Friday, January 6, 2012

Nepotism Loves Sentiment: Thou Shalt Not Criticise Justin Trudeau

Nepotism Loves Sentiment: Thou Shalt Not Criticise Justin Trudeau

It’s been a long time, indeed—some seven months, in fact; but, in truth, I’ve been simply too busy with various literary projects and troubling familial matters in recent months to comment regularly on the CBC’s unpolished and often ill-conceived stories at The fewer the comments submitted, the fewer comments rejected; and therefore the fewer reasons to update this blog. Nevertheless, shortly before the Hanukkah/Christmas season, I had a comment of mine deleted when I committed what is considered an unpardonable sin amongst the more idiotic of the Canadian breed.

If there’s one thing I’ve long despised, it’s nepotism. There’s just something about an unwarranted sense of entitlement that gets in my craw and gnaws. When I think of such entitlement in a contemporary Canadian context, one name immediately comes to mind: His (Un)Holiness, Justin Trudeau.

Recently, the CBC reported on Dear Justin’s ‘offensive’ language towards Environment Minister Peter Kent, and his subsequent (cop-out) apology for said outburst. As a response to the sensationalistic story, I posted the following comment:

“Justin Trudeau is a pissant poser of a politician with a dripping tap of an asinine personality. Still, ‘You piece of shit!’ is no worse an insult than those us Gen-Xers hurled at teachers and passing police officers when we were in high school—and that was 25 to 30 years ago. Furthermore, why should we expect any better from those whom we regularly deride as corrupt, inept, unqualified, bigoted, boorish, antiquated, dogmatic, sycophantic, sexually ambivalent, morally hypocritical, etc?”

My comment was successfully posted, but—you guessed it, loyal readers—not for long; within just an hour or two, it was inexplicably deleted. I cannot assume it was because of my use of the word ‘shit’; after all, the CBC used the (supposedly) offensive yet ubiquitous word in the body of their story. It was also rather balanced, given my self-derisive affirmation of Canadians’ dismissive view of politicians in general. Therefore, I'm inclined to surmise that it was my assessment of Trudeau in the opening line that got some sentimental, censorious swine clicking on the ‘Report abuse’ link.

Talk about the poor canon fodder in North Korea bowing (quite literally) to that singularly nefarious line of Kims! Congratulations, CBC, for acquiescing to the nostalgia-driven sentimental whims of those who so blindly enbrace an annoying flake who ‘wears it on his sleeve’ and cannot grasp the basics of formal speech. You people are indeed His obedient children—er, ‘kids’.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

They've Burnt The Soapbox

They've Burnt The Soapbox

(Again, it's been a while, hasn't it.)

Well, in all honesty, there really hasn't been much to report in the way of refused or deleted comments at as of late, owing primarily to the fact that the CBC have foregone the moderation process by depriving us of the privilege to comment in the first place. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it appears that the CBC has indeed gone and burnt the soapbox on which many of us have stood. And no, I'm not talking about the usual types of stories they tend to close to commenting (‘Young Woman Sexually Harassed by History Professor’, ‘Tory MP Raped Native Teen at Gunpoint 40 Years Ago’, ‘Second-Grader Suing Boyfriend for Child Support and Uninvited Groping’, etc.), but rather stories so mundane and innocuous that they don't automatically entail any legal gag orders (‘publication bans’).

For example, there was the story about former UN Special Envoy and overbearing goody-two-shoes Stephen Lewis criticising Madonna's failure to deliver on a promise of a new school for a small village in Malawi. “This story is closed to commenting,” stated the ubiquitous coda. What were they afraid of? Too many spurned and irate Madonna fans swamping their lazy moderators with tides of angry comments to wade through? Humiliating castigation of Saint Stephen Lewis?

Then there was the story about talented-yet-annoying singer-songwriter Rufus Wainwright siring a daughter for Lorca Cohen, daughter of Leonard Cohen. Again, no commenting was permitted. What was the problem this time around? A fear that the story of a gay man (“Daddy #1”, as he refers to himself in the story) with a partner (‘Daddy #2’, presumably) fathering children for the daughter of a Jewish, bohemian singer-poet with a legendary libido would rock the right-wing, fundamentalist Christian boat out west, resulting in a barrage of vicious comments referencing the (alleged) left-wing bias of the CBC? On the other hand, might Wainwright and Cohen have demanded that commenting be closed in exchange for their willingness to share the story with a major news outlet? Probably a lot of both, I'd wager.

