They are not even pretending to be non biased anymore.

It looks like CBC Power and Politics has given up even pretending to be non biased.

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix


Yesterdays Question of the Day: "Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding corporate tax cuts?"

Seriously, this was the question put up on the CBC website yesterday. It is not bad enough that the results of this bogus poll should be obvious, long before the first vote was cast, to anyone who passed grade 6, but the question itself comes right out of Liberal Party talking points and in fact Ignatieff used almost the exact same words himself when announcing the program. Want to make a wager that if you asked the question: Is buying puppies for everyone better use of taxpayer dollars than tax cuts?, that the puppies would win hands down?

Or better yet ( and I DARE you to ask this one Ryan): Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding the CBC?


Today's question: "Are you concerned about illegal lobbying for government contracts?"

Wow, I wonder what the final results of this QOTD are going to be. DUH!

What does the CBC think they are accomplishing by rewording LPC talking points into their QOTD? Maybe they should get Frank Graves to write their question for them. On second thought...

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix

Sure you do. 

BC Blue on another fair and unbiased report.

Rosemary Barton responds with fallacious reasoning

The CBC Rosemary Barton finally responds to comments she made on live TV during the long gun registry vote. See blog post on the quote here and listen to the actual quote for yourself.

The original quote: " ..it may be fair to point out that the Conservatives are whipped on their position here, so even of there was a Conservative MP from Quebec that didn't feel comfortable taking this position they would be forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."

Here is what she had to say today on Twitter. (my thoughts in parenthesis)

From BC Blue: @RosieBarton Rosie, is it true you called the Con caucus "whipped" on the Registry vote?

RB Reply:  @bcbluecon I said they were voting along party lines. Is that wrong?  (that is not what she said)

My reply:  @RosieBarton Actually you said CPC "are whipped on their position here... forced to vote with their party in the same way the Liberals were.

RB: @Albertaardvark do you have proof that's wrong?  (No proof for her statements, asks me to disprove her words instead)

My reply: @RosieBarton I know it is wrong but I didn't make the statement. BTW do u have any proof for your allegation?

RB: @Albertaardvark well, I guess we'll just disagree on what we know then. Cuz I'm not sharing either.

My reply: @RosieBarton So U will not offer proof of YOUR statement but it is up 2 me 2 disprove what u stated.Is that how accountability is done @CBC? 

Wow. The logic she is using  is mind blowing. No proof or defense of her own statement but rather she calls on me to disprove her words! I believe that this would be called fallacious reasoning and I can't seem to find it anywhere in the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.



Try that same logic with this one Rosie:
I say that the CBC has many Satan worshipers in its employ.*    Prove me wrong! 

The burden of proof lies with the person making the affirmative statement, and should not be placed on someone else to disprove that statement, which in the case of Satan worshipers at the CBC or the existence of unicorns would be impossible to do.






I thought I did a good job of showing why there was no need to whip the CPC to vote for what is a CORE policy of the party on this vote in my original post but let me add another quick point. Michael Ignatieff is out on record, multiple times, saying that he is whipping the Liberal vote, there is no record of PM Stephen Harper doing likewise. Does that sound like CPC MP's were "forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."


* exaggeration  for effect. Or was it. Prove me wrong.







UPDATE: Rosie, who it appears can't take criticism or defend her own statements, has blocked me from following her on Twitter.  Stay classy Rosie.


Latest Update 25 Sept: Rosie has now Protected ALL of her Tweets from being viewed. You now have to be one of the elite few selected by her to have the pleasure of seeing what she does while at work at the CBC on your dime.




  

The CBC's Rosemary Barton on C391: The Conservatives are whipped on their position here

Wednesday on CBC's Power and Politics during the big vote on Bill C 391 Rosemary Barton made the following claim:

" ..it may be fair to point out that the Conservatives are whipped on their position here, so even if there was a Conservative MP from Quebec that didn't feel comfortable taking this position they would be forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."  (Clip at bottom of post)

News to me and I assume to the conservative caucus too because the fact of the matter was that they were NOT whipped. We all know that the Liberals were whipped ( the first time for a private members bill I believe) and although the NDP claim not to have been whipped their vote they somehow managed to get just the right number of NDP MPs to change their votes and kill C391 (Cue the church lady: How convenient), but the conservatives were NOT whipped; they didn't have to be.

