Harper Certainly Is Ordinary; My Blahg

My Blahg, by Robert McClelland

So Stephen Taylor is once again pushing the Harper is just an ordinary guy shtick. Well, here are some synomyms and words related to ordinary.

run-of-the-mill
unexceptional
unremarkable
insignificant
trivial
unimportant

I fail to see why this has ruffled the feathers of some of the Libloggers. Harper is nothing if not ordinary.

What should be of greater concern is the rush to sell Canadians on the idea that ordinary is now the best they can hope to expect from their leaders.

Frankly I don’t want the leaders of my nation to be ordinary. Tommy Douglas wasn’t ordinary, he was a man of great vision. Pierre Trudeau wasn’t ordinary, he was a man who saw a better Canada and worked to make it a reality. Had these leaders and others like them settled for nothing more than ordinary, Canada wouldn’t be the great nation it is today.

So if Harper wants to be an ordinary guy then he should do us all a favour and get an ordinary job. Because Canadians deserve a person who aspires to more than mediocrity as their Prime Minister.

---------------------------------------------------------

- My Blahg: Harper Certainly Is Ordinary
- Answers.com ordinary:

1. Commonly encountered; usual. See synonyms at common.
2. 1. Of no exceptional ability, degree, or quality; average.
   2. Of inferior quality; second-rate.
3. Having immediate rather than delegated jurisdiction, as a judge.
4. Mathematics. Designating a differential equation containing no more than one independent variable.

The Energizer Baird; My Blahg

My Blahg by Robert McClelland

Gouged at the Pump; My Blagh

by Robert McClelland

Are you being gouged at the pump? Find out with this handy Gasoline Price Gouge Meter from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Here in London we’re paying $1.11/litre and here’s what the GPG Meter had to say about it.

Your gas prices are 23.2¢ per litre above the normalized cost of 87.8¢ per litre in London

With today’s crude oil price of $65.20 USD per barrel and the US dollar at $1.09 CAD, the price of regular unleaded gasoline in London should be 87.8¢ per litre at normal profit margins.

At a price of $1.11 per litre, you are paying 23.2¢ per litre in pure excess profit. Across Canada, an extra margin of 23.2¢ per litre generates an additional profit of 23.2 million dollars per day.

Bastards!

Now mind you, I’m not upset over paying $1.11/litre for gas. It’s not really an outrageous amount of money to pay. But what does piss me off is that the oil companies are engaged in what can only be described as outrageously greedy capitalism at its worst. What is even more appalling is that these same greedy bastards are the driving force behind the anti-climate change fight. They cry that they’ll suffer undue hardship if Canada tries to meet its Kyoto target while gouging consumers at the pumps and raking in record profits.

It’s time to put an end to this nonsense. The excessive greed in the oil industry needs to be regulated and taxes on gasoline need to be raised so we can afford to repair the damage done to our environment. The oil industry will survive with a few less dollars in their pockets and the consumer, while not paying any less, will at least know their money will be used for a greater good.

- My Blagh
- CCPA: Gas Price Gouge Meter

Are the latest rumours about Jason Cherniak true?

Rumour has it ("let me be very clear; I am not suggesting that the rumour is true. I am only stating that it is out there") Jason Cherniak
- has sexually harassed a female member of the Liberal Party (find out more).
- is a sexist (find out more).

Actually, these are not real rumours. Press the "more" link behind the "rumour" and it will refer you to posts by REAL progressive bloggers who are upset with Jason's blogging behaviour; behaviour that includes some of the craftiest writing skills available to him. Isn't it wonderful how progressive bloggers love attacking Jason Cherniak?

Read more about it here:
- Did Jason harass a female member of the Liberal Party? Find the middle ground for women - by Robert McClelland
- Is Jason a sexist? Read more about it here:
Rumour Monger - by Eugene Plawiuk

Other posts about Cherniak's latest rumour:
- Idealistic Pragmatist: More Cherniak Logic
- Accidental Deliberations: But he's just the messenger
- Peace, order and good government, eh?: Rumour has it that some people on the internet make shit up
- Dr.Dawg: Ugly Rumours
- Right of Centre Ice: Liblog propaganda hub speaks: Chow cheated! Bomb Iran!

Hey Big Spenders II

Robert McClelland has updated the previous chart to include provincial budget increases.

(I hope Robert is better with numbers than this joker).

Click on image to enlarge.

The Most Frugal: Jean Chretien whose 10 budgets barely increased spending by little more than the rate of inflation.

The Most Frugal Currently in Power: Although the new Premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham, brought in his first budget with a program spending increase of just 3%, I think it’s fairer to give this honour to Manitoba’s Premier Gary Doer and his 8 budgets.

The Biggest Spender: Drunken sailor Ralph Klein whose last 7 budgets increased program spending by a whopping 70%; not surprising considering the state of Alberta’s demockracy. The new Premier, Ed Stelmach has yet to bring in his first budget so we won’t know until April whether he inherited Ralphie’s drunken spending habits.

The Biggest Spender Currently in Power: That honour goes to both PMS and Saskatchewan’s Premier Lorne Calvert with Ontario’s McGuinty and BC’s Campbell hot on their heels. Way to bring down the NDP average Calvertasshat.

