Reader Trent Lalonde emails;
I just listened to CBC’s “The Current” on 540 AM, where heard Anna Marie Tremonti refer to the “Conservative Clan” and how they must pull together Federally and Provincially in order to win. Tremonti goes on to say that Alberta and Ontario are very important members of “The Clan”, not “The Conservative Clan”, but “The Clan”.
I know what she meant.
So does she, Trent.
Contact info for the Current.
Stephen Taylor has the audio.
“The KKK thing is a joke, Dean. It’s either a desperate ploy for attention…”
Which has no relation either to Robbo being as annoying as figernails on a blackboard, or your implication that Greg Westin was correct to claim a (vast right wing?) conspiracy of blogs to intimidate and harass poor feckless journos.
“This holds about as much water as insisting that “water buffalo” is a racist term…”
As opposed to “niggardly” perhaps? I agree that it is unlikely (but not inconceivable) that Tremonti intended to refer to the Tories as the “Klan” – but she was careless in a way that she would never be in referring to -say- the NDP’s campaign coordinators as “the Provincial Politburos” – even if it did give her the desired alliteration.
This bit of ruffle is interesting in that it is similar to the rejection of words now considered politically incorrect such fag, kike, various words used to describe some immigrants, black and so on.
However, no political correctness required when slagging anyone on the right of the politcal spectrum. We can be regarded as the equal of the KKK… Hedy Fry made that very clear not long ago. And it doesn’t matter. Is it that we have thicker skin that the rest of the people in Canada or it it that we somehow deserve to be considered people who would lynch blacks and burn their homes?
The Left in Canada has become the mean spirited, bigots that they so often accuse Conservatives of being.
It’s an upside down country, but Stephen Harper is working on the 180.
Let’s talk about Good radio…
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/05/29/hugh-hewitt-rs/
Pssst…don’t tell anybody, but the Mother Corp is gonna be sold to Fox News!
Sounds to me that some here ought to be added to the list:
http://www.growupharper.net/
Wow, a “grassroots” website with 120+ visits – that’s about 100 more than your weedy blog.
Well, if those liberals want to deride us as the “Clan”, then we shall feel free to deride them as the “Mob”. No, that’s too kind. We need a bomb of equal magnitude… mutually assured destruction… it’s up to them. Perhaps we should henceforth refer to the former leftist state regime as the “Reich”. There.
“Sounds to me that some here ought to be added to the list”
And yet he can’t keep his nose out of our armpits – one more of these people who are offended and annoyed about what they find here, but they visit almost obsessively.
(Note polite approach, “armpits” instead of…
Dawg,
I couldn’t quite figure out why you spend so much time here at SDA, so I went to your blog, now I know why you are here, YOU’RE LONELY! Doesn’t anyone want to play with you? You really need a girlfriend, or maybe a boyfriend or perhaps just any friend will do.
I did find your thread on the PM and the PPG rather odd. I would think you would have included something about Clay Serby threatening Rawlco Radio when one of their talk shows did a story about the lack of health care here in Saskatchewan. But I guess you only get upset when members of Nation’s Socialists brigade – aka the NDP and Liberals – get slagged.
Aren’t there already enough overt examples of partisanship from the CBC for the right to start wringing it’s hands over”possible”slurs?In this segment,the word”clan”is repeatedly interchanged with the word”family”,or did she mean the”bad”kind of family(mob)too?I heard no inflection or emphasis of the word,except that she repeated it,as she did the word family.Anyways,even if you WANT to believe she meant”klan”it can still only be considered SPECULATION as there is as yet NO PROOF!
I tend to agree with SPI,what I see as telling is her dullwitted preconception there is some great,all-encompassing conservative network and it’s corresponding agenda out there for her to expose.
I will admit however,she may herself believe she is taking a page out of Harper’s PPG book and is just pushing the buttons of hyper-sensitive conservatives to expose their paranoia.
After all,I see far too many emotional conservatives(hardcore usually)predictably take the bait,hook,line and sinker from the left.
Want proof?…Just look at the pointless hours spent here by many FEEDING steve d.
