ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous.if Pierre Trudeau isn't grossed out in his grave by the nation business --- well, this fuddle-duddle crap is out of hand.
Let them eat cake!!!
In related news, check out my post about the NDP Dispatch.
Good heavens, I've so had it with Belinda and her 'wounded puppy' routine. As a woman, I'm not in the least offended by the original issue.... but what does offend me is that so much parliamentary time is being spent on the aftermath.... I wish they’d all shut up and GOVERN MY COUNTRY.As the stomach turns, indeed!
Milliken should be pissed on for this - can our freaking bass-ackwards Parliament - the people we elect to run the country just get on with REAL problems???MacKay's an idiot and he's a liar and jerk, but so was Clinton and so was Mulroney. Let's move on and get to business, fools!
I hear ya, Jason! It's like kindergarten. No wonder teachers are hesitant to bring their classes to Parliament.
On second thought, I take that back. That was not respectful of Kindergarten children.
During the Oct. 25 (Wed) Question Period, Ralph Goodale, the self-appointed defender of Ms Stronach's honour, again demanded that Minister MacKay apologize to the House because the Minister had allegedly made an insulting remark. According to Mr. Goodale "that the offending remark was made is undeniable"... "it cannot be claimed that just because Hansard didn't catch it, it never happened"... "the news media have repeatedly confirmed it," and "every SIGNIFICANT women's organization in this country have (sic) condemned it."However, Mr. Goodale neglected to mention that the so-called "audio tapes " of Minister MacKay's alleged insult needed to be close-captioned because it was "inaudible," as first reported by CTV's Craig Oliver. The Speaker of the House and his staff listened to the tape and could not hear the alleged remark being made, and he so ruled. Mr. Goodale also referred the Minister to an Oct. 25 Montreal Gazette editorial, so that the Minister might "assess the damage that he is doing." However, Mr. Goodale misled the House, because The Montreal Gazette's editorials he pointed to have the following titles:"Keeping our bridges from falling down" (state of Quebec's bridges & viaducts)"Exposing the myths about abuse" (domestic violence) "Eschewing the fat" (childhood obesity)What Mr. Goodale called "a Montreal Gazette" editorial is in fact an op-ed piece by feminist writer Janet Bagnall entitled "Don't expect apologies from the men who denigrate women."Now, either Mr. Goodale cannot differentiate between an editorial and an op-ed piece, or he wilfully decided to mislead the House. An editorial usually carries a little more weight than an op-ed piece with most readers.By continuing to bring this question up before the House, the Liberals have also impugned the credibility of the Speaker, suggesting that his ruling should not stand.
Gabby, you should have your own blog. That last comment was awesome!!!What an interesting thought. Well, actually you make several good points. Goodale was actually deceitful himself by manipulating the Gazette story to suit his own purposes.And the point about disrepecting the Speaker is excellent too.
Thanks, Joanne. I appreciate the thought, but I'm happy to limit myself to commenting, rather than having my own blog.
Gabby, you're wise. It's a big time thief.
Not necessarily wise, just realistic. It takes a lot of skills I know I lack, and am not prepared to acquire. And you're right, it's also very time consuming, so kudos to you and others for devoting your time to maintaining your blogs. Thanks again.
Post a Comment