59

This week in pop culture references


 

After shouting out Charlie Sheen on Tuesday, Michael Ignatieff invoked the foremost legal authority on American daytime television yesterday.

And I just say on this in-and-out scandal, the Prime Minister has spent two days defending the indefensible.  This is not a minor administrative dispute.  This is about a fraud of $800,000 of taxpayers’ money, illegal refunds of $800,000 coming out of the taxpayer’s hide and also going over the election spending limit by one million dollars.  So this is not small stuff.  And now these guys are saying – the Prime Minister’s saying he’s going to appeal.  I don’t who he’s going to appeal to — you know, Judge Judy?  I mean, you know, they’ve run out of road.


 

This week in pop culture references

  1. The Supreme Court of Canada ??

    Just sayin'

  2. They should just retitle his blog "Informal Liberal Press Releases" already.

  3. Well, people complained because Trudeau didn't pay any attention to hockey, so Harper has made a point of doing so and that's certainly pop culture.

    And one of the commonest complaints about politicians is that they live in a bubble, and don't know how the average person lives….they've 'lost touch' with the people they're representing.

    So from time to time politicians make reference to popular music, TV shows, sports and so on.

  4. The 'Gang of Four' – not starting in the Supreme Court. May end up there – just sayin'.

  5. You can't appeal to the SCC, you can only seek leave to appeal. Basically, ask the court if they see any contentious issue in the case that needs to be decided. Since the ruling was clear and unanimous, I can't imagine that leave will be granted, and the ruling will therefore stand.
    Cue the Cons crowing about activist liberal judges on the Supreme court (including the ones appointed by Harper)

  6. Some of them actually go so far as to sing Neil Diamond songs…

  7. Heh….well not all of them are up-to-date references.

  8. OK, I'm with Ignatieff on the seriousness of this issue, but he just sounds silly here. I'm sure there are some lawyers who are going to have something strong to say in defense of the "indefensible". And the "who's he going to appeal to" is pretty obvious. (True, it won't in fact be "him" doing any appealing, and technically speaking one has to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in most cases, but we're not in court here and we're allowed to speak imprecisely. In everyday English, it's just fine to refer to seeking leave to appeal as just "appealing".)

  9. If it's so repugnant to you, why do you hang out here, infesting the comment board with your insights?

  10. You've got non sequiturs out the ying yang, don't you, brosster2? As anyone with eyes can see, I nowhere described the blog as "repugnant". Personally, I think it's useful to see where the mind of a Liberal propagandist is lying this week: it helps me to understand what is going on in the echo chamber, and see how that effects the Liberals actual political strategy. I just think that it would be useful to be more upfront about the blog actually is.

  11. "What's an "Actual Canadian", Cats?

  12. Yeah, but the CPC are well within their rights to seek leave to appeal… so when Iggy asks, 'Who are the going to appeal to?' the first thing that jumps to mind is the SCC. The CPC has not run out of road… at least not yet.

  13. What's an "Actual Canadian", WherryiggyCats?

  14. I don't get it. Honestly, half the people who read this quote by Iggy are going to think less of him for it. It's not pro-Liberal at all.

    I just do not get it.

  15. Wherry is not one of that half. Personally, I don't think either more or less of Iggy for the quote (he seems like a pretty good guy to me!), but I know the ways of Wherry.

  16. What are you babbling on about, bozo?

  17. When I read this quote by Iggy, I certainly thought less of him for it.

  18. I don't see why. He's so genuine and well-intentioned, and his hard work in politics has generally improved my impression of him, although I remain moderately skeptical.

  19. I think it's fair to say that Ignatieff and the OLO are doing their utmost to distort and obfuscate the nature of these summary charges. Throwing around loaded words like "fraud" is blatantly misleading.

  20. If I were to build a case against Wherry for being a Liberal propagandist, this posting probably wouldn't be one of the exhibits I would show the court. Seemed pretty vanilla and non-partisan to me. Just sayin'.

  21. Not non sequiturs. Perhaps you could look up such terms before you start using them. More like inferences, based on the contempt (another inference) you seem to hold for Wherry's observations and for many of the responses it engenders.

    I have little doubt the echo camber effect is equally noticeable in the Con blogosphere but, unlike you, I wouldn't waste my time posting disdainful comments there.

  22. Well, Iggy wasn't all that funny, and since the Conservatives can appeal to the SCC — sorry, apply to seek leave to appeal — he's wrong, too.

  23. I don't think that the case needs to be built at this point (because it's like the frickin' tower of pisa at this point), just reasserted.