Killing the long gun portion of the firearms registry has always been conservative policy right from the first policy convention, in fact this is clearly written into the party policy declaration. It is a bedrock position of the CPC and one which every MP ran on it during every election since the party unification in 2003. There was no need to whip the vote as every MP is well aware of where THEIR party stands and there was absolutely no need to threaten them to do what they all have said they were going to do; vote to scrap the long gun registry. Reminding MP's of the importance of a vote is not whipping, and in this case with all of the media coverage on C 391 I doubt the CPC whip even had to do that.

So no Rosemary, it was not fair nor was it accurate to point out to the CBC viewing audience that the conservatives were whipped on C 391.

FYI : I have asked Rosemary Barton via Twitter 2 separate times about her comments and so far I have, big surprise, not received any response what so ever.  Update: Rosie responds, and unable defend her own words, blocks me!

Something for Kory Teneycke to consider the next time he is interviewed.

Here is something that Kory Teneycke could consider doing the next time that the media attacks interviews him on the proposed Sun TV where predictably he will be called out for being an conservative and asked if that will influence the new networks balance.

When asked about his conservative stance, which to his credit he readily admits, Kory should again say that yes he is a conservative and that he has no problem admitting this; then he should turn to whomever asked him that question and ask them:

What about yourself? Who do you support and why don't you let your viewers know so they can filter your work and possible biases appropriately?


Watch this little exchange on CBC's Power and Politics with Don Newman for an example of what I am talking about. What would have Newman of Soloman said if he would have asked them to come clean and be honest with CBC viewers?

Want to make a bet that he would not get an honest answer if he did ask?

Sorry about that. We already know what would happen and I don't expect anyone to be dumb enough to actually make a wager on a question that is the definition of a sucker bet.


The only downside is that Kory wants to get media attention; not drive it away.


Related: Mark Steyn's thoughts on the hyperventilating media. (I hear he may be looking for a TV gig ;)

Maybe now the CBC will cover the Libby Davies story.

Bob Rae has put the CBC in a bad position with his press release today, calling for deputy NDP Libby Davies to step down, because now they will have to cover her disturbing comments which up until this point the CBC have totally ignored. (Note: The National Post appears to be the only MSM outlet to cover Libby's remarks.)





I guess when you have most of your reporters covering KoryVision and typos on web pages, little things like a deputy party leader saying that Israel is not a legitimate state get missed.


More from Libby: 911, Bush did it.





The PM has also called for Davies to be fired but I don't expect that to carry as much weight with the CBC as a Liberal Party press release, which seems to be where the CBC gets most of its stories from.



Related: BC Blue has a couple of interesting tidbits and related links.

Stephen Taylor on the tolerant NDP.


Update: Libby spoke the words in that first video June 5th and this has been covered on the blogs for days now. The CBC did not have any mention of this story up in any form until this afternoon after the PM made his comments in the House.

If Don Newman doesn't like Fox News, why did he steal Bill O'Reilly's slogan?

Most of you are already aware of the proposed "right leaning" news network that is being put together by Kory Teneycke for Sun Media and the recent bizarre article written by Don Newman against such a network.

I use the word bizarre for a couple of reasons. First because nobody who works at a government funded network that does not have to raise it's own money to operate has any business ever criticizing a privately funded network, which is forced to compete against it's own government (CBC), and second, because Newman spends more time writing about the merger of the Liberals and the NDP ( BTW Don believes this to be some kind of conservative plot which shows just how messed up his thinking really is) than he does about the proposed new network.

Don writes in his article that "Fox News has been hugely polarizing. It specializes in drive-by attacks and misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian at times, claiming to be "fair and balanced" while implying that its competitors aren't. The reality is that it mainly spews out propaganda that is dangerously misleading and often factually wrong."

This is all kind of funny considering that Don Newman, while he was the host of "Politics" on the CBC, "borrowed" the well known tag line (The spin stops here) from the very popular Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor (the highest rated news program in the USA).

I guess when you use the "propaganda" for yourself Don that makes it all OK. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stay retired.




Bonus video courtesy of Proud to Be Canadian who has been on top of the shenanigans at the CBC for years.

Bill O'Reilly on Don Newman and the CBC: "The theft starts there."

Kudos to CBC's Evan Solomon

Must see video clip from Thursdays episode of CBC's Power and Politics with Evan Soloman.

