ChuckerCanuck 2.0

Rise up and shine! This is going to go very well, my friends.

See below.

No, he doesn't. He works hard at a job that strikes me as exhausting and frustrating. Long hours. Minimal privacy. Lots of crappy nice guy stuff. The media tells him what an unlikeable human being he is everyday. Like that song goes, "if that's not love, I don't know what love is."

Dear Liberals and media-friendlies, I think this is not a particularly clever move. You think that you can frame the election as:

We love Canada. They hate Canada.

How stupid are the citizens to you? Seriously, I'm sure Earnescliffe has the numbers - what's the average IQ of a Canadian citizen? Did they poll a 70? Because you sure seem to think we are stupid.

I know you focus group alot. Is it the same focus group? Do they travel in the back of the campaign bus with you? If so, I think its a mistake. Its a dumb group of people you're focusing.

Yes. We all hate Canada. Interesting, often when we disagree with you, you tell us to move to the United States. We haven't yet - even though its not difficult to do. Why? Why? Hmmmmm.... It must be we hate Canada. We stay to hate.

The most sinister and appalling thing about this tact is its really about campaign logistics: turn a two-front campaign into a one-front campaign by making it about the fate of Canada in EVERY region of the country - not just Quebec. Brinkmanship. Now, everyone hates Canada except Paul Martin. Paul Martin will save us from the forces of darkness in every riding in the country.

Liberals understand that only in a state of perpetual crisis will they maintain power. So, they manufacture each crisis. They have their media-friendlies to help. And, of course, their partners in this crime, the PQ, do their part to lay it on. [Separatists and Torontonians benefit disproportionately to this brinkmanship - the former enjoys political influence, the latter enjoys migrations of capital and talented labour....]

Its exhausting and obvious - not subtle like the supple, storied Grits of old.

Rideau Hall has decided that the tree they have up for the holidays is not a "Christmas" tree: it is a Holiday Tree. The tree is a symbol of the sum total joy we get from every holiday in every religion and/or organization for the next 6 to 8 weeks. I'm getting a warm tingly from the festive mood it creates as we speak.

To use "Christmas" offends too many people in our society. I'm sure we can all think up three things more offensive than Christmas. But really, could anyone think up five things more offensive than Christmas? No way in hell.

My question: if the Government wants to appropriate a symbol from a particular group to represent the warm, cuddly feelings of the collective holiday season, why not choose a minorah?

Why didn't the GG decide, "no, no tree. PERIOD. Put up a minorah, only we don't call it that. We call it the Holiday Candles."

Then, you really keep the concept of Christmas to a minimum, as it should be.

In fact, another thing you could do is take Christmas icons and put them to better use. I bet if you swap Santa Claus for Rick Mercer, you could make it a Two Tonne challenge that would work!

Make Rudolph a military spokesman. Put the elves in charge of implementing Gomery's recommendations.

That would kill a whole lot of Christmas and ensure the supremacy of the Holiday Season.

So, Dr. Ignatieff seems to have pissed off his newly-adopted Ukrainian community with certain musings in his acedemic works. Apparently, it's hard for him to imagine Ukraine as, um, a real country. You know, they're like - well, all good Russians know that Ukraine is the ass-end of Russia.

The future saviour of Homo Grittus doesn't think a gaggle of peasants can make a country. He thinks its a joke. Can you imagine how he'll wade into Quebec politics as Liberal leader:

"Oh," he says with a condescending chuckle,"you folks can't make a country. Get real. I live in Toronto. Have you seen how big the CN Tower is? That's a country."

Today brought him his first taste of political life in front of cameras with journalists, not fawning interviewers. He states that his CV includes: "teaching." He's been a teacher all his life, he admits. That's great. (I'm very jealous of him, actually). But that doesn't qualify him to be in charge of a ministry that employs tens of thousands of people. At least a stint as faculty dean or something managerial.

I read somewhere that when Andre Boisclair was at Harvard, he and Ignatieff had "fiery" debates on Quebec and Canada. Oh, brother. The poor Texan caught between the two during that exchange:

Iggy (passionately gesticulating): I believe in a united, diverse, vibrant Canada.