  24. It's a non sequitur, fool. But if you'd rather call it an "inference", that's fine with me too, I'll just on to it "baseless, unsubstantiated, imaginary and probably delusional inference". And, actually, Wherry doesn't make "observations". He just posts slanted, skewed, prejudicial, misleading and misinformed snippets (exhibit A: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/31/somewhere-step…. Anyway, I'm glad you admit that there is a noticeable echo chamber effect here, but as for conservative blogs I don't know because I rarely ever read them, but I'll keep reading Wherry because I enjoy learn something valuable about the delusions of the Liberal mind from his twisted propaganda.

  25. He might be wrong, but I think that he means well, and I admire his spirit of public service.

  26. Misleading? I think it's a courageous decision that the OLO has an absolute right to make. :)

  27. And I infer (although you may call it a non sequitur if you insist on misusing your Latin) from the ad hominem use of words like "fool" and your characterization of Wherry's posts as "slanted, skewed, prejudicial, misleading and misinformed snippets", that your comments are, in contrast, the essence of pristine truth, clarity, non-partisanship, unbiased insight and wisdom. Your humility is transparent.

    We are, indeed, privileged that you deign to share your erudition with the great unwashed who frequent these boards.

  28. CR – carrying the 'just adminstrative' can for Harper. An organized effort to game the system is not an administrative.

  29. I agree, although the Liberal 'up-playing' of the criminality of the charges is as significant of the Conservatives' downplaying of the severity of the charges. It's not fraud, but it's not a simple accounting mix-up, either.

    In my opinion, it's high time this matter was left up to the courts (naive as that opinion might be…)

  30. You get a failing grade in sarcasm too, brewster.

  31. I think that's a non sequitur.

  32. Having just reviewed Blakes, I submit that while the in and out may just be gaming, the submission of 'nvoices' to claim pecuniary recompense, does constitute fraud. I would welcome rebuttal from anyone more familiar with the law than me.

  33. Wherry is capable of making excellent observations that are universally-applauded when they deal with non-partisan issues. His most recent example is the discussion on the House of Commons' decline.

    And while you probably find Wherry's daily summary of QP to be too politically-slanted toward the Liberals, you'd be hard pressed to find any author in Canada who reports on the day's proceedings with the intense and often hilarious imagery that he brings to the House.

  34. I highly doubt that I am more familliar with the law, but I will raise a couple of points. First, if it were true, honest-to-goodness fraud, I would think criminal charges of fraud would be laid. Second, while (if the charges are true) $800,000 in rebates would have been unjustly paid to candidates, the nature of the infraction wasn't to misappropriate those funds… it was to get around national campaign spending limits.

    And I would welcome rebuttal from anyone more familiar with the law than me as well!

  35. @critter_unreasoning … Orwell is turning in his grave!

    Peace is War
    Love is Hate
    Election Cheating is simply an Accounting Dispute.

    from wiki: According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage"
    Duh

  36. Why stop at fraud, as long as you're being that creative with the Criminal Code? Hate crimes, treason, witchcraft…I mean, it's all about crushing Tories by any means necessary, right?

  37. I wonder if any non party affiliated central voters (i.e. the people Iggy needs to win over to even win a minority) would find this comment compelling.

    The Liberals really need to see the forest for the trees.

    I can't wait for all the thumbs down I'm going to get. Bring it on! I want to get to minus 20.

  38. If you're in Ottawa and you want minus 20, just step outside.

  39. Please advise how what I submitted has anything to do with crushing Tories? Is it too much to ask that one expects of government a level of behaviour befitting their exalted status? I was raised to respect the law, in both spirit and letter, and raised my children the same way. My umbrage is offered to all who would gain advantage through connivery.

  40. Since the ruling was clear and unanimous, I can't imagine that leave will be granted, and the ruling will therefore stand.

    The SCC may well refuse leave to appeal, but that's not the criteria they use. They seek to clarify the law in cases where the country would benefit from a clarification of the law.

    On the administrative law side of this dispute, this is not a very important case, as far as i can tell. But since the question of the legality of the scheme is yet unclear, the SCC may hear the case, although I dont think this is the right proceeding to do so – I suspect the proceedings flowing from the charges against the Conservatives may end up at the SCC though.

  41. As it happens, though, the courts don't necessarily use the dictionary definition of "fraud".

    Legally speaking, the conduct alleged in the first pair of charges (which are directly related, hence my grouping them together) certainly couldn't legally be described as fraud, and I don't see how it would fit the everyday English definition either. The conduct alleged in the second pair (again, directly related) possibly could legally be described as fraud, though I wouldn't care to venture a guess as to how likely a court would be to describe it as such. (Since fraud is a Criminal Code offence and no charge was laid under the relevant provisions, I suspect it's a moot point.)