IMHO perhaps the best 30 seconds of CBC produced material you have seen all year as host Evan Soloman totally owns NDP MP Pat Martin. (not including sports)

I almost fell out of my chair when Soloman looked at Martin, opened up his arms and said "So maybe......" giving Martin the last second opportunity to come clean and see the hypocrisy of his statements; Martin however never took the very polite cue from Solomon and as a result Martin now looks like a buffoon.

Way to go Evan Soloman! Full kudos for a job well done and an example to others of how to do things.


BLY has more on the interview here and the full episode of P&P is available here. Cue to approx the 1:16:00 mark for the start of the segment and also note how clueless Jack Layton, the guy who may lead the coalition, is about Martin's well publicized remarks.

Update: Ryan Hicks has a blog post up with the entire segment HERE.

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

Speaking of kudos and the CBC.

Hockey Night in Canada's Ron MacLean helped save a mans life in Philadelphia and deserves a shout out as well for his actions. WTG!

Whitewash.

The CBC releases its interim report on bias/balance.

Report here.

Executive summary here.



A couple of quick thoughts. The report does NOT include CBC's massive coverage of the prorogation issue in the report (even though it falls right in the middle of the events used for the report) and they totally gloss over 'climategate' which the CBC did not even mention at all for days after it became known. They do however include coverage of the PM visiting India and China ( of course these were good news stories which conveniently balances the other crap) and the CBC praises it own coverage of H1N1 (on which Mark Sakamoto agrees) and seems to think that diversity in who reads the news is just as important as the news itself.


More to come...

CBC: Audit us, no way!

It would seem that all the talk from the CBC over auditing MP's is just a little bit hypocritical.

The CBC is among many media outlets across the country that are strongly criticizing MPs for a lack of transparency, but the Crown Corporation is in the midst of its own, much quieter, battle to prevent the release of its taxpayer-funded expenses.

The Crown Corporation received $1.2-billion last year from Ottawa – roughly twice the $544-million spent on Parliament. It is currently in a Federal Court battle with the Access to Information Commissioner, who disputes the CBC’s blanket refusal to disclose any information regarding its journalistic, creative or programming activities, citing section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act.

Is anyone really surprised? I can't wait for Kady's latest on this.

CBC to investigate if its news is biased.

What they should be investigating is reporter bias, which in turn leads to biased stories, but at least this is a start. (or an attempt to whitewash?)

The CBC has commissioned a study to determine whether its news is biased, the president of the public broadcaster told the Senate finance committee this week.

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix said.

I am not sure who the third party is that will be doing the study but if they want examples, the blogs are full of them.


Updated: As I noted above, the blogs are full of examples of, lets call it shaky, CBC coverage.

CS put this up tonight listing a few recent examples and his comments are a great place to list the examples you know of, but if you really want a more complete look at all things CBC visit Joel at PTBC.

Feel free to let the CBC know your thoughts here.

Even when they are writing about bias they still take a shot at conservatives: "Lacroix’s comments come on the heels of weeks of criticism from Conservative loyalists who disagreed with the CBC’s decision not to acknowledge that one of its house pollsters and frequent guest on the air also donated substantial sums to the Liberal Party."

"Conservative loyalists"? Labeling people just because they disagree with you is not the way to show that you have no bias CBC, but then again EVERYONE who had issue with this had to be a conservative, right?

And on the Graves thing, it is not about donations specifically but rather that his loyalty or his advice to the Liberals based on polls paid for by tax dollars was NEVER disclosed. Say it with me; full disclosure.

The CBC Responds. Part 2.

The CBC has again responded to my calling out of Scott Reid back on April 1, 2010 when he said:

"He (Kory Teneycke) along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, of ah bloggers that work for the Conservative Party; those guys can mobilize a grassroots movement in the snap of a fingers......"

Their first response can be read here.

This time the reply was from Esther Enkin, Executive Editor CBC News who notes that Reid's comment about conservative bloggers being paid was not factual.

"They are not, of course. He was wrong,...... We regret the error."

Enkin commented that the matter has been discussed with Mr. Reid, that my e-mails on the matter were brought to his attention, adding "I do not expect him to apologize, as you suggested he should. However, at an early opportunity, when the subject of partisan blogs comes up again on the program, I expect Mr. Reid will correct his earlier remarks."