Even more interesting was their coverage of recent stories involving literary awards and competitions—hardly stories at all, some might argue, given the tired names and talent-optional contest criteria involved. Over the past few weeks, has posted at least three such stories: a new Montreal poetry contest boasting a grand prize of $50,000 (and guidelines and other particulars that are too ludicrous to take seriously!); famous former underaged whore Evelyn Lau and a few unknowns being shortlisted for the Pat Lowther Prize for women writers (Yawwwwnnn); and pissant Michael Crummey's latest tacky novel making the list of finalists in the IMPAC Dublin Award (which doesn't say much for what Canada has to offer the world these days). In neither instance was commenting allowed. Did they fear the snide comments of other writers (including moi), namely those who refuse to play the patriotic cultural game and/or kiss the government's arse, and the fallout such comments might incur? O happy me, if we're actually that dangerous to the cultural status quo!

Of course, most stories—i.e., the most blasé ones—are still open to commenting; and, as one might expect, my comments still get removed on those rare occasions when I bother to opine. Just recently, for example, on the day of the federal election, I submitted the following exaggerated observation in response to the CBC's obligatory (and pointless) marking of the polls' final open hours and closing:

“From my study window, I can tell it's obviously election day: the local wife-beaters and daughter-rapists who rarely leave the house are out in full swing today, driving to the nearby community centre to cast their ballots—the big letter ‘C’ in their car windows. It's enough to put one off food, let alone the voting process.”

My comment was initially posted, but removed some short time afterthe moderators having presumably acquiesced to the complaints of some Harper lover.

The government may change, but the CBC doesn't.

Friday, January 21, 2011

The CBC: ‘Faggot’'s Okay. ‘Nigger’—No Way!

The CBC: ‘Faggot’'s Okay. ‘Nigger’—No Way!

A number of converging topics to discuss this time around, people.

On January 5th, the CBC reported on their website that in a new combined volume of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, NewSouth Books of Alabama would be replacing all instances of the word ‘nigger’ with ‘slave’. This in itself is a ‘fine’ example of censorship bordering on historical revisionism, and it will certainly subtract substantially from the portrayal of Huck's inner struggle and inchoate transformation—which is the whole point of the novel, isn't it? But interesting as well, and more relevant to this blog of mine, was the CBC's decision to shun the word ‘nigger’ throughout the article in favour of the euphemistic ‘N-word’.

Things got even more interesting a few days later, on the 13th of January, when related how the intrusive, despotic Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) was demanding that radio stations across Canada cease to air Dire Straits' 1985 hit single ‘Money For Nothing’, after one lone whinerlistening to OZ FM somewhere in Newfoundlandcomplained about the use of the word ‘faggot’.

I responded to a followup story (a reactionary Money For Nothing Marathon on Halifax radio) with the following comment:

“Q104 FM is on the right track, for typical Canadian apathy is not the answer to such a bad call on the part of the CBSC in response to one lone whiner. So much restrictivism in this country results from the majority of Canadians lacking the initiative to undermine and oppose our legislative oppressors: those lobbyists, politicians and organisations from the Far Left and Far Right, who represent only five percent of the population ideologically, yet like to dictate what the whole of Canada cannot do, say, feel or perceive.

“People should be considering additional ways of opposing this inane ruling. For example, might it be possible for Dire Straits or their record company to launch a lawsuit against the CBSC? Should Canadians start complaining to the CBSC left, right and centre, whining about every lyric from every number from every angle they can possibly think of, thus overwhelming this self-important organisation, calling their credibility into question?

“I'm also wondering why the lone whiner from St. John's who started all this hasn't gone public with his/her convictions. If s/he is so righteous, what does s/he have to worry about? Whatever the case, the crank who made the complaint has done nothing to help the gay/lesbian community, merely incurring more contempt for said community on the part of the general population. Come to think of it, I would not be surprised if the lone whiner wasn't even gay—just another self-righteous, white heterosexual ‘liberal’ who likes to be heard.

