Thursday, May 03, 2007

Kiss my ass, Rex Murphy. You ain't the language police.

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, ol' JimBob's pissed-off. Rex Murphy come on The National last night an' dressed down Lizzie May over her appeasement sermon. Rex is s'posed to be a smart feller. He's a Rhodes Scholar, after all. If he's as smart as he thinks he is, he'd know that politicians been invokin' the memory of Neville Chamberlain fer 60 years.

Go read Maclean's, you dumbass.

Murphy sez any reference to Chamberlain and even any use of the words "appeasement" and "deniers" are reprehensible and off-limits. Kiss my ass, Rex. You ain't the language police.

Murphy ain't the only ignoramus who can stand in line to kiss my green ass. Steve Harper, Peter MacKay, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton an' any other kettle in this here pot and kettle mudfest.

What's really got my goat is that Lizzie May sed what she sed in a church sermon an' she's gettin' raked over the coals by these numbnutses who sed the selfsame thing in Parliament for the official record.

Do these hypocrits want to monitor all church sermons lookin' fer inapporopriate historical references?

There's a few boogin' pundidiots I seen who ain't content just to blast Lizzie over the appeasement reference. They don't like it that Lizzie has religion. Here's a coupla quotes from the comments over at Accidental Deliberations -

JimBobb, you go on ad's site, take a swipe at Layton, and then the rest of your post was defending May's Lord, Jesus Christ moment of Godly all knowing creationist fundamental bull.

She even pulled off a Tammy Faye Baker 'shed a tear' moment as the profit.
janfromthebruce 05.01.07 - 6:16 pm #


As for the implosion, the Chamberlain comments probably have been blown out of proportion. But it's the other factors that seem more damaging to me - both May's religious fervour and her inability to control her emotions over her own prepared speech seem to bode poorly for her in the political arena, even if they wouldn't be problems elsewhere.
The Jurist Homepage 05.02.07 - 11:30 pm #

Go an' read the whole thing. The Jurist has some dang good ideas about how deals between parties oughta be made. An' he's right about the comments bein' blown out of proportion. Good tactic fer the Jurist to change course now that it's been pointed out how many other MP's have used the same analogy.

I ain't a religious person. In fact, I'm an atheist. Organized religion, IMHO, has done a lot of damage over the centuries an' continues to do damage today. Do I think that all organized religion is bad and that churches have never done anything good? Of course not. Are all religious people peterfilin' priests or residential school apologists? No.

While I don't believe in a supreme being or attend church, I recognize the right of others to do so. Sometimes, like when I'm at a funeral, I envy the believers who truly believe that the dead guy's in a better place. One thing I try not to do is mock people for their religious beliefs.

When someone refers to "May's Lord, Jesus Christ moment of Godly all knowing creationist fundamental bull," I interpret that as mockery of religious beliefs. Like I sed over in that comment gabfest, that sorta mockery is small-minded, petty and cruel. If references to Neville Chamberlain are off limits, mockery of a person's deeply held religious beliefs are way off limits.

Regardin' the emotionalism aspect, I thought we'd got beyond the point where a public figure was not allowed to shed a tear. Back in 1972 in Merka, there was a presidential hopeful by the name of Edmund Muskie. He got all emotional on the stump an' shed a tear. His presidential chances were scuttled. I thought we'd moved on and grown since then but it seems that the "shrill hysteria" label is alive and well.

True confession time - I get choked up about things that concern me deeply.

Back when my dear departed Dad was in his fifties, I started to notice how emotional he'd become. He'd get all teary-eyed over somethin' he'd remember from back when he was in WW2 or when he was a kid in the depression or even over some dumbass TV show. I remember bein' a little embarrassed when Dad would choke up over what seemed like nuthin'.

Now that I'm an old codger goin' on 60, I find myself embarrassed at my own emotionalism fairly often - 'specially, when I'm tellin' somebuddy about somethin' I feel strongly about. Maybe the Jurist is right when he sez Lizzie's too emotional. Maybe them guys who mocked Ed Muskie were right, too. Maybe, but I don't think so.