While this doesn’t give a clear picture of what party is the big spending party, it does set the record straight on program spending increases at both the provincial and federal level.

Thanks Robert.
Read his own post or comment here.

How Progressive is ProgBlogs?

According to My Blagh?

PROGBLOGS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE

The peril in taking that first step down the authoritarian road is that every subsequent step becomes less difficult to make.

Read the whole story

Robert McClelland apologizes, really!

Read his latest posting here:

As you all know, recently I made a remark in the comments of a post that many people felt was offensive to Jews and crossed the boundaries of what constitutes good behaviour in the blogosphere.

My comment was never intended to cause offense to anyone but it did and so I sincerely apologize for making it.

Well done, Robert.

Purging progressive blogger Robert McClelland from the PB-blogroll is arbitrary, draconian and unfair

I've got serious problem with the latest purge by the moderators of PB. I believe it's anti-progressive to purge a member on grounds of one or two comments which, when taken out of context, can be seen as anti-semitic.

This is what Psychols had to say (I couldn't have said it any better):

Blogging is possible because free speech is an entrenched right in Canada. As moderators you have an obligation to defend it

- not just against government intrusion but against the whims of political correctness. Disagree with Robert, take offense, scream your platitudes and congratulate yourselves on being defenders of “rightful thinking”. Say whatever you want, just try to resist the pressure to define progressive thinking and to ban bloggers who say things that offend you current sensibilities.

Here are some optional responses PB-moderators could have considered before removing Robert:

- Approach Robert (email/ blog) that you find his postings anti-semitic. Talk it out. The web is good for that, so is email.

- Warn him that PB doesn't find his postings kosher. That if he plans to make anti-semitic statements, he should do this at his own blog, not at the PB diaries.

- Take off the offensive comment.

- Lock him out of the PB diaries postings (login), so he won't be able to post on the PB site anymore; but as long his own blog postings are progressive and not explicitly anti-semitic/racial, you will keep carrying his blog on the blogroll.

But no, PB-moderators went for all or nothing. On or off? Let's vote. 5 to 1; off it is. Canada's progressive version of "you're with us or with the terrorists"; forget about nuance.

PB's removal of Robert is draconian. Removing him for a "tasteless" posting is a disproportional response. And just because the decision was made democratically, doesn't make it right. It's democracy abused. Not kosher, "sure as hell isn't 'progressive'".

Canada = Conservative + Authoritarian.
I do think Canadians have a tendency to react more repressive than, say the Dutch, probably due to the more conservative and authoritarian environment Canadians grew up in.

Studies have shown that people who have grown up in an abusive environment, are more likely to become the abuser themselves. This is how a Canadian “fetish for a repressive action” can be explained too. I want to back this up with a little story.

My wife is Canadian and we lived together in Holland for about two years (I've lived there all my life until we moved to Canada together almost 5 years ago). Once we were stopped by the police, about 200 metres from our home. Because I was in a hurry, I had forgotten to bring my drivers license (the Dutch don't have the nifty credit card licenses Canadians have). But I also wasn't wearing my seatbelt; again I was in a hurry and the store was only another 200 metres away.

When the policeman stopped me, he asked for my drivers license and insurance papers. I told him that I had forgotten my drivers license but that I was in walking distance of my home - "I can get it for you right now". He wouldn't have any of it. So I started to argue with him! My wife could not believe what she was getting into; arguing with authority? Because her Dutch is only limited she didn't understand the whole story... the policeman also wanted to fine me for not wearing a seatbelt.

Since this was going to be a really expensive trip, I lied. It told him I WAS wearing a seatbelt, and that I had taken the seatbelt off to show him the insurance papers (those were in the glove-compartment) knowing quite well the policeman had legally not a foot to stand on, because he was on his own and it was going to be his word against my wife's and mine. I ended up paying only for not having my drivers license on me, still an expensive little trip to the grocery store.

The gist of the story? In Holland people dare to speak up to authority (legit or not); in Canada people normally don't.

Hypocrisy
It's the hypocrisy of the PB-moderators that's hard for me to swallow. Yes, Robert should speak up to authority (the Germans) when Jews (or "fags", "sickos" or anyone else who was put into concentration camps by the Third Reich regime) were being purged; not speaking up is considered morally wrong. But when Robert does speak up to authority (PB moderators), unwilling to apologize for a statement he believes is falsely labeled anti-semitic, then PB moderators punish him by removing him from the blogroll. Demanding from him to speak out in 1943 for injustice, but demanding an apology for speaking out 2007 is hypocritical, and the reaction of taking him off the blogroll is called repressive, not progressive.

I AM speaking up, not for myself, but for Robert: "WHAT A SHAME". And I'm truly disappointed in the greater Progressive Bloggers community for not speaking out. Aren't there about 300 people subscribed to PB? I've only heard from a handful.

Inconsistent
Scott, the "The Progressive Bloggers moderation team has voted to remove My Blahg from the blogroll by a 5-1 vote. The decision is final" is authoritarian and repressive, definitely not progressive. I demand that you apologize for citing this; if not, should Scott be purged now?

