Archive for May, 2007

“Hi, I’m a shameless copy-cat.”

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

As a self-confessed MacIntosh fan, a Conservative, and as someone who’s spent my entire professional career working in the advertising and communication industry I think I’m qualified to comment on the newly released videos now appearing on the Liberal.ca website:

So far the Liberals have posted 3 videos, and I’m sure they’re wringing their hands and giggling to themselves as they think of all the ways they can extend this “hilarious” attack campaign further.

Quite shockingly the official press release that appears on the Liberal web site makes no mention of the Apple ads they mimic, stating rather:

Following a concept suggestion to the Liberal Party website, Youth National Director Scott Pickup spearheaded the idea’s implementation. The Young Liberals wanted to try something outside the mainstream.

So what’s wrong with these ads? Let me start a list:

1. Creatively they are shameless rip-offs of Apple’s much more sophisticated (and original) series of ads.

I doubt Apple will take any legal action but I could see them making a case that the Liberal ads will cause some damage to Apple’s brand. Originality has value in the minds of consumers, and the Liberal ads will dilute the perception that Apple was the original creator. Apple could also lose favour among it’s many Conservative customers if it stands by and allows the Liberal ads to air. At a minimum a symbolic “slap on the wrist” would be in order.

2. While non-Conservatives will likely find the ads funny, the ads are still “negative attack ads”, and as I’ve already noted, the Liberals have very vocally stated they would not “go negative” in their ad campaigns. So much for that promise.

3. The stereotype the ads employ to portray the “typical Conservative” is shallow and insulting. What the Liberals have failed to pick up on in the Apple ads is that the “PC” character is representing a machine, and machines don’t get insulted and don’t vote. The Liberals are making fun of millions of Canadians who consider themselves “Conservative”. Please, keep up the good work.

4. The factual content presented in the Liberal ads is … well … not factual. In addition to making the false claim that the Conservatives cut $5 Billion from environment spending, the following is sheer lunacy:

[It's not too difficult] to stop sea levels from rising … see, you just have to reduce carbon emissions, follow Kyoto, impose a carbon budget, don’t let industries emit more than their share, try and get Canadians to reduce power consumption.

While the scientific community is quite clearly split on the extent and the cause of global warming and sea level rise, on one position there is virtually unanimous agreement: Canada can have little to no impact on the changes to sea level.

But even though the Liberals did nothing over the last 13 years, they would now like you to believe “It’s not too difficult – just vote us back into power.” Yup, and if you buy that line I’ve got some magic beans here I’d like to sell you.

Put your money where your mouth is

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

Yesterday’s Globe and Mail poll should be seen as a bit of a reality-check for environmental policy-makers and pundits like Dr. David Suzuki. Suzuki has been aggressively campaigning promoting the opinion that Canadians overwhelmingly support Kyoto and the carbon tax model, as recently reported on the CBC:

Canadians are ready to pay a little extra to help deal with climate change, David Suzuki said Friday before a meeting with the federal environment minister.

“I think they’re willing to suck it in and accept that they’re going to have to pay more but they want it to be fair,” Suzuki said during a news conference in Ottawa.

When I originally saw Suzuki speak I really did wonder which Canadians he had spoken to.

Globe and Mail Poll - Pay extra for Carbon Credits?

And as usual, Rex Murphy eloquently offers his comments on the topic:

Rex Murphy on Carbon Offset Fees - May 29, 2007

Whose interests is Temelkovski serving?

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Oak Ridges-Markham MP Lui Temelkovski recently introduced a controversial private members bill in the House of Commons recognizing the “Republic of Macedonia”. The controversy over the name and the territorial boundaries of the Macedonian region, that spans both Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) dates backs centuries.

“I think it’s clear that the fact Canada has not recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name is all due to the Greek lobby,” he said. “It’s not up to Greece to tell Macedonia what it can call itself. It’s a matter of self-identity.

“They’ve got to forget it. I can’t go naming you Peter. My name is Lui and you can call me whatever you like, but my name is Lui.”

You can read more on this story here:

Source.

I do understand the very high level of passion the Macedonian debate stirs up, but that debate is not what this column is about. What really concerns me is that Mr. Temelkovski appears to serving the interest of a relatively small group of his constituents. While I do defend the notion of protecting individuals and minorities, this is clearly NOT an issue of minority rights here in Canada. In fact this issue has virtually no impact on us here in Oak Ridges-Markham.

So what effect will this motion have? It will likely upset the Greek-Canadian community, and it will take Mr. Temelkovski away from doing other important work for his constituents.

Mr. Temelkovski should be working to represent the interests of ALL of his constituents – regardless of their ethnic background.