Anybuddy else wants to get in the kiss JB's ass line-up, just join in the comments with some pot'n'kettle hypocrisy.



Anonymous said...

At least your a safe distance from poor old deformed Rex, I occassionaly see him out on the street puffin his life away(all too slowly I might add) and the urge to smack that ugly face and void my Green beliefs gets all too strong.

I agree with you on religion, yet I can respect someone who is religious despite that. If I was ever to fall into the habit I'd likely go Neo Gaian, something that required us to protect this world

It's weird that in the U.S. a proclaimation of faith is mandatory to even attempt public office while in Canada it's considered shameful. It's not as if May prayed at the Green policy conference, she gave a sermon in a church, arguably the only polite place to bring up such topics in Canada.

Why is it however that a Sikh can wear a Kirpan and Turban, A Jew a Kipah,a Muslim can pray in the work place but a Christian can't say Jesus. We get so bent out of shape worrying about minority rights yet demonized the majority culture. Thats PC gone too far

It's bad enought that the Politicans propagate lies but when the press(If a hack like Rex can be considered the press)puts their bias before doing their job why bother even having the press.

After all there is enough good factual dirt in politics why make shit up or purposely bend it.

As for emotion, why would people think that a cold heartless bastard would make a better leader than a caring person. This obviously says something about their upbringing, and their true feeling about their close encounters with Dad and his belt.

JimBobby said...

Thanks fer chimin' in, GAB. I hadn't even thought about the idea that to succeed in Merkan polyticks, you gotta be religious but it bein' almost the opposite fer Canajuns.

I just read a new interview with Lizzie all about her faith. She don't try to sugar-coat her beliefs. Here it is.

susansmith said...

Actually, JimBobb I wasn't making fun of May's religious beliefs. Like you I am basically an atheist.
My concern is that she came within a hair's width of evoking creativism, intelligent design beliefs. And yes, that scares me, as that is a slippery slope. So which part of the bible does not pick and choose as right?

"This is a time for Christians to say we do believe in miracles, in the life-giving force," she said.
The delicate balance God created is under assault as people increased exponentially their use of fossil fuels, unleashing carbon dioxide and destroying the forests that can return carbon to the Earth, she said.
"We're playing with the forces that led to creation . . . we're nearing the edge of the life force and we're still playing around," May said.

Rosie said...

I'm confused at the outrage of the chamberlain comment. All three federal parties have used it in the past.

I was concerned about this sermon however, because as an atheist, I really don't like the mixing of religion in politics. And preaching, especially in church, about politics, is as mixing as it gets. I respect christianity, and people's right to talk about jesus, but this whole deal makes me uncomfortable. Whether or not this is right or wrong to feel this way I don't know.

I'm a die-hard Lizzie fan, however, but I can't say I won't be watching carefully.

Anonymous said...


May has the right to preach in Church but I agree she should keep it out of the campaign and day to day rhetoric.

That said, I saw an article a year ago about how an African Iman began emphasing certains parts of the Quoran in order to convince his flock to become managers rather than exploiters of nature. Deforestation and hunting was stopped, pollution cut, and eco tourism encouraged.

If the Green message can be packaged as a moral choice for the religious without offending the non religious or without naming a prefered faith it could be a useful tool. Do we care why someone does the correct thing as long as they do it?

Perhaps May should meet and convince the religious leaders Privately but leave the preaching to them.

Erik said...

Good post JimBobby!

Rosie said;
"I was concerned about this sermon however, because as an atheist, I really don't like the mixing of religion in politics. And preaching, especially in church, about politics, is as mixing as it gets."

Same here, I'm surprised there isn't much talk about "separation of church and state".

Did I miss something?

Rex; the more he's listening to people calling in to his show, the less he seems to understand what's playing in the country; a strange paradox indeed. Any ideas who would be a good replacement for him at CBC?

JimBobby said...

"Do we care why someone does the correct thing as long as they do it?"

Right. The big, pressing issue is climate change. If the thumpers start helpin' in that regard, I don't really care why. Maybe the green-conscious believers can convince the millions of Merkan fundies that killin' the earth is a sin.