So this being Thursday, the normal day for the "Point of Order" segment to run, it might be worth it to tune in to "Power and Politics" today and see what our good friend Scott Reid has to say. Even if the subject does not come up today, I hear that Frank "I told them to invoke a culture war" Graves will be on the show going head to head with Kory Teneycke. Which in itself should be well worth the price of admission to see.

So please tune in to P&P this afternoon on the CBC News Network.

Enjoy!


UPDATE: Scott Reid's error continues to live on as NO correction was made today.

UPDATE April 29th: Another week passes and still no correction. What exactly does "at an early opportunity" mean in CBC language anyway? If we are waiting for the caveat about the topic of partisan blogs to come around, I suspect that I will be waiting a long time as I have never heard that topic brought up since Newman left.

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

Blog related: I have decided to give Twitter a serious go. If you are interested you can follow me on Twitter here.

The CBC responds.

The CBC responds to my concerns regarding the false statement made by Scott Reid on Power and Politics. (part 1?)

It took a bit of time and some jumping through some hoops but the CBC has finally responded to my concerns regarding a statement made by Scott Reid on the Point of Order segment from the April 1st, 2010 edition of Power and Politics with Evan Soloman.

Here is what Scott Reid said: "He (Kory Teneycke) along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, of ah bloggers that work for the Conservative Party; those guys can mobilize a grassroots movement in the snap of a fingers......" and the blog entry I made on the subject can be found here.

An excerpt from the reply I received from Paul Hambleton Managing Editor of the CBC Parliamentary Bureau: The email states that indeed the statement made by Mr. Reid was a "misrepresentation " and goes on to say "The Power & Politics segment in question asks Scott Reid and Jamie Watt [sic] to take a swing at the hot political issues of the day. With their experience we expect insight. But we also want them to be opinionated, funny, and as well; to poke at each other and at politicians. And they're good at it. That said, we need to be as accurate as possible, and at times things that guests say get through that perhaps should not have. It's a fact of life on cable television."

While I do want to thank Mr. Hambleton for his reply and the work of producer Ryan Hicks for getting my (originally ignored) emails to be addressed, I have some big concerns with the contention that Scott Reid was only a "guest" on the show.

Mr.Reid's statement did not occur on one of the many panel discussions, moderated by Evan Soloman, but rather in a pre-taped regular and un-moderated segment on P&P called 'Point of Order', where he and Jaime Watt (correct spelling) give their take on the issues of the day without any type of disclaimer what so ever as to them being merely guests.

Is it normal for the CBC to give "guests" their own regular weekly segment to say whatever they feel like with no accountability or disclaimer, and more importantly is Mr. Reid paid for his work on Point of Order?

So what do you think. Is the CBC correct and Scott Reid is just one in a long line of guests on the show or should he be viewed as something more?

And how does all of this fit into the CBC's own code of Journalistic Standards and Practices?


More to come?

FYI I have replied to the email from the CBC.

Heather Mallick, proud to hate Canada.

Heather Mallick is at it again; this time she is telling us and that we should all be embarrassed to be Canadians. From the UK Guardian

Some excerpts:

Out of something as misty as mere indecision, Canadian voters have turned their country into a political freak show. Canada's Conservative government, run by an ideologue named Stephen Harper, does not represent Canadian voters on saving the air we breathe and temperatures we can cope with.

Yes, Canada's record on carbon emissions is disgraceful, shameful, loathsome etc. The tar sands of northern Alberta are an international scandal. But the problem is not in a former Prius of a country turning into a Hummer. Canada's dilemma is much more interesting that that. It is the decline of a democracy (partly as its media died, thank you Conrad Black) and the descent of a nation into a political stasis. ( AA Note: if you are too stupid not to know the difference between tar and oil you invalidate your opinions on the dumb factor alone)


First, no one disagrees more with Harper's refusal to slow climate change than Canadian voters. Indeed, more than three-quarters of Canadians say they are embarrassed that Canada hasn't taken an international lead on the issue, a recent poll revealed.

We hate green garbage incompetents. We love the Kyoto protocol, we want to prostrate ourselves in Copenhagen next month, but until we make our mind up about whether to make Michael Ignatieff prime minister, we can't.

May I humbly beg for patience with my country, which is stuck like a beaver in a dam of its own making.

