The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Uh, yeah, right.
So the word "heil" on the screen, as in "heil Hitler", was a typo on a CBC story about Stephen Harper. Yeah, right.
Posted by Ezra Levant on January 26, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Uh, yeah, right.:
Tracked on 2006-01-27 2:22:18 PM
Tracked on 2006-02-03 1:16:34 PM
The sooner we sell off that useless bunch of hacks the better. Make them go out in the real world and see if they could get away with that kind of crap.
Is it possible to have a politician charged with a hate crime for giving a speech full of lies and distortions designed to make the unwitted hate his political opponents?
Posted by: Lyle Bert | 2006-01-26 4:34:42 PM
Just like during the CBC's one-on-one interviews with the candidates, the backdrop/background colour was prominently Liberal red (or, was it "flag-red"?).
I would like to see my taxpayer dollars going to a different media outlet.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 2006-01-26 4:41:44 PM
I wonder why all the mistakes and "typos" seem to somehow vilify the right.
Coincidence - I think not.
Politically it will be difficult to do anything overt with the CBC so death by a thousand cuts will have to do for now, I suggest a Royal Commission with a 2 year mandate to investigate the "Future of Public Broadcasting" in Canada. As part of this, funds for CBC expansion, marketing etc (like the BS newspaper ads yesterday) would just somehow not be available.
Posted by: Artemis | 2006-01-26 4:58:58 PM
Richard: You mean, like, Swank? :)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | 2006-01-26 5:02:23 PM
Not hard to to do.....It does not require ant act of parliament to cut the budget and replace management.
I'm looking for a job!
How a bout VP of editorial and content standards.
I promise not to hire a bunch of flunkies to do my work and I'll fire anyone who violates the rules!
Posted by: PGP | 2006-01-26 5:12:21 PM
I guess I am just not paranoid enough, but I had to take a second or two to actually make out the "Hei|" that apparantly you guys saw right then an there.
What I find even funnier is the utter hate towards the CBC (fine, you don't like 'em, don't watch 'em) but the paranoia you guys show at times is just hillarious:
"the backdrop/background colour was prominently Liberal red (or, was it "flag-red"?)."
Ah yes, Canada's colours are white and red so they chose red because it probably makes for a better backdrop than white. But of course not here, because obviously the CBC is out to topple Harper.
BTW, as the CBC is now at the "mercy" of the Conservative Government, can we expect now state censorship ala fox news soon? Or will the CBC "Rebel" and work behind the scenes to scheme and get rid of Harper during the next election? What do your paranoid senses tell you?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-01-26 5:14:34 PM
I don't want to see my tax dollars go to any media outlet.
Posted by: underemployed buddha | 2006-01-26 5:16:01 PM
So wait...when some $15/hr graphics guy places 'heil' under Harpers name it's a conspiracy but when Bush (the President of the United States) ignores a document saying 'OSAMA BIN LADEN TO FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS' or when he's convieniently wrong about WDMs it's just a mistake???
Is Rick Mercer actually behind this blog?? Or Stephen Corbert??
You people can't be serious.
Posted by: Justin | 2006-01-26 5:19:35 PM
just like underemployed said, my tax dollars. If you like them, then please fund them. I just as soon not.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-26 5:23:22 PM
Snowrunner- The'hate' your sensing for CBC has to do with tax money. Nobody would be so passionate about them if they paid their own way. Or if they weren't tools for the liberal party. Or if they had a clue about journalism.
Turning them off isn't enough. They have to be turned out. CTV is aslo aggravating as are the nat'l papers,but at least they are private!
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-01-26 5:25:46 PM
What is up with you and George W? You'd don't have a crush on him do you?
Everyone of us in here can drag out left-wing hacks (Stalin, Castro, Martin) and point to issues relating to them.
The problem with your point is that you are excusing someone's actions because of someone elses. At least keep the argument within Canada. The CBC is a public (which means non-partisan) institution. What this indicates is a bias, which gives it the same status of the 'old' Russian controlled newspapers. Canada isn't a communist country (yet) and its institutions shouldn't act like it is.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-26 5:30:40 PM
let me get this straight. Having someone like the CBC that is publicly accountable is bad because.... They're public?
