Pot, May I Introduce The Kettle?

In the ongoing saga of Craig Chandler's nomination in Calgary Egmont, we find Craig in the news again. This time, claiming that the Premier's office was meddling in the nomination race in Egmont:

The e-mail to Chandler dated Oct. 22 reads: "Sorry about how things have turned out. I got an urgent call from the Premier's Office asking me to back Jonathan. What else could I do?"

Chandler said the e-mail proves Stelmach's office was trying to meddle with the outcome in Calgary-Egmont.

"You look at the words of Paul Jackson says there, 'What else could I do?' He could have kept his word. He was obviously under great duress."

Hmmm ... it's politics as normal as far as I can tell. I did wonder aloud about Jackson's seeming about-face prior to the nomination vote when Jackson wrote some surprisingly flattering columns about Jonathan Denis.

If any of us are supposed to be either surprised or mad about this, I fail to see why. Nominations are internal party business. Personally, I fail to see much difference between the Premier's office trying to garner support for Mr. Denis and Mr. Crutcher (and other members of the riding executive) being directly affiliated with Chandler's campaign - even when they supposedly had "stepped aside". It's called politics.

When I heard Mr. Denis' name being bandied about as a potential candidate, I wondered if his sudden appearance didn't have some connection to the "party establishment" who by then should have been starting to clue in that something was afoot in Calgary Egmont that could turn out to be a nasty little political liability.

I'm not at all sure that this revelation really means a great deal. From a matter of polling numbers, it's pretty clear that Chandler's campaign in Egmont was effective in garnering people willing to vote for him. Okay, so the Premier's office tried to influence the outcome - so did the riding executive.


When it comes down to it, Chandler's nomination was quashed for the very fundamental reason that the man comes with (to paraphrase Rick Bell) "more baggage than the lost baggage counter at Air Canada". Surely, few are surprised by Stelmach's actions, after all having Chandler running for the party would have handed the Liberals and the NDP enough ammunition to seriously damage the PCs as a whole.

The Calgary Herald editorial page yesterday:

Sometimes it's not just what is said, but how it's said. Chandler is notorious for offending just about everyone with his abrasive in-your-face style. It's no wonder that virtually every PC MLA was nervous about his nomination.
...
Chandler is entitled to his views. But a candidate with a record of support for someone deemed to have breached human rights laws, and who also ran afoul of the AHRC with his own intemperate remarks, is a liability to the party. His views are not the party's views, and Stelmach had no choice but to quash Chandler's candidacy.

Frankly, I can't say that I find this outburst by Chandler surprising at all. He's running about trying to frame it as the party not allowing a "social conervative" to run, but really if you think about it that's largely a crock. There are a good many "social conservative" MLAs in the legislature already - Ted Morton and Victor Doerksen to name two. But neither of those men have run afoul so consistently of Canada's human rights law.

This is all blame shifting on Chandler's part. He's trying to make himself out to be the "hero" of the story (don't we all want to be the hero of our own stories?), and he clearly has yet to take ownership of how his own actions in the past have contributed to the outcome.

Paul Jackson Drops Endorsement of Chandler?

I think the PC party brass have been busy arm-twisting Paul Jackson.

Jackson's latest column is singing the praises of Jonathan Denis - which is interesting because in the past Jackson has often spoken very favorably of Craig Chandler.

In a previous column about Denis, Jackson alludes to Chandler in a somewhat less flattering light:

Denis' competitors for the nomination are either old and worn-out political warhorses, off-the-wall rabble-rousers, or unknown and unproven candidates.

I'm pretty sure that Denis was "pushed forward" as an alternative to Chandler when party brass started to figure out the game that Chandler had afoot.

Notable, although perhaps unrelated, I notice that Chandler's personal website is down, as well as significant portions of his "Freedom Radio Network" site are surprisingly MIA.

Paul Jackson: Mulroney Had Principles

The attempts by conservatives in this country to canonize Brian Mulroney continue, with Paul Jackson's column trying to simultaneously take a dig a Bronconnier while putting Mulroney up on a pedestal.

Jackson's argument? Well, look at all the nasty things the Liberals did.

I'm sorry to say, but that's a pretty pathetic argument. You wish to talk about how the Liberals left the country in a sorry state financially when Mulroney came to power. Well, let's consider the fact that during Mulroney's tenure, Canada's debt - and deficit - increased steadily. His defenders will claim that he was 'setting the stage' for a future recovery - but in politics, what happens on your watch is what counts. Mulroney's attempts to tamper with the Constitution were disastrous - plagued by weak wording, and an utter lack of clarity on key topics.

On the matter of principles, or more correctly ethics, all I can say there is that Mulroney's own actions in attempting to "cover over" the Airbus Affair (which have gone as far as suing anybody who dares to reveal evidence in the matter makes one wonder just what he - and other players - are trying to hide. (Still - some 20 years later...)

