John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A COLUMN IN THE NATIONAL POST

Christie Blatchford seems to have become The Conservatives’ chief apologist.

Her apology here though seems totally unneeded.

I believe in these two cases of dropped candidates, the bone-headed people involved would have made perfect Conservative candidates.

Pranks? Isn’t this the party of robo-calls and frat-boy negative advertising?

Isn’t this the party of never telling the truth to people?

Of never giving a straight answer?

The party of not complying with officials attempting to investigate misdeeds?

The party of hiding the many stupid things it has done?

The party of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Nigel Wright, and other charmers?

The party of slavishly catering to special interests?

The party of giving the finger to many of the world’s serious concerns?

The party of John Baird who resembles nothing so much as a mad dog when he argues with people?

The party of Peter MacKay, a man who had an affair with a subordinate, later harassed her and called her a dog in public, and then lied about it as well as a man who has demonstrated incompetence in almost every portfolio in the cabinet?

The party of the absolute thug, Patrick Brazeau?

The party of Maxime Bernier, who left top secret NATO papers at his biker girlfriend’s house for weeks?

The party of Pierre Poilievre, perhaps the most seriously twisted sister ever in Parliament?

I just cannot believe what an opportunity the party has missed with these two new fellows, each surely potential minister material.

It’s a shame, I guess that’s the price you pay for political correctness.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

For the ethical idiots claiming that this was a just decision, I suggest the following experiment.

The next time an aggressive (but unarmed) homeless person gives you some trouble on a downtown street, such as attempting a headlock while demanding money, just kill him. Right there, on the spot, slam his head into a metal pole, several times to be sure he’s dead.

Now, unless, you are Michael Bryant, I’m fairly confident you would be facing prison, and rightly so.

This entire matter has been disgracefully handled. Michael Bryant committed a form of manslaughter and was guilty of totally reckless driving.
_________________________

This case has almost nothing to do with cars versus bicycles.

It is a case of a prominent, wealthy man behaving with absolutely no judgment and with recklessness when confronted by a difficult man.

Absolutely, this disposal of the case was preferential treatment of the worst kind.

The biker was a very difficult man, but Michael Bryant had no excuse for his extreme behavior which killed the man.

Michael Bryant committed a crime, just as surely as if he had murdered an unarmed burglar in his house.

Only one person had control of the brakes and accelerator of that car, and that person was Michael Bryant.
_________________________

I just cannot believe the ethical level of some postings here.

Blaming the victim, no matter how troubled he was.

Mindless praise for the cowardly Michael Bryant.

Yes, as one observant poster noted, The New York Times said Bryant hit Sheppard twice before things came to the boil.

Twice. Clearly Bryant has a sense of blimp-sized entitlement and a tendency towards psychopathy, thinking he can hit a bike twice and then act as a maniac when the poor man responds.

And while Bryant’s flunkies have made sure we know Sheppard’s unstable background, it is clear no one has examined Bryant in the same way – he may well have displayed his ugly reactions before and managed to cover them up.

It is common practice among Toronto couriers when meeting up with an aggressive, obtuse driver like Bryant to try grabbing the car keys. Then they throw them away.

It seems likely this is what Sheppard was doing. Not nice, but hardly a capital crime.

Again, for the ethical idiots claiming that this was a just decision, I suggest the following experiment.

The next time an aggressive (but unarmed) homeless person gives you some trouble on a downtown street, such as attempting a headlock while demanding money, just kill him.

Right there, on the spot, slam his head into a metal pole, several times to be sure he’s dead.

Now, unless, you are Michael Bryant, I’m fairly confident you would be facing prison, and rightly so.

This entire matter has been disgracefully handled. Michael Bryant committed a form of manslaughter and was guilty of totally reckless driving.

Mr. Premier, here is a case screaming to be re-opened. Bryant should face trial by his peers, not decisions by a special prosecutor behaving as though he were on the defence payroll.
_____________________

tkip19,

That last post of yours reads like a press release from Bryant’s PR firm.

Pathetic.

Is that why you don’t use your name?

You can have no idea what behaviors are hidden in Mr. Bryant’s background.

Rich people can do very nasty things and have them covered up. Witness the background of George Bush.

The behaviors – several of them – exhibited in this case by Mr. Bryant point to serious character flaws.

One could almost bet a thorough vetting would give us something to talk about in his case too, but serious vetting takes money and only Bryant has that.

It is grossly unfair to harp on Mr. Sheppard’s background.

He is not here to speak for himself.

And this is crucial, he committed no serious crime warranting death, yet Mr. Bryant clearly killed him.
____________________________

“According to the police, the prosecutor, and the defence Mr. Shepperd assaulted Mr. Bryant. When Mr. Bryant tried to flee the assault Mr. Shepperd tried to hold on to the vehicle, failed, and was fatally injured when he fell.

“This is NOT the same thing as saying that Mr. Bryant killed Mr. Shepperd. This is closer to saying that Mr. Shepperd did something criminal and stupid and was killed when it didn’t work out the way he thought it would.”

“According to police…”

Well, my friend, that is what courts and juries exist to determine.

May I remind you that “according to police,” a poor desperate man in Vancouver’s airport who picked up a stapler when faced with four armed men was threat enough to warrant the most disgraceful police behavior?

Again, solid news sources said Bryant hit Sheppard’s bike twice. Twice.

Maybe Bryant was drunk, but we’ll never know, will we? Again, “according to police.”

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Sorry, Ms. Blatchford, I don’t think you can convincingly defend Ms. Raitt.

You and other critics of the public’s reaction miss the point entirely.

Yes, it was a private conversation.

Yes, Ms. Raitt undoubtedly knows about cancer.

Yes, Ms. Raitt may be an intelligent person.

No, use of the word “sexy” in and of itself is not horrible.

It is the total sense of this conversation that is wrong. We, virtually all of us, know that it is wrong.

It displays a truly callous monomaniacal ego at work, thinking only of the career advantages she can reap from the situation, not the kind of person most Canadians want making important decisions in government.

Ms. Raitt is not unique in politics with the narcissistic quality of her personality, but she has been caught and documented.

Even if Harper doesn’t dump her and she doesn’t resign, I think she will remain damaged goods as far as national politics go.