Again,to try and define this”possible”slur as a proven fact when it is clearly speculation just undermines the validity of those clear incidents of bias we KNOW exist.
tony, you say: “For all your qualms about the mass media, they’re really not THAT stupid. Seriously.”
Well, you should know, seeing as you’re a member of the mass media.
Your “I’ve used the word [“Clan”] my whole life and still feel the way you did when you were in grade school. Maybe Anna-Maria Tremonti feels the same way I do” sure sounds reminiscent of some of the letters I’ve received from the CBC to complaints of mine: Let’s give the poor CBC reporter/announcer who’s only doing his/her job the benefit of the doubt at all times. Any problem the viewers/listeners may have with something said or done at the CBC must be a problem of perception on their part.
Yeah, I guess the CBC is perfect; the “Heil Harper” incident was an “inadvertent error” and Julie VD’s reference to David Emerson’s
“tush” happened only because “she was squeezed, with little room to move, between two much larger commentators.”
I kid you not. This was the answer I got from the CBC Ombusdman to justify JVD’s poor choice of words, to which he added, among other things: “When faced with demands of CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices, the journalist can find herself in an uncomfortable position, both literally and figuratively.”
That must be Anna Tremonti’s problem: She’s found herself in an uncomfortable position. Might there have been “two much larger commentators” squeezing her in the studio and that explains why she referred to CPC supporters as the “Conservative Clan”?
No one should expect any reasonable explanation of her use of the word “Clan” or an apology. The CBC will always be contrite that the listener/viewer was offended (“sorry to hear you were disappointed with us today”) but that’s as far as it will ever go. It’s NEVER the CBC’s problem, it’s always the listener’s/viewer’s.
If left to the free media market, the CBC would sink like a stone. It’s too bad that hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars are keeping this limping ‘liner, with its cranky crew, afloat.
The Ombudsman also wrote that “People still look to the CBC for certain standards of language and presentation.” I’m not sure that Anna-Maria Tremonti is aware of this, so maybe someone should let her know. She should know that the Ombudsman also said that the CBC “should try to present its own reporting in clear, concise and conversational language without having to delve too far into the vernacular on inappropriate occasions.” I think these are words of advice to Ms. Tremonti, so I hope that someone passes them on to her.
Isn’t this the definition of no accountability? of not taking responsibility?
one more of these people who are offended and annoyed about what they find here
Not remotely true. Amused, mostly. Hell, Steve Janke hangs around Babble, and blogs about what he finds. Even I don’t do that. 🙂
Too busy sniffing your own crotch, no doubt.
Mississauga Matt: That was a bit much. The good woofer has his point of view, is articulate, and is not a Rabble-rouser.
Other than that he and I almost always disagree. But let us all do so reasonably without insults. Otherwise you just add weight to the Greg Weston vast (and dumb) right-wing conspiracy charge.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 29, 2006 08:08 PM
The most concise post in this thread, including the bit about feeding trolls.
Keep confronting Canadians with verifiable acts of largesse on the part of Liberals.
robert in calgary
It looks to me like the word police are all on the Right. There is so much paranoia and hate regarding media and the public in general that its easy to see how these things can get out of hand. Its especially scary when the Prime Minister is encouraging it. What’s next a law outlawing phrasing that can be interpreted two ways. How about taking rights away one at a time.
Dr Dawg: The key understanding here is not the seriousness of a single instance like “clan/klan” but the cumulative day-in-day-out subliminal message from the Liberal Party house organ. So really by itself the “clan/klan” instance doesn’t amount to much and it is admittedly easy to dismiss it as trivial paranoia, tho I dont’ think it is. I believe it is subtle and 100% intentional and reflective of the way Tremonti probably refers to cons whilst chatting with her oh so clever cosmopolitan friends.
Here’s a serious question for you: Do you think conservatives (and be clear, I’m an atheist libertarian/conservative) were unreasonably angry when the CBC did that infamous TV mockumentary just before an election in which they mercilessly ridiculed Stockwell Day for his Christian fundmentalist beliefs? The same CBC which usually breathlessly celebrates “multiculturalism” and wouldn’t dream of making fun of, say, Islamic fundamentalism, like say ridiculing Ahmadinejad playing peak-a-boo with the Imam-in-a-well?