Boisclair (smiling prickishly, through thick french accent): Yes, wonderful, but alongside a diverse, vibrant Quebec that is confident in the world.

Iggy (shoots a long, pleading look): But Andre, damn it! Together, as one confederation, we can achieve more for everyone than if we go it alone.

Boisclair (raising his index finger to underscore his point): The specificity of Quebec society requires specific tools that can only be obtained through nationhood.

Iggy (almost crying, hand slaps against forehead): Name your tools. Name them. You need a tool? The federal Liberals have plenty of tools for Quebec's needs.

(At this, Tyler, the shy historian from San Marcos, Texas decides to break from this pointless "debate")

Tyler: I think I need a Rolling Rock.

Iggy (wanting to keep the audience): But Ty, this is about assymetrical federalism. This is fascinating stuff. (It does not work, the crowd disperses, including the PQs 23 year old cabinet minister. Makes you wonder, did Parizeau meet him at McDonald's and like the way he shoveled fries?)

Jane Taber in the Liberal Activist Newsletter, the Globe and Mail, says that Goodale's move on income trusts was smart politics: after the annoucenment trust prices soared.

Actually, Jane. the worry is that trust prices soared before the annoucement. Of course, the Globe and Mail and Liberals would love to have a serious scandal pop up now - it let's them say:

"No election now. We'll keep governing until after we've investigated ourselves for insider trading."

The funny part is, Goodale puts on the "shocked at the very suggestion of it" look as his jowls flap back and forth. Ken Dryden must have been jealous at this exercise in manufactured outrage.

I can't wait to see how bank stocks trade leading up to any annoucement on bank mergers. (As John McCallum put it- when he left the Royal Bank to become a Liberal Cabinet Minister, the Royal Bank paid him a hefty severence. Why would the Royal Bank pay a hefty severence to a man who is quitting his job?)

Four wee lads are saying their goodbyes to the munchkins in the final moments before they cast off down the yellow brick road in search of the wizard of Oz.

Paul Martin plays Dorothy. Always earnest with a croaking whine in his voice that says he cares - he cares so very much. He's an innocent in this wild and terrifying new world. Oh, Aunt May, why can't this be Kansas anymore? [program note: the role of lap dog Toto is still being contested by Scott Reid and Scott Brison]

Stephen Harper plays the Tin Man, hoping before the trip ends, he'll find a heart. (Mr. Harper, the ax is to chop down the dead wood that is the Grit caucus!)

Jack Layton plays the scare crow. Eager to please, he's a glass full of sunshine. Does he have a brain? We'll only know in Emerald City.

Gilles Duceppe plays the corwardly lion. Lots of roar in the man with a mouthful of sharp teeth. But, when the dark clouds roll in and wicked witch of separation swoops down - Gilles the Lion runs for cover behind Dorothy's skirt.

When the four reach the wizard of Oz, they will pull back the velvet curtain of a polling booth and see that the wizard is us.



UPDATE: Anonymous, the internet's busiest blogger, asks if this analogy holds, then who is the Good Witch?

Fair question. To cast such a character, you're looking for someone with a sacchrine value-system (left-winger). Also, you need someone who acts as a sort of bridge between Oz and Kansas (or past and present). Strikes me that the good witch is clearly Svend Robinson.

The CBC ran the "Secret Mulroney Tapes" last night and I sat riveted the whole two hours.

Yes, he swears. So do I. So does my dad. Swearing feels good. It adds pinache to everything.
Any emotive statement sounds better with "fucking" spliced appropriately into the comment.

Yes. he thinks Joe Clark was a nitwit. Who doesn't?

Other than that, Mulroney comes across as the finest Prime Minister we've ever had.
He is shrewd. He is tough. But most importantly, his love of Canada and his willingness to achieve things on Canada's behalf is breathtaking. I ask you - dear reader - what was wrong with Meech, save for the blemish it would cause to Trudeau's precious legacy?