[Actually, it turns out, the lone whiner was a lesbian from Corner Brook.]

Two days later, I posted this additional comment:

“Something else I find so fascinating about all of this is how the left-wing nitpickers in this country are coming to resemble the right-wing nitpickers from decades ago. When I was in high school, in the early '80s, boys and girls who attended Salvation Army youth camps during the summer were told how Josie Cotton's hit single,‘Johnny, Are You Queer?’, was promoting homosexuality. Nearly 30 years later, the same ends are being met, but by different means. Is it any wonder then that socialists like Jack Layton and his New Democrats would prop up antiquated Christians like Stephen Harper and his Tory government by supporting their often restrictivist bills? They have more in common than what separates them! Come to think of it, given his mixture of Marxism and Christian theology, the late Tommy Douglas may very well have been the forefather of this two-sides-of-the-same-coin phenomenon in Canada.

Remarkably—and to their credit, for once—the CBC is yet to delete my posts!

Albeit a relatively subtle one, I think the most interesting aspect of these stories of censorship and their handling by the CBC would have to be the hallowed public broadcaster's reluctance to use the word ‘nigger’ when discussing the edited Twain novels—especially in light of the fact that they had no qualms about using the word ‘faggot’ when addressing the word's use in ‘Money For Nothing’! As James Woods says at the end of Contact, That is interesting, isn't it?

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

When the Incestuous, Christian Wife-beaters Speak, the CBC Listens

When the Incestuous, Christian Wife-beaters Speak, the CBC Listens

(It's been a while, hasn't it?)

Things had been running relatively (and surprisingly) smoothly with the comment posting at the CBC's website these past few months; but then, on Thursday, December the 9th, asked Canadians if Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (jaded) rock 'n' roll performance at the Conservatives' Christmas party had changed their opinion of him as leader. In response, I successfully posted the following comment:

The only people I know of who support the Harper Tories in this part of Newfoundland are semi-illiterates, brainwashed fundamentalist Christians, wife-beaters, and men who enjoy incestuously raping their daughters and stepdaughters (and jailing the daughters' older lovers when they report the incest to authorities). I think that's the general grassroots of the Conservative Party pretty much across the country. I found it frighteningly ironic yet hilariously appropriate a few years ago when one of the local mayors attempted to run as an MP for The Conservatives, and it turned out his son was the local repeat child molester, knicker pincher, and spouse abuser (including a future lover of mine). Yes, it appears as if these people are constantly covering their tracks or deflecting reality. Keyboards and classic rock numbers help their dubious cause.”

My comment remained posted for several hours, with readers and fellow commenters agreeing with me roughly 2 to 1. Then, around 10 PM Newfoundlandic Time, when the Conservatives' main fan base of Edmonton hicks and Lethbridge bumpkins would be getting off work and hitting their computers, my comment disappeared. My take on the matter? The arriving hardcore party members had to do immediate damage control, and squawk to the moderators about my ‘unfair’ assessment of them. And when the incestuous, Christian wife-beaters speak nowadays, the CBC must listen, apparently.

Still, Harper's little display of second-rate rock 'n' roll didn't exactly con the masses, at least. No major wave of Conservative converts resulted. Maybe at the next Christmas party the Harper Tories might instead do something a little more in keeping with grassroots tradition: like setting out a row of haystacks on stage and discovering what Conservative Party member can make his daughter reach orgasm the fastest.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

You're Not Invited to the Circle Jerk, Charlie Brown

You're Not Invited to the Circle Jerk, Charlie Brown

On August 5th, covered Prime Minister
Stephen Harper's speech to his colleagues at his Conservative government's annual summer caucus meeting. Among his claims, Harper stated that Canadians did not want an election anytime soon, and that such an election would be detrimental to Canada's economic recovery.

As of my writing this entry, there have been 879 comments posted regarding Harper's speech and the caucus meeting, including my own. (“I'm surprised Harper's nose hasn't grown enormously during his time in office. The ridiculous and despotic king's did over the years in Stoker & Hart's comic strip, The Wizard of Id.”) One of the earlier comments posted was the following, attributed to someone calling himself ‘lucidguy’ (i.e., ‘Lucid Guy’):

“Aw, why didn't I get invited to the circle jerk?”