Finally reflect on this: how on earth did the cons under Mulroney get down to two seats and the Libs retain 100 seats after all that fraud and corruption? Do you see what I’m driving at here?
There should simply not be state media in advanced modern democracies.
My e-mail to the C.B.C….
“Just heard about how Anna Marie Tremonti refered to the New Conservative Party of Canada (the political party of which I am a member) as “the Clan”. Ms. Tremonti’s double entendre is ABUNDANTLY clear.
I eagerly await the day when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is privatized. Canadians don’t need this anachronistic dinosaur… might as well put the $1 billion+ towards something which is actually useful.”
The idiots probably WON’T understand the premise… you know, “privatization of the C.B.C.”. Neanderthals.
steve d: The cons do hate state media (for sure) but NOT the public, and in fact, the public is much more conservative than generally believed especially by people who’ve swallowed the “Canadian values” mythology. In fact, it’s the cynical Liberals who have hated and despised the non-Toronto public, witness their breathtakingly stupid insistence on pursiung the gun registry which hardly anyone wanted; witness that most Canadians were against same-sex marriage, etc. etc. etc.
I take your point, Mark, but it hardly adds “weight … to the vast right-wing conspiracy charge.”
I don’t think there’s enough evidence to allege that she was spelling clan with a k but it was bad enough. By using the term clan she was trying to convey the impression that this is a small group unlike the sea to sea big tent natural governing party Liberals.
I’ll withdraw this when she refers to the Liberals as a Gang.
Me no:
I’ll try to get at that rather large question of yours.
1) Do I think fundamentalist Christians were offended by mockery of Stockwell Day on CBC (and, indeed, elsewhere)? I would imagine some were. Is such mockery consistent with certain approaches to multiculturalism (about which, incidentally, I have my own critique)? Quite possibly not, although I would suggest that Christian conservatives don’t face a host of other related problems faced by at least some of the minorities in question. But there is scope for satire, biting commentary, even outright opposition to ideas and ideologies in the national media. Ahmadinejad, incidentally, is beyond satire: he hasn’t been laughed at–he’s been excoriated, and sometimes inaccurately (as in the National Post story recently).
2) If you argue that Liberals have gotten a pass from the national media, then you have a very short memory. I’ve already pointed out the near-unanimous endorsement of Harper in January. Add to that the “Mr. Dithers” routine, the pictures of an old, tired, ineffectual Paul Martin, the highlighting of scandal after scandal–by the nasty old MSM–and I would have to say that no one escapes the close scrutiny of Parliamentary reporters.
3) Finally reflect on this: how on earth did the cons under Mulroney get down to two seats and the Libs retain 100 seats after all that fraud and corruption? Do you see what I’m driving at here?
I’m not sure I understand. Mulroney (or more accurately Kim Campbell) got down to two seats after several years in power, years that were not unmarked by scandal and arrogance. The Liberals were in opposition. To whose fraud and corruption are you referring? What are you driving at, exactly?
Just to recap,
At one of the main bastions of Canada’s left-wing mainstream media, the host just happens to choose “clan” and just happens to choose to use it on a piece featuring Conservatives.
What are the odds?
Why not….alliance, band, brood, brotherhood, circle, community, coterie, faction, fellowship, fraternity, guild, house, kin, network, relations or tribe.
Terry Gain: Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. The big “inclusive” tent vs. the weird western little gun-toting rump party that, gasp, won.
Dr Dawg: A bit mushy I’d say. Day was the leader of the official opposition, and this was done just prior to an election, not just in the rough and tumble of day to day politics. AND the CBC is a state broadcaster. This was not run of the mill satire, which we should all be able to grin and bear — it was a hatchet job pure and simple. Frankly, I’m still very angry about it, but also deeply respectful of how Day handled that grossly unfair state-broadcaster political assassination.
