Wednesday, May 30, 2007


One of the reasons I became conservative in university, was that I could see where the left was going in terms of parsing language and facts to distort truth.

Today on the Blogging Tories, Backseat Blogger tried to gin up his/her readership with a blatantly distorted 'rabble' style article that said "Pope says Joos killed Jesus".

The blogger provides a link to this article , where the Patriarch of the Coptian Christian Church makes the horrible charge. Nowhere is the Pope mentioned in the context that the blogger states. Many readers, including myself, were lured into this article and headline so we called him/her out on the blatant misrepresentation.

The blogger then tried to 'rationalize' by giving two wikipedia links where the head of the Coptian Christian Church is referred to as pope. Yet virtually nowhere else is the head referred to as pope. Instead the proper modern term is Patriarch. Indeed, in their rebuttal, the ADL does not refer to him as pope and neither does the article.

I make an issue of this, not because Backseat Blogger has any influence (he/she does not), but because if we are to call people like Michael Moore and the CBC to the mat when they parse language and facts to create a new 'truth' or perception, then the same must also be done to conservatives, Republicans or Blogging Tories.

The blogger in question, clearly wanted to have a salacious headline to get readers and in fact mislead many to think Pope Benedict had said something he did not.

I do not know what Backseat Blogger's own personal motives are, but when the right begins to distort truth as much as the left, we have to question it. Even if it is on a small little blog. The headline was featured prominantly on the Blogging Tories headline roll and many will see it and be misled. That is unfortunante.

Like many readers, I would call on Backseat Blogger to apologize for such a gross misinterpretation and not try to parse out on a technicality.

Coloquial language counts. Understanding context counts. Larger perception and truth counts.

Nobody reading that headline thought..."Oh, the Patriarch of the Coptian Christian Church"...they thought Pope Benedict; and the blogger was full aware of that.

What with Arnold having a love-in with Dalton, John Tory patronizing a 'queer youth festival', and the Republicans rudderless, I have to wonder if conservatism is about to enter into the same schism as it did 15 years ago, when conservatives broke away from the left-wing of their flanks.

That led to Bill Clinton for two terms and the Conservatives in the wilderness in Canada for over a decade.

Sorry to see some Blogging Tories members starting to go down that road.

Thursday, May 24, 2007


Men claiming to be Christians or under the auspices of the Catholic Church have done many things over the past that Christ would not have approved of. Many of them have been acknowledged and rightly apologized for (the Inquisition, the Crusades), while many (also the Inquisition, the Crusades) have been overstated grossly by detractors (academics, Marxists, feminists, etc.) in order to portray the faith in a more unfavourable light.

But when Hugo Chavez, a tinpot of a dictator who cleaves to an ideology that has killed more people in 110 years than Christianity has in 2000 tells the Pope he is 'offended' by his remarks and demands an apology, I have to drop my replica papal scepter.

It takes a special kind of lunatic dictator who can shut down an opposition television station one week and demand an apology from the Pope the next.

I am glad Pope Benedict clarified his remarks, but I am also thankful he did not flat out apologize.

Will our culture ever get enough perspective on the horrors of atheistic Marxism and communism that we can call it the evil that it is? There is a shop in Toronto on the west side of Yonge St. near College, that has in its window a slavish dedication to communism and Stalinist Russia.

Why is this tolerated when if the same were done of Hitler and National Socialist Germany it would be shut down inside thirty seconds (and rightly so)?

Why is the University of Toronto allowed to host a weekend festival on the joys of Marxism/Communism and still be taken seriously, by the National Post no less?

Here is a fairly comprehensive website of human atrocities throughout the centuries.

Mao and Stalin, even under modest estimates, still beat the Catholic Church and Christianity, yet on your local, friendly neighbourhood university campus, they are still seen as friends of the proletariat.


But the Liberal Party still has the most room for growth in Canada dontchaknow?

Friday, May 18, 2007


This is a topic that has come up before and will no doubt continue to come up; that of Catholic politicians and Holy Communion.

Dalton McGuinty's glib comments on the matter are ill-conceived and misinformed. As reported by Lifesite news:

Chris Morley, Press Secretary in the Office of the Premier, told that "the Premier's comments stand and are a matter of public record." He also noted that the Premier declined to answer whether or not he would stop receiving communion because of the Pope's statements and his continued political support for abortion.

