Tuesday, October 19, 2004

A meme I can get behind

Colby Cosh:
"In your heart, you know we have to get Don Cherry elected as The Greatest Canadian."

"It would annoy everyone worth annoying in this country."

"Above all he stands up for moral qualities lying neglected in a dusty corner of our civilization: courage, honour, patriotism, and squeezing more out of your talent than the Good Lord put into it."
The Monger (this made me laugh for 15 minutes):
"Anyway, lots of people...are suggesting voting for Don Cherry, both as a recognition of the man himself and as a useful thumb in the eye of Our Socialist Betters at the MotherCorp.

Not only do I heartily agree (show those leftie wanks the error of their ways, giving us peasants a chance to speak our "minds"!), I think Cherry could actually win. It's all vote-splitting, baby!"

"And now the 3-way. Tommy Douglas, Pierre Trudeau, and David Suzuki. Sounds like the set-up to a bad joke about beet soup: so a socialist, a marxist, and a communist walk into a bar..."

And Evan Kirchhoff, with the cherry on top:
"For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Don Cherry deserves to be voted Greatest Canadian, especially when compared to finalists such as Lester B. Pearson (inventor of "Scotch" tape), David Suzuki (conservative publisher), or Terry Fox (champion sniper).

Apropos of absolutely nothing, Mailinator is a site where you can create unlimited numbers of temporary addresses for receiving e-mails."
I'm George Bush, err, Matt Fenwick, and I approve this message. As Cosh notes, the "professional liberal sourpusses" are already going on record, horrified that Cherry even made the top 10. George Johnson, on A3 of today's Calgary Herald ($$ubscriber only), piles on with Garth Woolsey (and counting!), and actually concludes his column with the words "For shame."

Yes, that is reason enough to vote for Cherry! Me, I'd do it just to hear Bruce Dowbiggin's voice go up another octave.


At 4:09 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm trying hard to understand this "movement", but I don't get it. Maybe I have an underdeveloped sense of humour.

Here's what I posted at the Shotgun (slightly updated):

For a forum in which it is regularly noted that Canadian children have a poor understanding or appreciation for history, the outrage over this program is curious - especially given that many posters belong to the Red Ensign Brigade, whose purpose is apparently to actively honour, remember and restore Canada's glorious past.

No one at CBC decided who would be in the top 100 or top 10. Voting Canadians did. You can argue that this is a pretty dumb way to decide "The Greatest Canadian", and I would agree wholeheartedly; but, at the very least it is a process that engages Canadians in their history. How is this a bad thing?

To vote in Cherry just to flip off the CBC seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face. First, will anyone other than you get the joke? Second, is it really worth denigrating the past over? Third, how will this do anything but discourage children (and adults for that matter) from engaging in Canada's history?

Since CBC didn't pick the candidates, I can only assume that the objection must be to a perceived bias in the 50 word blurbs on the website and in the descriptions on the program, although I haven't really seen this argument articulated. But, if this is the case, then why not do something constructive, something that still encourages engagement? Create a mirror website - Alternate Great Canadians, True Great Canadians, The Truth about Great Canadians, or some such thing that exposes the CBC's bias.

I'm afraid, however, that the opposition isn't so much against the descriptions of the candidates, but rather is a "protest" vote against CBC in general at the expense of belittling Canada's history, or worse, simply a petty unhappiness with who Canadians (not the CBC) chose for their top-10.

Besides, if any of you had watched last night's episode, you would have loved seing Trudeau get absolutely demolished in a debate with Tommy Douglas. It was unmerciful.
Again, I don't really get it. By voting in Cherry you aren't "stickin' it to The Man as much as you are sticking it to fellow Canadians who are showing some interest in their History.

I also wonder how Cherry, himself, would feel about being used this way.

At 9:37 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess we have a partial answer:For most people, finding out they had achieved something so grand as to make the top 10 Canadians of all time it would be some special day, but for Cherry it was awful. "I couldn't believe it," he said of the media tirades. "I mean, I didn't ask to be in the (contest)." Vote him in for such stellar reasons as:

But David Crouch, at Betty's on King St. E., said, "I voted for him -- just to tick off Peter Mansbridge." Then have the gall to pretend to be outraged when pundits rip him for not belonging on the list - all the while knowing, in fact banking on, that very reaction.

Pretty sad in my humble opinion.

- jass


Post a Comment

<< Home