American travellers used to shove a Canadian flag on their backpack for better treatment overseas. I'm sorry that the reverse has happened and Canadians now switch the conversation to Obama as quickly as possibly before the subject of clubbing seals arises.

We have shamed our better natures. But we Canadians will rid ourselves of Harper and rise again to be the decent and intelligent nation you Brits once patronised with such delight.

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

You know I do sort of agree with Heather. It is embarrassing to be a Canadian sometimes, particularly when Heather is out there representing us to the world.

Heather if you are ashamed of your country I feel sorry for you but that is your choice, but please do not go around and attempt to speak for the millions of others of us who are very proud of this great country of ours. You are truly an embarrassment to all of us.

A blast from the recent past: More slime from Heather can be found here. Note that this article was considered so far over the top that her bosses at the CBC deleted it from the web and issued an apology.

"On the whole, the CBC News policy handbook takes a very anxious view of any mixing of opinion in with the news business. It sees the two as nitro and glycerin, innocuous on their own but explosive together. This is a very healthy restraint for a public broadcaster.

But every news organization needs to have an opinion dimension. Access to different viewpoints helps readers, listeners and viewers make reasoned choices, especially during an election campaign.

As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that’s based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.

We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to ensure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It’s a fine line."

Charles Adler replies to Heather. Courtesy of Christian Conservative.

From the comments: You go Girl. http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/information/applications/renounce.asp

Don Newman missed us.

I guess Don Newman misses taking shots at the conservatives on the Braaaaaawdcast.

Take your BP meds and have a read: Stephen Harper and the politics of suspicion.


Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen.

Is Krista's name missing from the by line?

From yesterdays National Post comes this drivel from Pablo Rodriguez.

Some excerpts:

"Remember that for 18 years, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was an author himself, as well as a screenwriter and documentary filmmaker. He lived the life of an artist, with all the financial insecurity that comes with it. He watched with pride as our artists flourished on the world stage, and as they made Quebec and Canada models of creativity."

(Ignatieff the starving artist? Sorry Pablo, not buying it, and the last time I checked Quebec was part of Canada so there is no need to separate the 2, unless.....)
"Let us not allow ourselves to fall under the spell of the siren’s song, or should we say, of Stephen Harper’s song. Let us not forget that behind the Conservatives’ public relations strategy lurks a lacklustre vision whereby culture is subject to Conservative ideology. Let’s not forget Bill C-10, which sought to censor movies deemed “contrary to public policy” by revoking their funding."

(Nice attempt to smear the PM, you're all class Pablo. I see that the old Bill C-10 lie again makes an appearance. That was Liberal policy Pablo in case you forgot. The big lie here though is that not a single film is going to be censored by the government as Pablo maintains. No one from government is going to stop ANY film from being made; they are just going to have to find their own funding as do 99% of all business ventures in this country who mange to do quite well without using tax dollars to do so, which is something that Liberals like Pablo will never really understand.)

"Our Liberal leader is also committed to ensuring stable funding to CBC/Radio-Canada, allowing long-term planning so the broadcaster can continue to offer unique, quality programming, as per its mandate as a Crown corporation."

Yes he went there; Pablo actually brought up the CBC. Some days this is too easy.

The post somehow got messed up, it should now be fixed.

CBC Man on the street is also Ignatieff's Man

What are the odds?

Last night CBC News did a story on H1N1 (what else is new) and they spoke with people waiting in line for the flu shot about their thoughts on the subject. One of those 'men on the street' that the CBC spoke with just happens to currently work for Michael Ignatieff and used to work for the CBC as a lawyer.

From The Globe and Mail: "The staffer in question is Mark Sakamoto, formerly a lawyer with the CBC. He is one of Mr. Ignatieff’s senior strategists and part of the so-called Toronto gang who have been with him since 2006. Mr. Sakamoto and his wife have a newborn. In a note to a colleague, Mr. Sakamoto denied he was a plant: “Not a plant. My wife and I were in line because my 6-week-old baby cannot be vaccinated. Caregivers for parents with children under 6 months are one of the priority groups. That's the sole reason that I was there.”

Could it just be a coincidence? Well yes it could be, but really what are the odds that the CBC would just happen to choose one of their former employees and current Ignatieff staffer out of a line up of hundreds of people to interview?

Time to buy a lottery ticket I guess.