But private enterprises (although aggrevating as well) are okay because they are private????
Maybe I am to "open", but my thought is that having a public broadcaster (like a public education and healthcare system) is a good thing. That is if there is appropriate controlling at work. Private news outlets tend to have the problem that they only do what makes them money, someone who doesn't has the freedom to do things that may only indirectly benefit society as a whole. Personally, I wouldn't want to miss that.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-01-26 5:33:12 PM
I really don't see where the CBC is acting like it is a Government organ (and if it is, rechoice, the Conservatives won, so from now on you will only hear what Towarish Harper wants you to hear).
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-01-26 5:34:48 PM
Any state run broadcasting company is always going to face the task of trying to appear neutral. Can anyone truly say with a straight face Peter Mansbridge is neutral? The bureaucracy that is the CBC needs to end now. The government, hence tax dollars, do not need to be in the broadcast business, or be in control of the broadcast system, re the CRTC.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-26 5:40:20 PM
I can support a public broadcaster, but not one with a proven bias towards anyone.
One of these days I will sit down and try to research the topic, but there is a really long list of reporters/broadcasters who end up working for the liberal party. Now we are seeing them getting patronage appointments (GG's). The liberal party seems to be using the government to support its agenda, all at taxpayer expense.
News can be news, but with the public broadcaster we don't need a propaganda tool for the liberals.
Even on election night, during Stromboulopouslus (I know, I didn't even try to spell it) they didn't even try to find a person who thought that a Tory victory was a good idea. In a balanced light, there would have been 'people' who would have seen the outcome as a good thing. All that there was were people ready to man the boats and sail to Cuba.
We can't ignore the fact that almost 40% of those who voted supported the Tories. It wouldn't be hard to find one or two that could have 'balanced' the, "Oh my God, the Conservatives are winning" opinion.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-26 5:44:52 PM
"or when he's convieniently wrong about WDMs"
It seems he may NOT have been wrong about the Weapons of Dass Mestruction. Sit down, have a drink and looky:
"The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war.."
Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-01-26 5:47:02 PM
It can't be. Must be a republican plant. The Iraqi must be related to the Saudi royal family, who for some reason had the leverage to make George jump to their tune.
Boy, January is turning into quite the month.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-26 5:54:28 PM
No better time to check out where the left wing media sits, you watch how many of the MSM pickup on this story. I'm betting not many, or they will simply find a way to discredit him. Time will tell.
I saw him interviewed and of course was not surprised, anyone with any intellectual honesty knew he had them and had moved them.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-26 5:55:42 PM
What an atrocious entity the CBC is, and what an insult it is to Canadians to assume that we're so credulous as to believe the graphic was a mistake.
The word "heil" was really "their", we are told, but the "T" got cut off, and the "R" got cut off, and then a cursor that looks like an "L" was placed after the "I".
That won't do. We already know how to spell. This is about CBC journalism.
The producers/graphics workers who thought they could get away with this are sadly mistaken.
This incident will never be forgotten, it's a part of our Canadian history now. People will be talking about this joke-that-wasn't at family gatherings twenty years from now.
CBC needs to come clean immediately. Who did the graphic? Who was the producer? Who's getting fired? When?
Posted by: EBD | 2006-01-26 5:58:46 PM
For those still questioning Saddam's wmds, here's an article that may make you think again. It convern's one of Saddam's generals who reveals all!
Posted by: jacob honig | 2006-01-26 6:02:28 PM
Snowrunner- I don't think there are too many public agencies that we can truly call 'accountable' do you? Really?
But you're right, the conservatives may be able to assuage my cynicism by cleaning up the joint.
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-01-26 6:05:12 PM
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, The Prime Minister of Canada.
Hail to the Chief!
Harper's first post-election news conference a model in efficiency, brevity
OTTAWA (CP) - He hasn't even been sworn in yet, but in a 22-minute heartbeat Thursday, Stephen Harper placed his stamp on the country's highest elected office. >>>>
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-01-26 6:05:14 PM
Wow, that's really hot news.