Some politicians go church. I don't reckon we oughta tell 'em they can't serve in Parliament an' worship as they please at the same time.

Here's a video of Jack Layton welcoming church-goers to a performance of Handel's Messiah. Shaking hands with people at the church door in his black suit, he looks a hair's breadth away from bein' downright clergical. I ain't criticizin' Jack, BTW. I think it's good that people go an' hear some good music -- even if the only reason that music was written was to glorify an imaginary being.

Political leaders are always makin' happyface statements about Diwhali an' Easter an' Christmas an' Kwaanza an' Chanukah an' Ramadan. If there was true separation of church and state, those sort of statements would not be possible.

I ain't sure who oughta replace Murphy. Maybe Mercer.


Chimera said...

Whoop! JayBee's throwin' a kissin' party an' invitin' the whole country!

I'll even pitch it with some supplies -- free lip balm (made from hemp oil) for all the kissers an' bun warmers for all the kissees (I got a feelin' it's gonna be a long line, and it gets cold this time o' year).

By th' way...the real Language Police are busy trying to run our international men's hockey team into the ground in front of the whole world, so they probably haven't had time to tell Rex he's not one of them...

Greg Fingas said...

JimBobby: For me, the issue with regard to emotions isn't simply whether a public figure actually sheds a tear - and indeed there are many cases where a lack of any meaningful emotional response is an equally powerful indictment. ("My Pet Goat", anybody?)

But May's breakdown (much like Muskie's from the sound of it, though correct me if I'm wrong) was based not on the kind of external factor where such a response would seem entirely appropriate, but rather on the sound of her own prepared remarks.

And just as it's surely a bad sign if a comedian laughs harder at his or her own jokes than anybody in the audience, it figures to be a problem if the effect of May's sermon is to inspire her alone more than anybody in the audience she's trying to persuade.

JimBobby said...

Thanks for chimin' in, Jurist.

I wasn't at the church service so I can't say whether "the effect of May's sermon is to inspire her alone more than anybody in the audience she's trying to persuade."

I haven't read any reports from attendees that indicated that Lizzie was more affected than anyone else. Did you find a report that indicated that? Please provide a link. I'm genuinely interested in firsthand reports from any parishoners or guests who were at the service.

Again, I'll speak from my own experiences. I mentioned that I've found myself getting more emotional in my late 50's. Whenever I've sorta choked up, it's when I'm talkin' -- not so much when I'm listenin'. But, of course, I'm not a politician and I seldom speak in public from prepared notes.

I do occasionally perform on stage with a little country/folk group. I hafta consciously stop my voice from crackin' when I'm singin' in the band an' we're doin' a Tom Paxton song that I've sung a hunnert times before.

Lizzie an' me write emails back an' forth but I ain't seen or heard her in person. One thing I read recently said she doesn't speak from a prepared script but from a list of talking points. This sort of speechifying is more extemporaneous than reading a written speech and may tend to wander into areas that could elicit an emotional reaction. Again, I wasn't at the London church so I can't say if this was possibly the case last Sunday.

I posit that if one's emotionality causes them to come to irrational conclusions or to partake in irrational actions, then it is a detriment to that person's effectiveness and to their underlying cause. If, however, emotionality merely indicates a deep, personally-moving concern, then I see it as a sign of humanity and humility - traits which are all too rare in most politicians.

If Lizzie were using her own religiosity and emotionality to shape GPC policy, it would be an issue. What I see her doing is using her religiosity to recruit other believers to the (small-g) green movement.


Anonymous said...

Now that it's been brought up, I find myself offended more by those politicians who Kabbitz at various religious events that they are not associated with for shallow political gain.

At least May was there out of conviction rather than smoozing.

Separation of Church and state has never kept politicians from visiting the Dali Lama, or the Pope(I don't buy that the Vatican is a country, a corporation perhaps) etc

If we treat religious leaders as political figures how can we disallow or politicians from being religious

JimBobby said...

And if we have entrenched a religious education system in our constitution that provides funding for Roman Catholic schools at the same level as for public schools, how can we claim separation of church and state?