Set against him, Paul Martin is what he is - a silver-spooned car salesman whose "big ideas" add up to a Mulroney hiccup.

As for the sycophant Newman and his silly cap, I wish he would join Farley Mowatt in the club of Canadian losers - shut up and retire, you anachronism. Oh, and go easy on the mascara, please.

To the CBC, I apologize. I assumed, not without good reason, that you were airing a Moore-ian rant against the man who you obviously despised despite: fighting apartheid, ending acid rain, making Stephen Lewis a UN hero, Free Trade, GST, addressing the national unity issue openly.

Not so. Mulroney doesn't always sound pretty on the tapes, but the show leaves anyone watching it with one conclusions: Mister, we could use a man like Brian Mulroney again.

I don’t have answers to this problem, but since no one is even articulating the problem,
I figure I’ve done my part just identifying it.

Our Foreign Policy Hurts our Immigration Policy

Ultimately, Canadians want to live in a world of democracies where people can enjoy freedoms equal to our own no matter where in the world they are born.

But if we ever achieved these foreign policy aims, we would lose the stem of immigration that we so desperately need (at least, I’m told we need it). Why would you displace yourself across the globe if conditions in your native land are fine or at least free and constantly improving?

Our Immigration Policy Hurst our Foreign Policy

We want to steal the best and brightest from developing countries (heck, any countries, really). If we achieve this, we leave the developing countries from which we did our cherry-picking in a worse situation than before. They lose education, they lose talent, they lose a moderate voice.

We leave these countries less educated, less talented and more radicalized than before.
Every immigrant we steal according to this policy, makes it harder for us to achieve our foreign policy objectives.

So there’s a contradiction here that needs thinking through and ultimately, addressing.

A thought or two:

1) I’ve always liked the “poor, huddled masses” concept that the Yanks have towards immigration. I like the idea that we don’t want your best and brightest. We want the sad sacks that you think aren’t useful in your country. Let them immigrate here and we will turn them into prosperous, productive citizens.

2) Maybe we talk a big game about “making the world a better place”, but the reason our military is so ill-equipped and our foreign is so lame and ineffectual is that we don’t actually want to achieve our foreign policy objectives. We pay lip service to them but do nothing
in order to maintain a sufficient state of misery in other countries to feed our immigration apetite.

Coming up to an election, CBC programming is so interesting -

After the lock-out, they rushed out - I don't know - maybe 8 movies about Trudeau like:

"Trudeau - Man-God"
"Trudeau - Sex Icon"
"Trudeau - Gallant Genius"
"Trudeau - All that Matters in Life"
"Trudeau - Canada sux without him"

etc., etc...

Meanwhile, in the interest of "balance" they decided to do the same for conservatives by rushing out:

"Mulroney - the secret files"

I know it's pure coincidence. I know the CBC is entirely indifferent to the outcome of the next election.

You don't know how hard it is to type that title.

For the rest of Canada, I'll brief you: Pettigrew called the PQ a bunch of losers.

Today, he's getting slammed by everyone for his "offensive" comments.

To me, Pettigrew wasn't making a political statement, he was making an anthropological statement. It was a plain observation that no one can avoid: the PQ are a bunch of losers
and Tuesday night made that obvious.

Some reasons:

1) You will never fool us into thinking this isn't about ethnic nationalism. It is. It will always be. Anglos will never wake up one morning and cheer Quebec separatism. You don't like us. You like our tax base, though, don't you? You like our companies and skill sets. But us? How many francophones outside Montreal hate this city because anglos scurry across the island like cockroaches? Too many.

2) It is pathetic to see grown men and women think that by having a different passport, suddenly life's problems disappear.

3) "Les militants" - party workers - work for your party because you have whispered in ALL of their ears, "once a country, you will be Quebec's ambassador to [insert dream country here]." In other words, you're all a bunch of pigs pining for your dream trophe.

4) Three of four former premiers/party leaders didn't bother to show up. What kind of country do you plan to build if the very founders of said country get bored with the whole project two years down the line?

"Mr. Parizeau, how is that nation-building going?"
"Oh," he says, "I forgot. Its harvest time at the vineyard and I have a Klu Klux Klan meeting tonight."