  42. I didn't, but that's just because it was a stupid comment, not because the issue he was fumbling to discuss isn't important.

  43. And that is because you have no clue what the term means.

  44. Obviously they're not "universally applauded" since I'm not applauding them. The rest of your comment is only slightly less patently false. Kady O'Malley does a much better job, for instance. In any case, Wherry spends most of his time hacking away, for example posting distorted snippets of other people's news stories under snarky, misleading headlines, as with the one I linked to above.

  45. O'Malley is an excellent source of upcoming and current information, and a must-read for anyone interested in federal politics, but she does not provide a daily recap of Question Period, as that's not her main beat. Her beat is generally non-QP, including committees and extra-curricular activities, although she does write about QP periodically as well. When it comes to procedural discussions and the internal esoteric workings of our Parliamentary democracy, Kady is an absolute treasure.

    Judging from the comments following Wherry's discussion on the decline of the HoC, I stand by my original opinion that his observations were universally applauded, although I'll make an exception just for you. Let's call it "near universally-applauded".

    Your link above does not work, which is why I could not comment on it. As for the rest of your post–referring to distorted snippets–you should note that I was not exonerating Wherry of all partisanship, just referring to his treatment of non-partisan issues.

    EDIT: Just to refresh my memory, I went and rechecked Wherry's HoC article:
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-c

    146 comments and not a single one pointing at Wherry and calling him a partisan shill. Most, in fact, referenced just how excellent the article was. I stand by my "universally-applauded" comment above.

  46. If you think you can judge the assessment of an article entirely through its comment thread, you're sort of hopeless. In any case, your gushingly vapid fanboy eruptions notwithstanding, you could have very easily made the link I provided showing Wherry's hackery work simply by removing the ) which got tagged onto the end of it. Anyway, look at it again for yourself if you like (and by all means, read the comment thread):
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/31/somewhere-step

  47. Well said !

  48. I agree CR, It is terrible, once again something on their side, something that could stick the proper way, is a mockery, and they can blame anyone but themselves, makes them look unqualified and then they don't understand why people is tuning them off.

  49. Forgive me…I didn't realize I was communicating with a Latin scholar as well as self-anointed purveyor of timeless truths.

  50. Regardless of what the courts use, the common definition of fraud fits these actions like a glove.
    Hence the statement "Throwing around loaded words like "fraud" is blatantly misleading. "
    is itself a blatantly misleading canard!!

  51. Yup. This thing? Not going to register. Just like Bev Oda, just like TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE, just like prorogation, just like income trusts. Normal people will hear whining about something tedious, technical, and not-all-that-horrible-sounding, and tune it out.

  52. I don't assess an article solely on its comment thread, I highlighted the comment thread because it was 146 people posting without a single one stating that Wherry had written a partisan piece. We can all point to snippets he's posted elsewhere that were taken out of context, and I'm not defending him on those. In any event, I reiterate what I've already stated that when Wherry puts his mind to it, he can write excellent non-partisan pieces. Which is the only point I made.

    And I sincerely apologize for not immediately recognizing the error you made in posting the URL. In the spirit of cooperation, I promise to work harder to compensate for your errors in the future.

  53. I'm neither of those things, you numbskull, and I've certainly never claimed to be. On the other hand, I do know Latin and some truths.

  54. You may think you know Latin and some truths, but anyone who peppers his comments to others with words like "fool" "bozo" and "numbskull" is certainly devoid of class…from which I infer a certain crass arrogance.

    I'm done wasting my time with this thread. Inflict your insults elsewhere.

  55. My mistake. You seem to find it compelling and you definitely sound like a non-party affiliated centrist voter that is debating between voting Conservative or Liberal.

  56. Yep. "I mean, you know, they've run out of road." Uh, no, they have precisely NOT run out of road, because they are appealing.

    So Aaron buried the lede. The pop culture reference is just awkwardly trying to be hip. Being flat out WRONG is the problem, here.

  57. Way to prioritize, brewster!

  58. Thanks for not defending Wherry's transparent hackery evidenced at the link provided!

  59. The movement of money was mainly about getting around the spending limits – this is within the realm of Elections Canada and I'm not sure the legal term would be fraud. But that's not what this ruling is about; the Conservatives originally took EC to court because some of their participating candidates had been denied tax rebates for the in and out money pending investigation. It turns out their expense claims were backed up with 'nvoices rather than actual receipts.

    I suppose the technical term for the individuals involved is tax evasion.

Sign in to comment.