His recent partisan sniping at a now deceased Prime Minister is disgraceful and cheap, suggesting that a man who has long ago retired from public life has never really left behind the partisan bitterness that often pervades parliamentary life.

Would I claim that he has "principles"? Yes, perhaps he does - whether those are admirable principles is something altogether different.

Blaming Philosophy For Virginia Tech

In the days following the Virginia Tech shooting, I've seen two lines of idiocy come out of wingnuttia. Frankly, blaming society - or broad swaths of philosophical thought - for one person's insanity is foolishness in the extreme.

The first, is that Cho's actions have something to do with atheism, which is nicely debunked here.

The second came spewing forth from Paul Jackson's witless mind today.

Jackson's rant basically claims that we are being "far too 'liberal'":

Because rampant liberalism simply demeans traditional values.

Just look at the evidence.

Movies hit our screens with non-stop violence and four-letter words spewing from them.

The pop music -- especially rap -- our teenagers listen to is also full of violence, four-letter words and is sexually explicit.

Pornography is rampant in the publications freely available at any newsstand or bookstore.

Teenage boys have no respect for teenage girls, and teenage girls no respect for themselves.

When some of us object to the demeaning standards evident in today's movies, music and publications, we are called prudes and are ridiculed.

Talk about pure argument by assertion. There isn't a shred of reality in Jackson's hand-wringing accusations. He complains about music, how kids dress today, pornography etc. Gee - I remember hearing the same worries expressed when I grew up about the pop culture of the day. Most people I know that are my age are not licentious, ill-disciplined people - but instead are earnest, hard working folk that grew well past the various things that Jackson worries so much about.

Our educational system is a shambles.

Teachers often dress like scruffy students, and churn out "graduates" who can hardly read, write or do simple arithmetic.

Oh wait, let's consider this for a moment. Who is it that has argued for cuts to public education? What stripe of government has consistently cut teacher's salaries and held back funding to maintain our schools? Oh right - Conservatives - especially in both Alberta and Ontario. In Alberta's recent budget, the funding for public schools isn't even increasing enough to keep up with inflation in the City of Calgary. This is a recipe for successful education how? While I respect and admire teachers, when the pay is 2/3 what I can make in other fields, it becomes pretty hard to attract people to the field.

Understanding the "plight" of criminals, rather than seeking punishment and retribution would cut down on crime, we were assured,

But no, the crime rates soar.

Oh bullfeathers, Paul. Overall, Canada's crime rates have been in decline for years. Recent outbursts of gang violence in Toronto or Calgary do not constitute a global change in crime rate - go learn some basic statistics.

Do the idiots in Toronto that have decided that whipping out a handgun at whim is a good idea deserve to have their asses kicked into jail for a long time? Absolutely. Of course, I've written about just how wonderfully Stephen Harper's government wants to protect our legal and judicial system - stacking it with ideologues instead of judges, introducing laws that violate the presumption of innocence, etc. Yeah - that gives me a lot of faith in the "conservative" idea of justice.

We are killing our babies with "near-birth" abortions in which the baby's head is crushed to get it out of the womb.

A "near birth" abortion is an abortion in which the baby would have been born alive -- if somewhat prematurely -- if its head hadn't been crushed and the womb injected with poison.

Oh brother - as if these extreme abortion cases are common. These are extremely rare, and generally only done when the baby is not viable, or the mother's own health is at risk. The notion of "near birth" is a term that the anti-abortion crowd dreamed up to describe a medical procedure. It is neither accurate, nor meaningful, but is rather part of the political dialogue. Feministe has a good article on the subject.

Jackson winds up his hyperventilating tirade as follows:

A liberal society, a society of licence, that's what.

In real words, a nihilistic society in which so many of us -- a majority of us, or a majority of those in politics, law and academia who set today's standards -- believe in nothing.

Is there any chance to save western civilization?

Not without strong leadership, but strong leadership is mocked.

Those with high leadership ideals are scorned and denigrated.

No Paul - what we have is a society that has grown beyond the narrow-mindedness of the 19th century that you are so in love with. You speak of people scorning those with "high leadership ideals", and yet I would argue that it is in fact "conservatives" like you that dish out scorn and sneering condescension at those who dare disagree with your ideology. Along with your cubicle-mate Micheal Coren, you have forgotten the idea that we live in an open society where disagreement is allowed.

That you get paid for spewing your nonsense is merely a disappointing comment on the price of a liberal society - we have to listen to your stupidity as well as actual reasoned thought.

[Update]:
It would appear that either Jackson's busy parroting Newt Gingrich or vice versa. In either case, the argument's still crap...although it does raise the spectre of Jackson engaging in a form of plagerism...
[/Update]