>The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air > force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria
> before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in
> which the passenger seats were removed.
Wow... I wonder if he may have a motive to come forward with this now?
Oh, look, he just may:
> The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new
> book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the
> transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
All a marketing ploy?
Or if not, how come that the #2 in the Iraqi Airforce can pretty much hide that information for more than 2 years while he was most likely in the custody of the americans?
Either they really suck in interrogation or maybe he just needed a nice hook to hang his book on?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-01-26 6:30:08 PM
No. It is called sucking up. Mr. Harper did not allow a CP question today. >> andrewcoyne.com
CP: Nolo contendere
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-01-26 6:35:47 PM
"All a marketing ploy?
Or if not, how come that the #2 in the Iraqi Airforce can pretty much hide that information for more than 2 years while he was most likely in the custody of the americans?
Either they really suck in interrogation or maybe he just needed a nice hook to hang his book on?"
And so it starts, and the left wonders why they have no crediblity....
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-26 6:36:54 PM
I watched PMSH's first news conference.
10/10 on two very difficult issues re Hammas & a comment made by the U.S. Ambassador yesterday. Nothing scripted, was straight forward, matter of fact, without hesitation, and made the points very well. Way to go Stephen!!!
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 6:43:21 PM
"Private news outlets tend to have the problem that they only do what makes them money"
If people in the CBC are not motivated by money, then how come they take salaries which are so much higher than those paid in private media, plus benefits and pensions which are out of whack with the private sector, plus they have job security which no one in the private sector could ever dream of? Not to mention that their staffing levels are huge compared to private media, so that they can help lots and lots of their friends get salaries, benefits, pensions and job security far in excess of what workers receive in the private sector.
And if the people working for crown corporations are so uninterested in money, and so devoted to the public, then why don't they open up the books, so that they can prove to everyone how unselfish they are?
You see, this is the problem with people who claim that the government sector is all about philanthropy, and the private sector is all about greed - they're a bunch of liars. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt19a.htm
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-01-26 7:56:35 PM
When I saw the CBC piece I thought it said Harper Hell but found it hard to figure out how they came to that conclusion with what followed.
Posted by: truthsayer | 2006-01-26 8:19:00 PM
Listened to the CBC for the last few years, and it's bias is definitely partisan for the Liberal media machine.
Unfortunately, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation / Centre) is one of the few stations for rural Canada, for those who aren't hooked up to cable. The sorry stories that CBC reporters, Peter Mansbridge, Mercer and the rest have broadcast Liberal slanted propoganda for years.
And they aren't afraid to use Canadian tax dollars for soft-porn shows to the masses either.
We need to get them off the payroll. How about a public station where viewers / the people have a voice in programming, e.g. like PBS.
Posted by: TWestCGY | 2006-01-26 9:37:54 PM
Have you and your ilk forgotten that Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds and on Iranian troops? Verifiably? That he was on the verge of getting nukes until the Israelis bombed Osirak? Ever heard of the 'Big Gun' project he was working on, with generous help from some Canadian scientist?
Oh wait. Don't bother to answer. I know you'll just go on about how the S-man was America's love-puppet,....blah blah f**king blah. I guess even when you discover that someone you made a strategic alliance with against the Iranian radical theocracy turns out to be a bad dude, you shouldn't do him in...no, that wouldn't be right, would it?
In any event, to mental midgets like you and your fellow travellers, everything bad always comes back to good ol' (bad ol') Uncle Sam, doesn't it? That's a sophisticated worldview (emphasis on the sophist)!
Posted by: evilprinceweasel | 2006-01-26 10:16:07 PM
Pbs is not a bad idea.
In Montréal, Radio-Canada has been known as a refuge of homosexuals for a long time. Denyse Bombardier has been fired for saying the truth outloud.
Each time I watch Radio-Canada, I get angry. A few weeks ago they were ranting against Gitmo. And they were saying how sad the situation of the Kadhr family was. Poor little terrorists. They are in danger of being sent back to US.
I vote for a commission. And I already suggest the commission that with satellites and internet, there is no need for public broadcasting anymore. One MSM liberal tool out. Everyone will feel better.