Apparently, the moderator had no problems originally with posting this. However, a few minutes later and the comment had been removed. The moderator must have had second thoughts, a different moderator took over at that point, or—most likely—there was a complaint from an uptight nitpicker and/or Conservative supporter. This is another fundamental problem revolving around censorship at any comment one might post can be easily removed if a second person disagrees with one's opinion and enters a complaint. One can almost imagine the various political parties employing bloggers and the like to make complaints to the moderators whenever commenters strike a stinging satirical blow to their parties' policies.

This sexually oriented comment aimed at the Harper Conservatives brought to mind one of many similar comments I've made and had removed or rejected at Here's one of my favourites that I kept a copy of in my files:

“I really wish Harper had gotten laid more often when he was a teenager—I'm pretty sure that's where all this aggression and insanity began.” (circa Winter 2009-2010)

Come to think of it, the Harper Conservatives are incredibly insecure when it comes to their own perceptions of their masculinity. Ever notice how they take offence at almost anything ‘long’? They want to abolish the
long-gun registry; they want to abandon the long-form census; they want to diminish long waits for medical attention by promoting more private health clinics, thus compromising Medicare. Yes, they must consider their erect penises to be very, very short.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Lloyd Robertson: Too Old for a Senate Seat, Too Precious to be Roasted

Lloyd Robertson: Too Old for a Senate Seat, Too Precious to be Roasted

A few days ago, the CBC reported that 76-year-old CTV anchorman Lloyd Robertson, a former newsman for the CBC, is set to retire in the latter half of 2011. (He's giving us ample time to celebrate, isn't he?) Given Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hypocritical history of naming news broadcasters to Canada's senate (he's supposedly in favour of an elected senate or an abolishment of the upper chamber altogether), I couldn't help but make the following snide remark in the story's comment box at

“Strange. I mean, he's too old for the senate. Unless, of course, Herr Harper is absolutely hellbent on breaking every last law on the books that he has so espoused or devised himself.

Now, maybe it was my referring to Harper as ‘Herr Harper’, thereby alluding to a comparison of our current Conservative prime minister with Adolf Hitler (a poem of mine that has found its way into circulation is entitled ‘Adolf Harper's Coming to Town’); but I think it was simply my roasting Lloyd Robertson, the great celebrated television newsman, that got their goat. To put it bluntly, the moderators didn't want me ridiculing such a respected co-worker in order to ‘score political points’ against hypocritical Harper. Resultingly, my comment was shot down in mid cyberspace.

This is not the first time has refused to post my comments regarding a former newsman of theirs and the senate: When Mike Duffy, while working for the Conservative-sympathetic CTV Newsnet (or whatever they're calling it nowadays), was named to the senate by our hypocritical Harper (read story here), I commented that Duffy “looked like someone who's late for the farting contest”. That had about as much chance of being posted as my being named to the senate!

They protect each other...even more so than politicians, seemingly....

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Sshh! You Just Might Help Us Find That Missing Child!

Sshh! You Just Might Help Us Find That Missing Child!

Here's another form of censorship which likes to dabble in: The disallowance of comments on certain stories involving child abduction, sexual assault, incest, etc. This story is closed to commenting,” is an all too common postscript found at the bottom of CBC blabspots. Furthermore, when one questions the moderators on such a practice, he or she is both met with silence and refused the posting of a related comment.

Case in point: Just yesterday, I responded to a story involving a female tourist being assaulted in a downtown alley in St. John's, Newfoundland:

Notice how the CBC will allow comments on this story, but not the one about publisher Clyde Rose allegedly sexually assaulting someone? Apparently, we can rattle on and on about the sad 'fate' of foreigners like the woman in question, but dare us not say anything that might embarrass our own at home. Nor would the CBC even allow comments on the story about the little girl out west being possibly abducted by her estranged violent father. Comments in that case could have even resulted in tips as to her whereabouts—Isn't that the whole purpose of one of these ‘Amber Alerts’ in the first place? Talk about defeating the purpose of a story.”

Needless to say, the cowardly excuse for a moderator refused to post my comment. Faceless arsehole.

If anyone has experienced something similar, in regards to this or any other CBC story, please feel free to post your comments at this blog. All accounts of the CBC's underhanded and questionable practices are welcome.