Separation of paper and gla … er … church and state

Thursday, May 24th, 2007

An entertaining post from “Relapsed Catholic” that bluntly advises the state to leave religion alone. This notion is fine with me as long as my rights as an individual are respected and the rights of innocent minors are not threatened – and this is where things things tend to get a bit murky. No one should be permitted to do harm to others, even in the name of religion. The grey area becomes how we define the terms “harm” and who the state deems to be protected as an “individual”.

The role of defining these terms is our responsibility as a society, and typically that responsibility is managed by our elected officials. More “murkiness” there.

On the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

The Charter is merely a list of then-current Received Liberal Pieties and should have as much bearing on the average Canadian’s life as a six-year-old Chinese takeout menu. If written today it would include a clause making the separation of paper and glass mandatory for all householders, every other Wednesday.

I wouldn’t have phrased this position quite as colourfully as Kathie, but the essence in here:

There should be no interference by the State in matters of Christian or Jewish doctrine. These and other traditions need to work out these matters for themselves, unless as is so often the case with Muslims, they are busy slaughtering animals in an unsanitary fasion or cutting off bits of their daughters’ genitalia, in which case the force of law should have its way (but rarely does in our multi-culti hell). Dissidents are welcome to join Reform Judaism or the United Church or any other McFaith that suits their estrogen-fuelled emotional bent of the week.

Somebody hasn’t had her coffee yet this morning.

Source.

Hat tip to Kate

Our ignorance is Canada Post’s bliss

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007

Andrew Coyne presents an interesting argument in favour of privatization, including a fabulously ironic use of an American reference.

read more | digg story

As a “white man” I’m offended

Wednesday, May 16th, 2007

Hell, as a “human being” I’m offended!

Watching the CTV News yesterday I was shocked to hear a prominent native-Canadian leader speak these words:

“There’s only two ways to deal with the white man. You either pick up a gun, or you stand between him and his money.”

– Chief Terrance Nelson, Roseau River First Nation

I thought I’d do some research to find out a bit more about this angry man, and sure enough it appears he has a history of making racist remarks. A couple of years ago, in an open letter commenting on the David Ahenakew Holocaust denial incident Nelson wrote:

“As I stated from the beginning, I will publicly condemn David Ahenakew when the Jews start confronting and condemning some of their own people who spread hatred against my people. Is David Asper’s comment “Bring it on” in regards to the suit against him supported by the Jewish people in general and by Jewish organizations?”

Source.

Warren’s “Chew Toy of the Week” revisited

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

While I was running for the federal nomination in our riding back in February of this year I had a minor dust up with Warren Kinsella over some advertising that appeared on his Blog. At the time I decided I had better things to do with my time than play his game, so I let it go. However, inspired by some recent posts by Kinsella, I decided to follow up on that exchange, and I wrote a letter to his editor at the National Post:

To the editor of the National Post,

I am not one to advocate for media censorship, and I will defend the right to free speech vigorously, but I feel someone at your publication should be made aware of the public conduct of one of your columnists, Mr. Warren Kinsella.

In exchange for financial compensation Mr. Kinsella has made his web site available to Google AdWords advertisers. While I was recently campaigning for a federal riding nomination, one of my text ads appeared on Mr. Kinsella’s web site.

When the presence of my ad was brought to the attention of Mr. Kinsella he chose to publicly and erroneously ridicule my campaign. His original text is posted here:

Kinsella Version A - Original Post - Feb. 20

When I became aware of the comments posted by Kinsella I wrote him a short, private email to offer some clarification and some context:

Kinsella Email 1

Mr. Kinsella’s response to my email was not a retraction of his erroneous comments, nor an apology, rather he chose to to first revise his earlier posting to read “less incorrectly”:

Kinsella Version B - Revisionist Post - Feb. 20

Next he attempted to find out more about my personal background. He sent me an email enquiry to which I replied with an offer to speak with him personally. He never did call:

Kinsella Email 2

Finally, he chose to once again make a public statement intended to cause harm to my reputation. His post is still on his blog here:

Kinsella Post 2 - Feb. 22

As I mentioned at the beginning of this note, I will defend Mr. Kinsella’s right to free speech, however the flip side of that coin is accountability. As someone who oversees and publishes Mr. Kinsella’s remarks I’d like to suggest you speak to him about journalistic ethics.

Best regards,

Andrew Keyes

There. That feels much better now.

By the way, I would like to tip my hat to Blue Blogging Soapbox who originally reported on this little skirmish and who have kept a pretty good record of the events.

Update: Quite a lot has been written about the self-described “Prince of Darkness” and the methods he uses to twist the truth. Here’s a recent look at these methods by Mark Steyn.