Who can believe that Saddam Hussein had no WMD? Come on. He used them against Iranians during the war on Iran, then against the Kurds. After seeing his nuclear building facility destroyed by Israel, what do you think he did? Cross his arms and say OK Israel, you win? Remember Chemical Ali?
It makes sense to send WMD to Syria. They were close allies because of the Baath party.
How many people Saddam Hussein murdered during his rule? Reliable sources say 300 000.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-01-26 10:42:27 PM
Speaking of CBC, Adriene Arsenault's coverage of the Hamas election, and Brian Stewart's follow story on world reaction on tonight's National were actually really nicely done.
CBC would do well to encourage their reporters to be more like Arseneault She bore witness to events, described the magnitude of what's happening, and --mercifully -- left the future pregnant, instead of editorializing or prognosticating.
Brian Stewart showed himself to be the un-Macdonald by wrapping up with something about "the middle east's unending complexity".
Fair enough. What a sweet relief to not hear Macdonald's coach-approaching-the-fourth-quarter statements about necessary adjustments to come.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-01-26 10:49:39 PM
A number of people here have commented that they can support a public broadcaster, just not a biased one.
But why? What is so sacred about a public broadcaster, whether it's biased or not? Even if it could remain terrifically, amazingly neutral, why do we need one? CTV and Global have proven you can make money in Canada giving people what they want. Maybe CBC makes "Canadian documentaries" that nobody else would touch, but what does that matter if nobody watches them?
CBC's viewership is abysmal. Why do tax dollars support it? If Canadians want to watch it, we should pay for it. It's that simple. Why not a referendum asking people: would you like to support the CBC this year, or would you like to receive back the $X that the CBC got, per person. I betcha most people would rather have the money.
With today's changing media, having a state sponsored television and radio network makes so little sense, even if it ever did in the beginning. We need to cut spending drastically, and I think this is a good place to start. And bias isn't the issue; it's the principle of the thing.
Posted by: SheilaG | 2006-01-27 8:42:38 AM
Maybe you should start a new thread about the left-wing MSM conspiracy to show Stephen Harper shaking his children's hands when he dropped them off at school. ("Harper said he wanted to hug his children, but the Liberals and the MSM had conjured a powerful force field around every part of their bodies but their right hands.")
As far as I can tell, that image has had a far greater impact on his public image that some bumper that appeared on screen for 5 seconds.
Further to those rogue letters -- gimme an H!, gimme an E!, gimme an I! gimme a cursor? -- isn't it ironic that they were typed (at least notionally) by Rick Anderson, who, last I looked, was on your side. Oh, those devious Liberal lapdogs at the CBC, hiring a old Reformer to make another old Reformer look bad!
Posted by: truewest | 2006-01-27 8:51:28 AM
And this is the down side to living under the microscope of the politically correct world you seem so beholden to Truewest, if he would have accidentally brushed his daughters breast as he bent down to hug her there would be some group screaming about how he was a child molester, he simply chose the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-27 9:43:09 AM
Lemme get this straight. You're saying he made a conscious choice not to hug his daughter for fear that some loonie left group would accuse him of being a incestuous pedophile. Did he consult his advisers or caucus before making this choice? Was there a focus group? And why didn't he hug his son?
I knew you guys were paranoid, but I didn't realize how far - and how high up -- this streak ran. The fact that you not only thought this through and reached this conclusion, but you also thought that Harper did likewise makes the head spin.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-01-27 10:02:05 AM
The fact some far left "loonie groups" as you call them (not that I'm grouping you in there) are making a big deal out of the fact he didn't hug them kind of proves my point doesn't it? And the fact you and others can draw conclusions about what kind of person he is by the way he sends his kids off to school and even make an issue of it kind of makes my head spin. Fair enough?
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-27 10:13:17 AM
Post No Bills: back to the handbills, flyers, broadsheets, gremlins, hot lead, & more. Daniel Dafoe knew how to do it; why can't we? Did not McLuhan have a few(?) words to add to the galaxy? >>>>
Internet threatens broadcasters: report
As tech-savvy turn to Web for TV, networks may lose advertising dollars
By GRANT ROBERTSON
Friday, January 27, 2006 Page B3
Canadian broadcasters are among the most vulnerable to an onslaught of new technology that is changing how people watch TV, warns a report titled "The end of television as we know it."