Fair comment re: the coverage of the Libs — but only when they stumbled very badly and were looking like total losers. Bandwagon effect, maybe thinking about their new bosses, etc.
Robert,if you want to convince yourself you are right…fine.
Just please consider if the host”happened”to choose one of the following replacements you offer:
alliance-Well we know the party’s hated western roots don’t we?
brood-Indeed the MSM has oft’ accused Harper of being angry and brooding!
faction/sect-Well those ones just scream extreme christian fundamentalism,don’t they?
kin-Everyone knows us rednecks have lots of kin.
network-We do see she seems to believe there is an organized conservative conspiracy.
Should I continue,there are many more examples,or do you finally get my point?…But then,what would the odds of that be?
We should hold a referendum. The question should be; “Should we retain the CBC or eliminate it and pass on $800M in tax savings to Canadians.” Of course, their hockey rights would be removed and assigned to the Tim Hortons Channel instead first.
Sell it to Fox.
Let them dig their own grave. It’ll only be a matter of time before their ridiculous rhetoric backfires like the “soldiers in our cities” campaign. Don’t give them any ammo.
Well, what about the Liberals and those Italian-Canadian legitimate businessmen in Québec?
Is that Klan or Kosa Nostra?
No, no , no, Cdn. Observer, I’ll step back so you can declare yourself right.
CBC: Reduce the budget by 50% over 5 years, matching $ for $ money raised from volunatry public donations with a matching $ ceiling when up to full base-year budget. At the 10-year mark, zero government-funding, all public.
There shouldn’t be a government broadcaster.
MND has it exactly right. The assets of the state belong to all citizens equally regardless of political persuasion. Can you imagine not having access to a public facility because of your political beliefs. Well you don’t get access to THEIR AIRWAVES UNLESS YOU LEAN (or are fallen over) LEFT.
True democracies don’t have state paid “news organizations” – especially propaganda machines like the goddamn CBC which doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased.
They have Cherry and Rex – count ’em two – TWO CONSERVATIVES ON THE WHOLE GODDAMN left wing nut PAYROLL.(AC isn’t on often enough to qualify)
Goddamn anti-liberation leftists. I hate them.
I think every one of you have to much time on your hands to get so wound up over a word used on a station that nobody listens to or wants anymore.
You should all forget about the negative surrounding the Harper dogs and be talking up the positive things this gov’t is doing. Just today our very capable enviroment minister won a unanimous decision in Bonn in regards to the Kyoto accord. we should be talking this up and leave the C.B.Cers to bury themselves.
I got this response back from the Current regarding the Klan thing in response to this email.
“Over the top as usual in referring to the Conservatives as the Klan. The CBC has become something that turns my stomach.
Here’s hoping that the budget cuts to the CBC are deep. You no longer represent Canada as a whole.”
Actually the word was used as … clan in the scripts. As in the definition …
Main Entry: clan
Pronunciation: ‘klan
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Scottish Gaelic clann offspring, clan, from Old Irish cland plant, offspring, from Latin planta plant
1 a : a Celtic group especially in the Scottish Highlands comprising a number of households whose heads claim descent from a common ancestor b
: a group of people tracing descent from a common ancestor
2 : a group united by a common interest or common characteristics
Here is how she opened the program:
“When Stephen Harper became Prime Minister … the celebrating went beyond his home base … to every conservative corner of the country.
But Conservatives know that their ability to BE and to STAY in power in this country relies on a configuration of political family ties. When the family is getting along … the Conservative clan rules … but when there’s sibling rivalry … it can rip the family apart.
This morning … after a week where two important members of the clan … Alberta and Quebec … were getting testy with each other … we’re asking what Mr. Harper has to do to ensure there’s enough unity to keep the family growing.”
The premise of our story was a speech Mr. Harper made ten years ago in which he pointed to three core constituencies or, as his colleague Tom
Flanagan had put it, the “three sisters”. We carried the analogy
further, referring to these groups several times in “familial” terms.