And "to now be hearing from a very few blogs that we're a bunch of authoritarian ideologues at the site" isn't progressive reasoning either. You know just as well as I, that the opinion of a few can be morally superior to the opinion of the majority; democracy has its flaws. And yes, taking repressive actions is authoritarian.

With regard to the WWII, I wonder what your family, Scott, would have done when they started purging "the Jews". Of course, speaking out ("what a shame") was the right thing to do...but also naive. I've visited several concentration camps in Holland (Westerbork) and France since I was a child; trust me, concentration camps where not the place you or your family would like to literally end up in. And sharing your opinion too freely (muster the "what a shame") would often have meant a guaranteed free trip to Auschwitz. As a matter of fact, the majority of the people (with Jewish neighbours) were NOT able to muster a “what a shame”; they were too afraid...

Dr. Dawg, it is in this light (as described above, imposing on the nuance), that you should be able to see the difference between what Robert said:

“When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”

and what you said:

“If “freedom of expression” is the issue, let me say unequivocally that no one is urging that Robert’s site be shut down. He’s as free as he’s always been to say anything he likes. But he doesn’t get to be on our progressive blogroll if he’s going to defend a vile comment about not giving a crap if they start rounding up Jews. Period. And if you don’t like it, start your own blogroll. No one’s stopping you”

People who mustered "what a shame" paid for it, big time. Dr. Dawg, I find your characterization of Robert's comments defamatory. I demand an apology; should Dr. Dawg be purged now?

Scott has already explained that he doesn't think Robert is an anti-semite, but your comments (Dr. Dawg) make me think you are not so sure. Call Robert tasteless, indifferent, even disguisting, but do you dare to call Robert an anti-semite?

When they come for the Jews I've got no clue if I will be able to muster up a "what a shame"; I’m not planning to apologize; am I going to be purged now?

Jason Cherniak recently called the Jew Noam Chomsky a Holocaust denier (Chomsky clearly isn't). Making defamatory statements about a Jew is anti-semitic; Jason didn’t apologize. Why was Jason not purged?

It is inconsistent to purge Robert McClelland, but not Jason Cherniak. Both made statements that can be conceived as anti-semitic, none of them have apologized.

I'm truly sorry about the actions taken against Robert McClelland, one of our fellow progressive bloggers. I realize some of his postings can be conceived as tasteless, indifferent, even anti-semitic. But part of it is his style, and, when it comes to anti-semitism, some of his remarks were (purposely?) taken out of the necessary context, causing the latest witch hunt.

The response to purge him from the blogroll was inconsistent, draconian, and unfair; there is no reason to single him out.

To apologize or not
I personally don't feel the need for apologies. This is the blogosphere; writers use free speech (an “entrenched right in Canada”) to express their opinions. It’s repressive to insist on an apology for offensive comments, not progressive.

“As moderators you have an obligation to defend [free speech]”, not to suppress it.

Progressive bloggers, we've got to stand up for one another. I ask the PB-moderators to consider putting Robert back on the blogroll, I HOPE OTHERS WILL DO THE SAME. It is not fair to punish Robert any longer for his unwillingness to apologize for a statement he believes is falsely labeled anti-semitic. His opinions are appreciated by many, and, most importantly, progressive.

What's wrong with Dr.Dawg?

As always, God is in the details.

Robert McClelland wrote this:

Not me. People like Klownsella, Chernyuk and Smeagol the Jew have taught me it’s not worth getting involved. When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”.

But according to Dr. Dawg he said this:

If “freedom of expression” is the issue, let me say unequivocally that no one is urging that Robert’s site be shut down. He’s as free as he’s always been to say anything he likes. But he doesn’t get to be on our progressive blogroll if he’s going to defend a vile comment about not giving a crap if they start rounding up Jews. Period. And if you don’t like it, start your own blogroll. No one’s stopping you.

The details:

- Robert's comment was not that he doesn't "give a crap if they start rounding up Jews". This is what he said: When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”

Why would anyone want to attack Robert McClelland in such an irresponsible manner?

Update:
- Dr.Dawg gets spanked here too

Another handout for Big Oil

Interesting post by Robert McClelland:

Hey, the poor oil companies can barely manage to get by on their tens of billions of dollars in profit every year so why shouldn’t the taxpayer fork over a billion dollars to help them out.

Alberta wants Ottawa to help build a $1.5-billion pipeline that would put carbon dioxide emissions from the northern oilsands industry to work in oil wells hundreds of kilometres away.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier is pushing Premier Ed Stelmach’s plan to capture C02 and send it through a $1.5-billion, 400-kilometre pipeline that would allow it to be used to help get more oil out of low-producing wells.

Boutilier wants Ottawa to pony up with $500 million for the pipeline, which would start in his riding in northeastern Alberta. Another $500 million each would come from the province and industry, he said.

You really have to admire the Conservatives on this one for showing their compassionate side by extending a helping hand to the downtrodden billionaires in this country. For that and your rejection of liberal NIMBYism–as demonstrated by your willingness to allow this project to begin in your own backyard–I salute you, Mr. Boutilier.