In as little as five years, the global industry could be drastically altered by the rise of alternative ways to watch television, such as downloadable programs and TV streamed over the Internet, say a group of researchers with technology giant International Business Machines Corp.
Although not the first to suggest the migration of audiences to the Internet is threatening mainstream media, the report hits particularly hard at Canadian broadcasting. >> more
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-01-27 10:18:32 AM
Just IMO, but I can tell the "L" at the end of hei is not a proper L...I think it was an unfortunate whoops on the part of CBC...that being said I am not a fan of the CBC and their polical slant (on Canuck or International issues) and I'd like to see them simply report the facts, with no analysis, like the BBC used to...they should also speak in monotone like the BBC...
Posted by: beancounter | 2006-01-27 10:21:46 AM
So what news organization do you folks think is the least biased? The Calgary Herald? Perhaps the National Post? It's worth pointing out that the Observatory on Media and Public Policy did some extensive research on bias in major Canadian newspapers over the course of the election campaign. It found that of the 7 major papers surveyed, only the Calgary Herald showed significant bias in its news coverage. Hmmm...
I can tell you that a lot of Liberal folks I've been talking with have been complaining about how the CBC (particularly The National) showed bias FOR the Tories. Many think Mansbridge is a Conservative. Considering you all seem to think there is a Liberal conspiracy at the CBC, and Liberal types think there is a Tory conspiracy, I guess the CBC is probably doing a pretty good job.
Posted by: newsjunkie | 2006-01-27 10:54:13 AM
I noticed that after Christmas the MSM seemed to change it's position on SH & PM...PM was shown much more often in less flattering photos (that guitar!) and SH was shown in a more dignified light...I found it quite interesting, and unfortunate for PM. Plus, I think this 'heil' thread is a bit over the top..
Posted by: beancounter | 2006-01-27 11:16:32 AM
Hey conspiracy wack jobs.
Here's another one.
It's all orchestrated by that wily old chairman Mao from beyond the grave.
You guys are..uhm.. pathetic! Ya, that's it.
Posted by: The Big M | 2006-01-27 12:26:34 PM
> Have you and your ilk forgotten that Saddam used poison gas
> on the Kurds and on Iranian troops? Verifiably? That he was on
> the verge of getting nukes until the Israelis bombed Osirak?
I do not know who "my ilk" is, but I am sure you can explain that to me.
And yes I am aware of that, I am also aware that the US used Agent Orange, that France sold parts of a nuclear reactor etc.
It is also pretty clear that the Iranians used C weapons as well. And sometimes people just use Machetes in order to get rid of people they don't like.
So what now? Do we all committ suicide in order to prevent anything bad from happening?
> Ever heard of the 'Big Gun' project he was working on, with
> generous help from some Canadian scientist?
[sarcasm]Yeah, it is amazing that nation states actually want to build weapons. I can't figure out why you would want something like a military I mean seriously, can't we just all get along [/sarcasm]
> Oh wait. Don't bother to answer. I know you'll just go on
> about how the S-man was America's love-puppet,....blah blah > f**king blah.
Right, because the blessing of Washington had absolutly nothing to do with his behaviour, he just went astray, mislead the americans about his intensions. If they'd only known they would have put a stop to it back in 1983 before you could have done anything else. Because as we all know America is the only hope we, the world, have to be safed from ourselvers. God bless.
> I guess even when you discover that someone you made a
> strategic alliance with against the Iranian radical theocracy
> turns out to be a bad dude, you shouldn't do him in...no, that
> wouldn't be right, would it?
Lest we forget that the Iranian radicals came into power with a little bit of help of the americans because they didn't like who was in power.
Oops. So they fucked up there now... Umm, how often? 4, 5 times? And we still should think that they'll fix it?