When sworn testimony is given, religious books are provided on which the witness may swear.

I attended a Canadian citizenship ceremony a couple years ago in Stony Creek. It was held at the Salvation Army church. The Salvation Army preacher had a role in the ceremony. Prayers were said.

The idea of separation of church and state is something Canajuns assume to be the case more than something that actually is the case. I suspect familiarity with the Merkan constitution has a lot to do with that.


Anonymous said...

Your comment about how religion has done more harm than good, indicates your shallow level of religious history, your lack of skepticism/curiousity, and and juvenile rebellious attitude.

Some of the other comments here are equally ill-informed, intolerant, and just plain ignorant. I guess secularists have the monopoly on comprehension of the entire universe, and it is their perceived right to be the ONLY ones capable of having intelligent thought on ANY issue, dismissing anyone else's ideas as invalid once they learn they are from a 'religious' person.

And yet you bow down to the altar of Neo Gaia, the Kyoto Bible, the Apostle Gore, and St. Suzuki. Without thought, blindly, without questioning it. Same for your socialist dogmas. Gun control is good. Abortion is good. Promiscuity is good. The family is bad.

Society will return to it's normal course, after the spoiled boomers and their bankrupt ideas have died off, and their illegitimate offspring have had to face the reality that their ideas have brought them. It'll take a long time, like recovering from a disease, but the basic rules of society which were developed over thousands of years and by hundreds of cultures, will return. You can only fool the people for so long.

Anonymous said...

Well, bless my (holy) rolling eyes.

So nice of Tristan Emmanuel to drop by and lecture the plebes.

Or are you 'Stockboy by Day'?

JimBobby said...

What I said was - "Do I think that all organized religion is bad and that churches have never done anything good? Of course not."

I also spent most of my energy here defending the idea that religion has a traditional place in our politics.

Your own comment reveals quite a bit about intolerance and ignorance.

JimBobby said...

I was responding to "anonymous" not you, Frank.

Anonymous said...

Man, you can't please some people.
I thought the conversation was reasonably respectfull.

Who gave John Baird this URL?

JimBobby said...

Ha! It was quite civil until that guy who longs for the time when "basic rules of society which were developed over thousands of years and by hundreds of cultures, will return" came around.

I reckon maybe I set the wrong tone with that "Kiss my ass..." title.


Anonymous said...

It's too bad you've not managed to see or meet May, her travel is quite extensive.

I saw her last year at our local EDA general meeting, and dispite supporting her rival for leadership I was quite impressed.

I also picked up a ticket to see her in Newmarket this upcoming Wed night for a York Simcoe Greens.
fund raiser
Keep an eye out, I'm she will hit your are soon.

Anonymous said...

me no can spell or write no good today.


Infant inspired sleep deprivation,
and coffee is just not doing the trick after 4 days averaging 3 hours sleep. I'm too old for this &$^&&$%#%$#%.

son of gaia said...

"Do we care why someone does the correct thing as long as they do it?"

We'd d*mned well better care!
Because you are endorsing "the ends justify the means" is you don't care WHY someone does "the correct thing". Our old friend DT is in prison again, down in the US this time, for helping people burn down new housing constructs in wiilderness areas. New housing contructs in wilderness areas are a wrong thing, but not as wrong a thing as conspiracy to destroy other people's property.

If people don't have rational, defensible reasons for why they do what they do then they are FANATICS and a disgrace to whatever 'cause' they espouse.

JimBobby said...

Yeah, SOG, yer makin' sense. When I sed it didn't matter, I was mainly thinkin' it don't matter to me if religious folks wanna save God's green earth because it'd be an affront to the Creator if they didn't - or if non-religious folks wanna save the earth because it's simply the responsible thing to do. The earth needs help and if some of that help is helpin' because they feel a religious duty to do so, I ain't gonna stop 'em or criticize their motivation.

I'd rather churches used their influence on green issues than on fightin' against selfsame sexy marryin' (SSM) or wagin' holy wars on Islam.

But yer right as rain, SOG. The ends do not justify the means. Justifiable means do exist.