Bud Talkinghorn: Jack's Big Day -&- More

Jack Layton's speech: I assumed that no-one would make a speech in which he says nothing new. Others are not as naive and see that Jack is stringing them on for a bit longer looking for a deal from the folks that he calls a culture of entitlement and a culture of cronyism

Jack's speech will be re broadcast at 8:00pm ET
via Newsbeat1.



Bud Talkinghorn: Jack's Big Day

Do you get a week off for Remembrance Day?

I never have. However the federal government thinks it is a dandy reason for another week off. They have hardly gotten together to make some meaningful legislation when they want time off. Perchance to electioneer?

As I write, I am listening to Jack Layton make his big decision on whether to go to an early election. Jack is warming up by trying to guilt-trip the Bay Street crowd. "Three homeless people died next to your buildings." A few more buttons are pushed: "I would like to thank the Habitant for Humanity." Slowly, slowly, he gets to the main point -- which is, for Jacko: "Why won't the government allow itself to be blackmailed one more time?"

So let us sift through some of the scenarios behind Jack's speech.

One: He really is outraged by his Liberal buddies. Thus he wants to distance himself from the the accusation that he is easy on sleaze.

Two: It is all an elaborate scheme between Layton and Buzz Hargrove. Layton has to pretend that he is going against "Daddy Warbucks", Buzz, Hargrove goes along with this plot line because he can later say to his union members who were about to get rewarded by Liberal grants that he fought the good fight. But of course he knows that there is no time like now for a NDP boost.

Three: Layton has already made some slimy deal with the Liberals--who will "voluntarily" grant this one final concession to their idelogically--but genetically-deficient--kissing cousins.

How this will play out, in reality, is anybody's guess. When you are forced to continuously strongarm your partner, you get to develop "extortion speak". That ability to say, "This piece of loonie-left, anti-capitalist legislation is economically ridiculous, but the Liberals will pass it for us. It is the least they can do for us. Help share the blame when it all goes kaput."

All Jack's weeping willow appeals to these hard-bitten capitalists don't disguise the fact that he is just like them. The difference? His bottom line is votes, not stock options. If this latest blackmail works and the Liberals cave, then Layton can always say, "I will give them one more chance to do the right thing."

© Bud Talkinghorn



Jack Layton: Political virus as a nightmarish reality Angry in T.O. / AngryGWN, Nov. 4, 05

Check his picture of the virus.



Proposed Conservative Accountability Act


Alexander Panetta: Harper makes ethics election issue -- Conservative leader promises overhaul in wake of Gomery report Nov. 5, 05


The PM's Sunday radio address . . . today from Sat. Nov. 4, 05

Listen and read Stephen Taylor's rebuttal.



Law and disorder -- "How's this for bad blood?" Linda Diebel, Toronto Star, Nov. 6, 05

Toronto is in the grip of an ugly contract dispute between the Toronto Police Services Board and the Toronto Police Association. [. . . . ]

Search: a policy called FIDO



A Great Question... David Kaspar of David's Medienkritik -- TrackBack URL Nov. 4, 05

A Great Question...

...was recently asked by one of our commenters:

"So so you think that Stern is going to come out with a "Special Edition" on the Paris riots like they came out with a special edition about Katrina and New Orleans?"

Of course they should, but don't hold your breath. The same sort of double-standard applies to the German left's treatment of Putin as well. Here's the bottom line: Bashing America sells. Bashing Russia and France doesn't. [. . . . ]

Kathleen Parker: Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores Nov. 2, 05

"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?"

Columnist Maureen Dowd posed those questions in Sunday's New York Times Magazine in an essay adapted from her forthcoming book: Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide.

[. . . . ] I would never insist that women have to have children to be fully female. Some women aren't mother material -- and some men don't deserve the children they sire. But something vital and poignant happens when one's own interests become secondary to the more compelling needs of children.

You grow up. [. . . . ]

---