> In any event, to mental midgets like you and your fellow
> travellers, everything bad always comes back to good ol' (bad
> ol') Uncle Sam, doesn't it? That's a sophisticated worldview
> (emphasis on the sophist)!
I don't think there has ever been a country in world history that singlehandled had so much influence in the world and the potential to fuck up so much for so many with so little.
Yeah, too bad it all comes back to the US, as the old saying goes: "All roads lead to rome", though the roman empire is gone, the Pax Romana doesn't exist anymore.
In the latter part of the 20th and in the first part of the 21st centuries the lines go: "All roads lead to Washington" and "Pax Americana".
Like it or not.
And as you all here are so high and mighty about Government accountability you should not write any blank checques to ANY Government and downplay their roles.
At least be consequent instead of apologetic and mumbling about the "greater good". The road to hell as always been paved with good intentions.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-01-27 12:48:17 PM
Hey, it's The Big Moaner! The CBJihad never makes a mistake that implies bad upon the Left, and as I happen to KNOW several CBJihadists in graphics, animation and research in the Upper Canadian offices at the centre of the universe, I vouch for their high abilities and knowledge of their industry; no mistakes of that order CAN be made without the intent to do so since far too many people in the studio see on too monitors what is being broadcast and the various media elements that comprise the televised image.
But, would we finance a rightist view for Canadians to not watch either to the tune of a billion $ a year? If not, then we shouldn't finance the CBJihad but make them EARN their worth through advertising and viewership, like how everyone else has to. Unless you're ideologically opposed to honest debate, your answer will be stupid, lame and fundamentally avoid the question. Your faith in leftist ignorance for the sake of leftist ignorance is part of the "useless idiot" truth that the left denies, even though it revealed that Stalin thought poorly of communism and socialism since he thought free peoples were "idiots" to help enslave themselves since this is what he did to the citizens of Russia.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-27 12:53:10 PM
"Bush (the President of the United States) ignores a document saying 'OSAMA BIN LADEN TO FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS' or when he's convieniently wrong about WDMs it's just a mistake???"
i think you forgot that President Clinton was in charge at the time that document was first released.
Posted by: evan | 2006-01-27 4:59:13 PM
It you think its loonie lefties who are making a fuss over how he sends his kids off to school, you're on another planet. It's ordinary people who think it's odd. And it is odd. Especially given that this has all the looks of a photo-op designed to show Harper's human side.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-01-27 6:15:03 PM
the thing that got me pissed off was that a paul martin lie was the top headline while harpers policy was second or third . and then theres zolf
Posted by: john demerais | 2006-01-27 9:07:15 PM
Actually you seem to be the only one obsessing over it on this site. I mentioned in an earlier post I was not going to group you in with the "left wing loonies", but I'm beginning to have my suspicions.
From some of your other posts you make it quite clear you don't like Harper, as a matter of fact I don't think you like conservatives at all, but hey, that's your right. Personally I don't care if he hugs his kids, shakes their hands, kicks their buts when they leave the house, or sends them to school in a cab. There are far bigger issues to obsess over. If you feel its the defining issue of his political career, again that is your right, but I would ask you, what planet are you on?
I am far more interested in how he can run a country and in that regard compared to his two predecessors, both shining models of humanity, (and yes, that is sarcasm) I'm sure held in high regard by you, he will do just fine. At least he is young enough to have kids, and hopefully some new ideas. Sorely needed in this country.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-01-27 11:24:55 PM
Has there been a kid in Canada who has seen more hand shakes.
He probably begged NOT to be hugged.
Posted by: richfisher | 2006-01-28 12:02:54 AM
I'm not obsessed with the paternal handshake, although it does seem odd. I was merely pointing out that it does seem to have been the subject of discussion by others who think it odd and that it probably caused him more political damage that the "CBC conspiracy" that launched this discussion.
And no, I don't like him and don't trust him. As for conservatives, well, they come in many varieties. Aside from the radical libertarians (who strike me as shrill and naive) and the radical social conservatives (who strike me as stern and self-righteous), I've got time for most of them. Don't agree with them on most things, mind you, but a little disagreement is healthy in a democracy.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-01-28 7:53:01 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.