Update: Video


CBC Twitter on the subject can be seen here. But does Mr. Sakamoto have any responsibility here to identify himself as a CBC employee (on leave?) I would think that CBC policy or their code of conduct would say that the answer is yes

Chucker's thoughts.

Ignatieff, the CFL and The Economist.

A couple of quick ones for Day 2 of Ignatieff week.

From a CBC interview ( edit Apr 2010: link now dead) with Ignatieff on his (not written for any political gain) book.

Solomon: You know that the Conservatives are going to comb through this for everything. Every moment where ignatieff may miss it to prove that he’s not a true patriot. Once you say, I’m a patriot, boy, you better walk it. There is one thing that I caught, I have to mention it to you... you say "as Canadians, we cheer for the same football teams as Americans." This is talking about how similar the two cultures are. But no, we don't! We cheer for the CFL.

Ignatieff: No, not true. Not true. That’s a piece of--

Solomon: What?

Ignatieff: That’s…Look. There are people who love the Hamilton Tiger Cats and the Montreal Allouettes, and etc., but, there are lots of Canadians-

Solomon: Who love the nfl. ( I like how he answers the question for Iggy)

Ignatieff: Who love the NFL, that’s all I'm saying. And I don't want to cast negative aspersions on the CFL.

Solomon: It’s a national institution. ( more help from the CBC)

Ignatieff: Yeah, it’s a great national institution. I've watched it all my life. But there are also Canadians who watch the NFL.

There is lots here but look at the last comment from Ignatieff where he says he watched the CFL all of his life. Umm, I am not 100% sure on this, but some how I don't think that the CFL gets much coverage in England at the best of times and I doubt that during the 20 years that he spent over there that the BBC ever broadcast ANY CFL games.

So how did he watch?

Finally this article from The Economist asks the question that many of us have been asking for some time. Does Ignatieff have any policies?

Getting Cocky with Ignatieff

Getting cocky with Ignatieff; while it sounds like it may be the title of a new CBC sitcom, it isn't. Not that the CBC would like to produce such a show, but there are real doubts that such a series with Ignatieff as the star would pass the CRTC guidlines for Canadian content =) Getting cocky with Iggy it turns out is just the day to day reality of the new Iggyfied Liberal Party of Canada as the interim and very much unratified leader continues to put his stamp on the party with the powers he seized late last year.

Yesterday his highness declared that he would not sign the nomination papers of any Liberal candidate who did not maintain a certain level of signed up members as well as a certain number of cash donors; this dictate also includes sitting MP's.

Imagine that. A guy who seized power of the party without the input of the rank and file members and fixed it so he would go unchallenged at the leadership convention has the gall to not only demand that all candidates go out and sign up even more members that he can ignore in this effort to have greater control over the nominations of candidates in 308 ridings across the country overriding the will of those same local members/boards, but also by asking those same members to pay for the privilege of it all happening.

Wow!

What makes this all even more bizarre are a couple of other interesting facts such as that it is Ignatieff himself who is the biggest reason why there are such low numbers of party members at this time since it was he and his backroom minions that fixed it so there would be no real party convention thereby eliminating the best opportunity a political organization has to sign up 1000s of new members, and the real kicker that the guy who is now demanding that Liberal candidates milk their supporters for more money is the same one that himself did not even donate a single dollar to the party in 2008!

Got that? Iggy is the unilateral decider. He is not the payer; that is what he has you for.

Get out those cheque books you Liberals, as your leader has decreed it, so it must be made to happen.





Another bizarre thing about this all is that I doubt that any TV producer would even consider such a script as it seems to unrealistic for viewer to believe. Yet this is the reality of what the Liberal Party of Canada headed Michael Ignatieff looks like today.

Who would have imagined?

Sorry - we can't find that page

Results on the CBC website for http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html

It looks like the CBC has had a change of heart.



To refresh your memory you can read what was on that lost page here.

Is Carolyn Parrish's pen name Heather Mallick?

Is Carolyn Parrish's pen name Heather Mallick by chance?

I am not saying... I am just sayin'.


Thank you CBC"Canada's national public broadcaster" and all of your advertisers. You have managed to embarrass not only yourselves but embarrass an entire country by paying for and allowing this hate filled entry on your taxpayer funded web site.

Gordon Sinclair must be rolling over in his grave.