Here is how the panel was introduced:
“Ten years ago last week, Stephen Harper attended the “Winds of Change”
conference in Calgary to discuss the possible merger of the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties. It was a divisive and desperate time for conservative politics in Canada. But in a keynote speech, Harper outlined what he saw as a recipe for winning a national government.
According to Harper, the key was to build a coalition focusing on three core constituencies … the ‘three sisters’ as political architect, Tom Flanagan, put it. The first … populist reformers in the West. The second … traditional “blue” Tories in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces. The third … Quebec nationalists.
Harper began to foster relationships with each of the three sisters and it was their support that insiders credit for his minority election win in January. But while last week may mark a special anniversary in Harper’s rise to power, there are also signs that tensions between those three sisters may be on the rise.
It started with Quebec Premier Jean Charest’s announcement that Quebec was willing to go it alone when it came to the Kyoto accord. Then another sister chimed in last week … Ralph Klein, the voice of populist Alberta itself, over ideas about reforming the Federal government’s equalization payments to the provinces by adding resource revenues to the equation.
So with two of the three sisters bickering with the Harper government, we assembled a panel to look at the current strength of the conservative coalition and to discuss what Prime Minister Harper can do to avoid an all-out family feud.”
In Edmonton we were joined by Link Byfield, Calgary Sun columnist and founder of the populist lobby group, the Citizen’s Centre for Freedom and Democracy. And in Toronto we were joined by Janet Ecker. She is a former Tory minister under Premier Mike Harris in Ontario. And in Montreal we were joined by Luc Lavoie, former deputy chief of staff to Brian Mulroney.”
Please note the use of phrases such as “family feud”, “foster relationships with each of the three sisters”, “three sisters bickering”, “sibling
rivalry”. That is the context in which the word “clan” was used. It
was simply employed to enhance the family analogy. The three sisters, populist reformers in the west, traditional “blue” Tories in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces and Quebec nationalists, were grouped under the term “Conservative clan”.
Perhaps this does not change your view but thought I would pass this along.
Take care,
Lisa Ayuso
The Current
My response was:
Spare me the pablum. We both know what signifigance Klan has in North America. This is more evidence of the need to reduce or eliminate funding to the CBC. No more lies thank you. We both know it was no accident, that it was a deliberate drive by smear.
Re the meeting in Bonn: Isn’t that the meeting that the opposition wanted Rona to resign chairmanship of. Where can I find the story of this decision. Nothing on cbc or ctv that I heard, and have read nothing in the press. Also, nothing in Question Period, or on Newman.
I listen to CBC radio and read the Western Standard. Mix the two together, do a little thinking on your own, and the Truth will come to you all.
Got a response from the Current about the use of the word Clan. Here is their response:
There was no ill intended in this word at all … just as the word is
defined.
Main Entry: clan
Pronunciation: ‘klan
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Scottish Gaelic clann offspring, clan,
from Old Irish cland plant, offspring, from Latin planta plant
1 a : a Celtic group especially in the Scottish Highlands comprising a
number of households whose heads claim descent from a common ancestor b
: a group of people tracing descent from a common ancestor
2 : a group united by a common interest or common characteristics
Here is how she opened the program:
“When Stephen Harper became Prime Minister … the celebrating went
beyond his home base … to every conservative corner of the country.
But Conservatives know that their ability to BE and to STAY in power in
this country relies on a configuration of political family ties. When
the family is getting along … the Conservative clan rules … but when
there’s sibling rivalry … it can rip the family apart. This morning
… after a week where two important members of the clan … Alberta and
Quebec … were getting testy with each other … we’re asking what Mr.
Harper has to do to ensure there’s enough unity to keep the family
growing.”
The premise of our story was a speech Mr. Harper made ten years ago in
which he pointed to three core constituencies or, as his colleague Tom
Flanagan had put it, the “three sisters”. We carried the analogy
further, referring to these groups several times in “familial” terms.
Here is how the panel was introduced:
“Ten years ago last week, Stephen Harper attended the “Winds of Change”
conference in Calgary to discuss the possible merger of the Reform and
Progressive Conservative parties. It was a divisive and desperate time
for conservative politics in Canada. But in a keynote speech, Harper
outlined what he saw as a recipe for winning a national government.