This past Christmas Eve I found myself in a situation where I could not attend the church that I normally attend, so I went to another one closer to where I was located. I went to an early evening mass at a Roman Catholic Church just east of St. Clair and Yonge St. in Toronto. As the mass progressed, I noticed that on the other side of the aisle there was a very familiar figure present. It was of course, Dalton McGuinty. Yes, he received Communion.

Make of that what you will.

What the pope is saying to Catholic politicians is that if you say you are Catholic, troll for Catholic votes in the Catholic community before an election and then get elected as a Catholic, could you...ummm..., please act Catholic. And if you do not act Catholic then we will tell people you are not.


In other words, if you sell someone a can labelled Coke and they buy it thinking there is Coke inside, make sure it is filled with Coke and not Pepsi.


There are politicians both Liberal and Conservative who run as Catholics and act Catholic once in office. Dan McTeague comes to mind as does Jason Kenney. But the Liberal Party and its cohorts in the media are making it more difficult for one to be a Liberal and Catholic. And it all comes down to two issues; abortion and same sex 'marriage'. If Dalton all of a sudden changed his view on those issues they would not allow him to sign his own nomination paper.

But Dalton's comments that he represents "...all kinds of different backgrounds, different faiths, different cultures, different traditions..." are ludicrous. Dalton represents the people who agree with his views on these issues, no more no less.

Does this make Dalton a 'bad' person? No. It does make him a confused and dishonest one. He is from that liberal generation of the 60's that believes you keep your religion under your mattress, hidden away from people. That generation that defines themselves based on the divisive notions of race, gender and sexual orientation.

As for his Press Secretary reaffirming his view in favour of abortion, I would take this as Dalton directly issuing a challenge to the Catholic community. He is flaunting his arrogance and seeing how far he can go.

I have made my views on ex-communication of Catholic politicians very open in this forum. If they keep pushing and pushing, the church really has no choice. It is regrettable, but as with Paul Martin before him or Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry or Jean Chretien, sooner or later someone needs to be the example. Now that should only be a last resort after much compassionate talk and consultation...but sooner or later the process needs to begin.

I hope the priest at Dalton's parish (if Dalton goes on a regular basis) talks to him about this issue and it is not left alone.

Better yet, I would love to see both the Liberal and NDP parties be more tolerant of people of faith who have differing views on controversial issues. Perhaps then we can have the government that we deserve.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007


That's the question that Brit filmmaker Richard Jobson asks, as have many of recent years. Even James Cameron has made note in casting Avatar that there were no masculine American actors he could choose from, so he went Australian.

"Has anyone seen a modern day version of James Coburn, Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin or William Holden on the big screen in recent years? No, you haven't and you're not about to.
Forget it, they don't exist. They're extinct, beaten into submission by the
wet, limp, chinless world of modern cinema."

Many have lamented the lack of geniunely masculine male actors on screen as role models. Their's is the legacy of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and Charles Bronson. Even some classically overt left-wing actors were awesome at projecting a masculine outback image. Who can deny the rugged cool of Paul Newman or Robert Redford in their prime?

But, film and the arts are currently seen as traditions of the New Left. Given that the two biggest influences culturally on the New Left are feminism and queer theory, you now get 'tough guy' actors such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Affleck and the like.

And sadly, the notion of 'tough guy' is so looked down upon in modern culture that the ones who could do it, Russell Crowe, Gerard Butler etc. don't want to inherit the mantle.

Perhaps the toughest actor in cinema right now is on TV with Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer. I met him once and must say he passed the test. He was in a bar at Yonge and Bloor slugging back alcohol in a group and smoking cigarettes. A friend of mine and I approached him and he was very friendly with a firm grip of a handshake as he wished us a safe ride home.

More than ever there is a need for conservatives to shake off their stereotypes and enter the arts. It will not change on its own.

Unless of course, unlike me, you are one of those people who does not burst out into laughter at the sight of Leonardo DiCaprio with a gun.

Monday, May 14, 2007


One of the most powerful tools the New Left has in its arsenal is the weapon of words. More powerful than even conventional weapons or coercion, the power of language to demonize and stigmatize is something the left has mastered.

This article in the NY Times, linked to by The Drudge Report mildly criticizes Rudolph Giuliani in the days following 9/11 as a "benevolent dictator". A man who had one purpose and gently let standards fall to achieve it.