5) Not a single interesting idea has come out of the PQ in the last 4 years. It gets more regressive and more dogmatic by the second.

Pettigrew is exactly right. Losers. Big, Ugly, Pathetic Losers.

I have been tagged by Cerberus - a wonderful blogger whose only character flaw is his support for Canada's most ridiculous PM, PM.

Today was my 23rd post (Canada Loves God: Proof - Boisclair).

I am to post the 5th sentence of that post, the rules of this game of tag and then 5 people that I have tagged.

So, sentence no. 5 was:

"Everybody was dressed in suits that even disco-loving 70s folks would call tacky."

(did you see Louise Harel? Geez, K.D. Lang, if you want to know what you'll look like if you trade in cowboy clothes for union boss clothes in thirty years - there you go!

The rules:

1. Go into your archive.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five people to do the same.

Who do I tag? Here it is:

Candace for : http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com/
Sierra for: http://cloudofidiotgas.blogspot.com/
Monte Solberg for: http://www.montesolberg.com/blog.htm
Frederick Boisvert for: http://frederikboisvert.blogspot.com/
Kelly Joel MacRae for: http://www.neoconprospect.blogspot.com/


Have fun!

I've been quiet on the PQ leadership race, like so many good federalists in Quebec.

Please, we prayed silently, please elect Andre Boisclair.

And they did.

Let me tell you, watching the PQ leadership convention looked like something they broadcast on North Korean Television. Everybody was dressed in suits that even disco-loving 70s folks would call tacky. The haircuts - it looks like Pettigrew's doo is the fashion statement amongst PQs. But the worst part, of course, was the content.

Boring? Absolutely. It's a club for people living in a Marxist fantasy-land where if you say the word "solidarity" enough, well, Puff the Magic Dragon appears and re-distributes income.

And then comes Boisclair. Boring. Vapid. Bimbo. He says there won't be any turbulence after a "yes" vote. He thinks it's a simple matter of changing addresses. Anglos will be happy. Allos will be cheering. Ottawa will shower us with rose petals. Does Mr. Boisclair think he can sprinkle pixie dust on our problems and make them go away?

Anyway, he says he "cherishes" us anglos and our contribution. Isn't that nice?
He says, "don't fear me." Don't worry, buddy, I don't.

Senor German Lopez of Juarez, Mexico writes to ask:

Chuckercanuck, can you give us some examples of right-wing films so that we can start coming up with our ideas?

Well, German (pronouced Herr-Mann), I couldn't do that when it comes to Canadian films because, as I have pointed out earlier, they all suck and are all left-wing. So, let's meet half-way (in Hollywood) and look at the political spectrum in films made by Yankees.

Left Wing Film Right Wing Film
The Day After Tomorrow vs. Armageddon

==> obvious comparison. One is full of shit. The other has Bruce Willis in it.

Contact vs. Independence Day

==> the lefties think aliens are friendly "grandad"-types. Righties know very well that when aliens do arrive, we'll have to kick the crap out of them or they take our planet.

Land of the Dead vs. 28 Days Later


==> Romero does class-warfare zombie movie. The brits respond with animal righties starting the zombie mess.

Star Trek vs. Star Wars

==> Kirk gets laid alot and everyone on the Starship is so damned nice. Luke Skywalker never shied away from a fight. And, Darth Vader pretty much ran the sponsorship program.

Analyze This! vs. Something about Mary

==> Lefties love the mob (just ask the Liberals). Righties - well, this movie was a bit crude for my own taste.

The Lion King vs. Harry Potter – any of ‘em

==> Only Lefties could believe that lions and anteloupes dance and sing together before the lions rip them to shreads and feed on hot, fresh meat.

When Harry met Sally vs. True Lies

==> Two whiners in a cafe talking about life = lefty. A gorgeous wife finds out her husband fights terrorism, not counts beans = righty.


Bewitched (the remake) vs. Brady Bunch (the remake)

==> Family values!