According to Harper, the key was to build a coalition focusing on three
core constituencies … the ‘three sisters’ as political architect, Tom
Flanagan, put it. The first … populist reformers in the West. The
second … traditional “blue” Tories in Ontario and the Atlantic
provinces. The third … Quebec nationalists.
Harper began to foster relationships with each of the three sisters and
it was their support that insiders credit for his minority election win
in January. But while last week may mark a special anniversary in
Harper’s rise to power, there are also signs that tensions between those
three sisters may be on the rise.
It started with Quebec Premier Jean Charest’s announcement that Quebec
was willing to go it alone when it came to the Kyoto accord. Then
another sister chimed in last week … Ralph Klein, the voice of
populist Alberta itself, over ideas about reforming the Federal
government’s equalization payments to the provinces by adding resource
revenues to the equation.
So with two of the three sisters bickering with the Harper government,
we assembled a panel to look at the current strength of the conservative
coalition and to discuss what Prime Minister Harper can do to avoid an
all-out family feud.”
In Edmonton we were joined by Link Byfield, Calgary Sun columnist and
founder of the populist lobby group, the Citizen’s Centre for Freedom
and Democracy. And in Toronto we were joined by Janet Ecker. She is a
former Tory minister under Premier Mike Harris in Ontario. And in
Montreal we were joined by Luc Lavoie, former deputy chief of staff to
Brian Mulroney.”
Please note the use of phrases such as “family feud”, “foster
relationships with each of the three sisters”, “three sisters
bickering”, “sibling rivalry”. That is the context in which the word
“clan” was used. It was simply employed to enhance the family analogy.
The three sisters, populist reformers in the west, traditional “blue”
Tories in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces and Quebec nationalists,
were grouped under the term “Conservative clan”.
Perhaps this does not change your view but thought I would pass this
along.
Take care,
Lisa Ayuso
The Current
Here was my response to the Current:
You can spin it which ever way you want but we both know when that word is
used it has a certain connotation. Political parties in Canada are not
called clans. When was the last time you heard the Liberal Party of Canada
called a clan.
By the way I don’t need a condescending explanation of what the word means.
I did go to school.
The program seemed to be about those nasty Conservatives and what they had
to do to retain power because we all know there is only one natural
governing party that counts with the CBC (the Communist Broadcasting
Corporation) and that is the Liberal Party.
There is one thing I would like from the Conservatives and that is to review
the role of the CBC and ensure that it is a pure public broadcaster. It
would do my heart good to see employees of CBC both radio and TV appealing
for donations to support their programming. That is how a true public
broadcaster is funded, not through the taxpayers of a country. Those that
want to watch and listen to them supports them.
Maybe, Helen, you should check into the background and owners of the rest of Canada’s media, as well.
CBC TV can go and die for all I care. But listening to The Current and As It Happens, the BizNet, and some of the other news\ideas programs is an amazing source of info. You’re nitpicking instead of using the info they present.
This is one of the most small minded bitches about the CBC that I’ve ever read. Never mind the rather obvious stumbling point that you and rest who are arguing this mindless point are simply attempting to control the use of language. And, in the end, isn’t that what Conservatives (the concept, not the political party) are fighting against? When you call the CBC commies and socialists and klaim they have a klandestine kommunist agenda you are undermining your own point.
This sounds like right wing thought police stuff to me. You’re out of touch with your fellow Conservatives (the idea again), I think. Or maybe you’re a closet Liberal who wants to help people think the Korrect way. Please, do kontinue.
I wonder if anyone has a viewpoint on the
American bloggers thoughts on the sentence
spoken by the Prime Minister.
They are commiting terrorism against their
own country and their own people.
Most, of not all, are Canadians, so should they
not be seen as terrorising their own country
and people?
Why not, they are doing that, they were making
bombs that would damage our country and people
and we should have the right to punish them
on this angle as well as being terrorists.
We will still be able to do this if we cannot
prove they are in a terrorist “group.”
See “Lucianne.com” website.