As IF Times

link Tories say Gay Pride “well looked-after” – thestar.com.

Everybody loves a party.  We are accustomed to celebrations by all kinds of groups in our society and we can probably agree that’s evidence of vibrancy and diversity in a culture.  Sadly, many of these events have morphed from being proud celebrations of various visible groups to become overt political statements.  In the old days, you celebrated St. Patrick’s day with a parade of green, or Chinese New Year with the obligatory dragon parade and firecrackers.

Nowadays, all kinds of groups clamor to be recognized and be allowed to proudly showcase whatever segment of society they happen to represent.  All that’s fine, except that now, funds are expected from governments to support these displays of multi-culturalism and diversity.  Even more sinister, politicians visibly place themselves as champions for any particular group in order to curry favour with them. 

What has really happened is the opposite of what you’d expect.  Instead of promoting understanding and embracement of all groups, separation has now been created from the rest of the population since people will choose to identify with certain groups.  As we’ve seen, these groups often turn into political blocs.  As a politician, you can’t afford NOT to be present as a display of support for that community.  Unfortunately, we’ve recently witnessed the use of these “cultural” events to promote  agendas which are not exactly kumbaya fests.  In Vancouver,  politicians actually were obliged to back out of appearances at a particular cultural parade because of inappropriate comments and actions offered by event organizers. 

In the case of Gay Pride parades, these displays have been around for decades now and they are usually robust and interesting shows.  However, it’s not clear to me that government money should be spent on promoting these types of events.  It’s one thing to show your colors and express your pride, it’s another to make someone else pay for it.  Logically if tax money at large is being spent to promote anything, it should be directed towards the collective pride of our nationhood on July 1st.  It’s annoying therefore that this gay pride group is looking for federal funds to sponsor their events.  Logic tells me that they should be no more eligible to receive money for their celebration than the Church of Scientology would to fund their gala.   Politicians of course are hard pressed to ignore the expected claims of intolerance but in the big scheme of things, somebody has to stop the myriad drains on money better suited for legitimate needs.

“…Canadians see this for what it is, blatant discrimination and political pandering among the Conservative right-wing base,” said Liberal critic Navdeep Bains.

According to the piece, NDP leader Jack Layton said the success of the Gay Pride event is not a reason to pull funding, but rather a reason to promote it further.  Jack Layton, for the uninformed, is the leader of the NDP, a political party well past its sell by date in function, but which exists today only because unions think they actually represent working people.  Sadly, logic and common sense are strangers to Mr. Layton.

“…The point is you can attract more and more people to Canada if the financial assistance is available for advertising and promotion,’’ Layton said.

He said with unemployment still high in Ontario “big events like this can create work, especially in the summer tourist season. So it is a bad decision, it is ideological but then again, we have come to expect that from the Harper Conservatives.” 

 Funny,  I never thought of it that way.  Promote Canada’s wilderness, it’s clean air and water, tourist havens, and the Gay Pride parade.  Maybe it looks better on the posters.

link CBC News – Canada – Guergis handling catastrophic: Ignatieff.

Really? Catastrophic?  Not unfortunate, poorly handled or even stupid, but catastrophic? Like polar ice melting, or hurricanes, or Liberal electoral wins?  Three balls in the water on a short par 3 is catastrophic, but kicking someone out of cabinet for an alleged misdeed?  Where’s the sense of perspective here?  It must be incumbent upon politicians to lace their epithets with bizarre hyperbole in order to make very small points.  Was the lack of croissants at the parliamentary buffet a catastrophe, one that should shame all Canadians?  

Certainly Ignatieff is not the only one guilty of disingenuous hyperbole in his comments. To some degree, the inflated language makes some sense since most voters have tuned out the babblings of most politicians because little of consequence is ever said.  There is seldom any candor in any announcements that are made and most expect that any utterances will contain some kind of partisan spin.  The favoured line of politicians in our country is, “The people of Canada….” fill in the blank.  Every time someone utters that annoying hackneyed phrase, just substitute it with what they really mean, which is ” our party thinks that”.

One of the most annoying phrases ever uttered was by a former Prime Minister who professed that whatever policies they championed were in alignment “with da Canadian values” which really meant the wants of the federal Liberal party.  Ask any one in Canada what da Canadian values are and they’ll reply “almost at par with the American at the moment, about 98 cents”.

People should take a day off and sit in the legislatures of their provinces or if they’re able to, take in a session of parliament.  The posturing, histrionics and cajolling are great entertainment and eye opening for anyone who thinks that the law process is sober and reflective.  Since most are trained lawyers, the scene more resembles  thespians overacting in an audition than people with sharp legal minds.  Supposedly, they are acting in our best interests.  Methinks they’re just acting.