Das Boat vs. Saving Private Ryan

==> "Ahh, cut the poor Germans some slack," says your friendly neighbourhood communist.

Farenheit 9/11 (pure fiction) vs. Beavis & Butthead

==> Unlike Moore's waste of film reel, Beavis & Butthead is an accurate depiction of suburban life. And, the best line of all soundtrack movies: "Fly away, lesbian seagull."

I hope this helps.

Political ad tailor made for a Christmas election:

Midnight in the suburbs. Snow falls gently. Mom descends the staircase to investigatea noise in the living room. She comes upon Santa Claus - a fat, old white guy bedecked in glorious RED jacket and magnificent RED hat with white trim. In what little light is available,his wet lips and plump, oily cheeks shine.

With one hand, Santa Claus is rifling through mom's purse. In another, he his holding several credit cards he's already found. At first, he is startled, almost shamed.

Mom: (in horror) What are you doing?

At this, Santa Claus goes from startled to indignant.

Santa Claus: But I brought you all these presents! (He sweeps the hand with credit cards across the room).

Mom quietly stands her ground. Santa loses his nerve, panics and bolts for the backdoor never losing hisgrip on the credit cards.

Voice: Even if they were Santa Claus, it's not worth it.

Vic Burns, lead singer of the speed metal uber-band, Streetcar, sends in a few questions on the Tory Takeover of Canadian Film Sweepestakes. I'm going to answer them here. If you have questions, comment them and I'll get you answers. This seems a better way than imposing hard and fast rules on the script competition.

By the way, Vic, Streetcar's fifth album, Rabbit Eater, rocks. This coming from someone who doesn't even like amplification.

1. Chuckercanuck, your golden rule of filmmaking is no ugly people. Is there anything else about the characters that we should keep in mind when coming up with our script ideas?

Tough one. I'd say the field is wide open on this. Dibilitating disease is a bummer, so I'd avoid giving one to any main character - save that for CBC morning radio. I guess the only constraint I would add - and this is where the conservative part comes in - is that while everyone has strengths and weaknesses, bad guys are bad while good guys are good.

When a good guy has a weakness, it has to be something endearing. Sort of the equivalent of the job interview response to your "biggest weakness" ("I work too hard"/"I'm bad at cutting corners"). Forgetfulness is a good guy's weakness. The minute you give the good guy a serious flaw, like manic depression, you have strayed into liberal territory and you've lost the audience. So don't.

A bad guy doesn't have his childhood sympathetically re-hashed through flashbacks. We are not asking the audience to contemplatethe nature of evil as a series of childhood traumas calcifying on our souls. It isn't complicated: the guy is bad. Oh, but here's a Tory twist to things: the bad guy is NOT AMERICAN. I suppose that's obvious. Automatic disqualification to any submission that includes any range of villanous yankees, from gorilla-sized, monkey-brained Texans to sociopathic, radical preppies from southern Vermont. The bad guy should be Canadian. (Hopefully, everyone's Canadian in the movie and the world still wants to watch).

2. Chuckercanuck, are there any guidelines you can give on setting?

In terms of time, liberal filmmaking in Canada has made the historical film unsalvageable. So much celluloid crap has come from the Maoist-like efforts to rub a pink hue into our history that Tory filmmaking must avoid scripts set earlier than Year 1 of the Mulroney era. (Every year, the CBC gets money to make a movie about Trudeau. Colm Meaney has made more Trudeau flicks than Sean Connery made Bond flicks.) You try to fill a theatre with stories about rotary phones and hoola hoops and you head straight to Bombsville. Make it contemporary, make it futuristic or make it a Cyndi Lauper lovefest and you still have a chance of packing them in from Warsaw to Wellington.

Setting is a different story. If it smells Canadian, then you can set it on a moon of Saturn or in the back of a Saturn, driving through Alabama. (However, they say: write what you know. So, don't be shy of a local setting. I would love a horror film set in Yellowknife or a romantic comedy from Thunder Bay.)

You have about three weeks before the official launch of the sweepestakes. Meantime, brainstorm ideas with friends and send your questions here.

Good luck!