Over the weekend we saw an article by Sun Media columnist Greg Weston refer to Stephan Harper as running a "police state". The Weston article is actually quite laughable in its combined level of hysteria, hyperbole and condescension. Yet, it is what the left excels at and why the right so often falls behind.

Why have a discussion about global warming when one can merely call anyone who questions you a 'denier'?

Why debate the institution of marriage when you can just call anyone who disagrees with you a 'bigot'?

Why talk about the need for improving our health care system when you can just call anyone who brings it into question, 'callous' or 'cruel'?

Are you pro-life or anti-abortion? Pro-choice or pro-abortion? The left's control of language through political correctness has been one of thier great keys to success in marginalizing those who disagree with them. It also helps them to legitimatize things that would normally be unnacceptable.

No one wants their daughter to grow up to be a 'hooker'; howabout a 'sex-trade worker'?

Are you 'promiscuous' or 'open-minded'? Do you 'abuse drugs' or do you 'liberate your mind'?

Does you professor 'educate' you or 'indoctrinate' you.

Why do you think modern leftists will refer to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez as 'socialists'? Because it does not carry the same stigma as the word 'communist', which both men undoubtedly are.

Be very careful of the language you choose and the phrasings of things. Be aware of what people are telling you and what they really mean.

A 'socialist' friend told me once she was ill so she went to the doctor and asked for 'compassionate medicine'. I did not understand her. I asked her to explain and she just kept repeating the phrase over and over. Finally I said, "you mean a freebie, you want medicine for free." She said yes. Now she is not poor, and could have paid, but her politics made her not want to. Her choice of language made it sound as though anyone who disagreed with her was not compassionate.

Do not let the left define you. Define yourself with the language you choose and do the same to them.

Only then can the New Left cultures spell be broken.

Friday, May 11, 2007


As the story in the Hollywood Reporter says, films can now potentially be rated R for smoking.

So now, classic films such as Breakfast at Tiffany's, Jailhouse Rock and The Seven Year Itch will be thought to be in the same moral category as I Spit On Your Grave, Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes.

Funny how the same people who insist that smoking in films affects kids are usually the same ones who say films have no impact with regards to other issues of morality.

Thursday, May 10, 2007


Following a link on Relapsed Catholic I found a thread at Small Dead Animals entitled The Urban Bigot by Kate McMillan. It's such a simple term, but one that hits the bullz-eye so well, that I wish I came up with it.

I figure if enough people use this term in our culture, it will hold, so I will do my small part by offering a definition.

The Urban Bigot:

Is usually white and earns no less than 50 K a year. If he is earning less and is in the arts or food service industry, he will not pay taxes.

Claims to love the poor and ethnic, while making sure she never has to live near them, usually residing in wealthy beachfront properties or areas with the suffix -dale or -hattan, instead.

Thinks eating Thai Food, while listening to Motown Music before reading about the sexual techniques in Kama Sutra makes him knowledgable about the immigrant experience.

Had a high school average of C+ and got into a second tier university where she did absolutely no studying and thought being drunk, stoned and promiscuous 15 hours a day led to higher enlightenment. Most of her professors agreed.

Thinks racist language is wrong, unless he is watching a Quentin Tarantino movie where the prominent usage of words such as 'bitch', 'ho' and 'nigga' will be deemed sophisticated and post-modern.

Thinks misogyny is wrong, unless she is hearing about how Ann Coulter or Condoleezza Rice needs to be sexually assaulted for their views, then it is a nuanced response to the complex issues of the day.

Will shout 'Kyoto' and 'Darwin' when stuck in a debate, even though he has never read either of them.

Boycotts Mel Gibson movies, but thinks Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore give voice to the oppressed.

Thinks John Lennon's Imagine is the gospel upon which all human interaction should be based. She also likes Ass Like That by Eminem and My Humps by The Black Eyed Peas.

Thinks the Pope's views on abortion and homosexuality are intolerant and bigoted. He believes the same views held by Islam and Buddhism on the subjects are a right-wing smear job.

Believes you should always question authority, unless you question the authority of the courts, academe or Oprah Winfrey. Then you are a 'fascist' and a 'denier'.

Thinks giving health benefits to a crying child in pain who needs a root canal is unnecessary spending but government paying for a confused transgender teenager who wants an operation in Sweden is the hallmark of a 'just society'.

Hates Christmas but looks at you funny if you cross him off of your shopping list.

Coming soon...Part II