermant Grewal controversy! Bye for now.