Professor Christian Tromso of the Bergen Institute writes:

"Chuckercanuck, tell me more about this conservaitve takeover of the Canadian film industry! And how do I participate in the sweepstakes?"

Thank you, Professor Tromso, though I admit I don't understand why you are so keen on the Canadian film industry being somewhere over the Arctic circle in Norway. That said - good questions!

THE TAKEOVER
As I have proven in the prior post, beyond doubt, the current Canadian film industry sucks. The root cause: lefties run it and government funds it. This vicious circle looks something like two leeches sucking each others blood. The good news is: in this state of iron-lung weakness we can storm the cinematic citadel and conquer the industry! Our key: we, righties, make movies people will PAY TO WATCH. And I'm not talking about packing them in at the Glace Bay Imperium - I mean, foreigners - heck, even citizens of the Great Satan.

THE SWEEPSTAKES
Chuckercanuck will host the TORY TAKEOVER SWEEPSTAKES this winter. Over the winter, through a grueling competition at this blogsite, the concept for Canada's first monster-HIT movie will be decided. One of you, dear readers, will have come up with it!

I will post the rules for script ideas shortly. Who knows - one day, Paul Gross and Cynthia Dale may be reading dialogue that you wrote! Or, better still, fighting an alien invasion that you invented!

Paul Martin is fully "exonorated".

This means: he signs the check, gets up from the table and his mind becomes empty like a Bhuddist monk.

Point is: This moron cannot walk around and claim credit for "achieving" things for simply making spending announcements.

--> $41 billion for health care? Judge Gomery concluded Paul Martin hasn't a friggin' clue how that money will be spent.

--> Billions for Kyoto? Judge Gomery concluded Paul Martin couldn't tell you where that money will go.

--> Money for Tsunami relief? Pakistani Earthquake victims? Judge Gomery taught us that Paul Martin couldn't tell you if that money made it passed Sparks Street.


So, Jack Layton, if you want to know why you make me sick, its this: you and Paul slap each other on the back for making a spending annoucement like its tough work to get in front of a camera and "claim" to spend money.

But, Jack - if Paul Martin has no clue where the money ends up after the spending annoucement is made - you sure don't either. Yes, you'll get a cabinet position soon. Yes, its hard to see how comfy Belinda's life is (she's the Gomery Minister and hasn't said a single word this week!!!). Yes, you'll get your brown envelope too, one day.

P.S. On to new subjects soon. I promise.

I'll be quick.

The moral authority to govern is the moral authority to collect taxes. Fellow citizens, we are stupidly blithe to the corruption at the hand of the Natural Governing Party. What is going to happen over the next two decades? I'll tell you:

The underground economy is going to enjoy explosive growth. So sick of politics and government, citizens will feel - oh, here's a favorite Grit word - entitled to skip out on GST, drop some commission cheques from their income, and generally dodge taxes where possible.

Argentina - give us 50 years, and we'll be keeping you company.

The match isn't over, but Martin comes out way ahead of us thanks to Gomery - which sadly looks a little too much like the Gomery Traversty I talked about some posts ago.

Anyway - I have always been outraged over Canada Steamship Lines. Specifically, that Paul Martin's company would fly flags of convenience to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

But now, I understand Paul Martin's point - why pay taxes to the federal coffers when it will get pissed away to a thousand corrupt underlings that are unelected and unaccountable?

My advice: go to flags.com, buy yourself a Bahamian flag and declare yourself a tax-free jurisdiction. They can't rip us off unless we first hand them the money. Paul Martin doesn't - so why should you?

Door knocks. (Chuckercanuck should fix that doorbell. His wife fumes because he's lazy about fixing anything that makes it easier to bother him).

Chuckercanuck (opening door): Hello, children! (he looks up from the candy bags to the children's heads, some six inches past his)

Children: Trick or treat. (baritones, all baritones)

Chuckercanuck dispenses the candy - all b-list chocolate bars. Then he catches the eye of Count Dracula.

Chuckercanuck: Say, didn't we go to high school together?

Count Dracula gets nervous and bolts...