Sunday, August 26, 2007

When she said she was "open" for business, we had no idea ...


Despite never having been elected, Conservative poodle Sharon Smith is appointed the "Skeena-Bulkley Valley liason [sic] to the federal government." At which point, it's clearly time to party.

The mayor will see you now ...



(Wag of the tail to UOH.)

OH, SIGH ... Apparently, even some of my regular readers are suggesting I have strayed beyond the bounds of decorum here, to which, after considerable thought, I have decided to respond: Bite me.

No, no, just kidding. But, in all seriousness, are some of you still fantasizing that we can have a civil discussion with these people? That we should somehow show we are better and not stoop to their level? What are you smoking?

We have a government whose Minister of Public Safety has absolutely no problem with sending masked, armed thugs into a perfectly peaceful public protest for the obvious purpose of inciting violence to discredit the entire protest, and you think I'm going to play nice? Good luck.

When the CPoC perpetually holds itself up as the morals and values standard to which all the rest of us should aspire, you damn betcha I'm going to take every opportunity to out one of their members as a soft-core porn, cheap tramp. Bring it on, baby -- you got more pics, I got more blog space. Let the good times roll.

And, besides, if this is what it takes to get the other half of the story out there, hey, so be it. Maybe the MSM will actually cover the latter half of this travesty now. Whatever it takes, folks. Whatever it takes.

36 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

Oh my...

It's posing in the office with the mayor's chain that's the problem here. Sorry, Ms. Smith...you got caught.

When I cavort around the office naked, I make sure no one's recording it.

Scotian said...

Yep, that chain is only for official mayoral purposes, which wearing while posing nude for your husband does not qualify as in any Canadian jurisdiction I've ever heard of.

Dr.Dawg said...

I'm not with you guys on this one. It has nothing to do with the story at hand. And never mind the "chain of office," which is public regalia--there was no intention on Smith's part to show public disrespect to it. Some idiot stole the photos and circulated them. Is privacy a right, or not?

Ti-Guy said...

*rolls eyes*

Yes Dawg, your moral perfectitude is duly noted.

jj said...

Dr. Dawg - The picture has nothing to do with the story, but it certainly highlights even more conservative hypocrisy and suggests questionable judgment from someone who would be MP (not to mention a typically Conservative disrespect for elected office, since it was taken in the Mayor's office).

If the picture had been taken in the privacy of Ms. Smith's home, I wouldn't have posted it. But elected officials have an obligation to realize that their office is a public office, owned by us, the taxpayers, not their private playpen.

Also, Ms. Smith is willingly and knowingly taking this bogus position (voluntary or not) which is a subversion of democracy -- she should be screaming about its impropriety, not going along with it. So as far as I'm concerned, she's fair game. Bring on the naked pics!

Ti-Guy said...

Dawg doesn't like the concept of "fair game." It assaults his sensibilities.

Poor dear. Someone buy him a fainting couch.

Dr.Dawg said...

Actually, I just believe in consistency. Silly me.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, I'm not criticising you for consistency; I just think you have absolutely no understanding of political reality.

*sigh*...Learn well, children. This is how Dippers speak "truth to power."

..*snort*

Dr.Dawg said...

So next time, when your're up against some wingnut who happens to be gay, you'll just fag-bait him to the ground, right? In the name of progressive politics, of course.

I probably have at least as good an understanding of political reality as you. Cheap shots never did resonate with my membership. But please share your broad knowledge of organizing with me. I'm never too old to learn.

Dr.Dawg said...

So next time, when your're up against some wingnut who happens to be gay, you'll just fag-bait him to the ground, right? In the name of progressive politics, of course.

I probably have at least as good an understanding of political reality as you. Cheap shots never did resonate with my membership. But please share your broad knowledge of organizing with me. I'm never too old to learn.

Ti-Guy said...

So next time, when your're up against some wingnut who happens to be gay, you'll just fag-bait him to the ground, right?

If that wingnut opposes the expansion of rights to gay people, and has the power to limit those rights, you bet your ass.

What part of the word "power" are you not understanding, Dawg?

Ti-Guy said...

Anyway, I shouldn't bother. Dr. Dawg, despite his wonderful and eminently entertaining and enlightening blog, just doesn't like having his morality challenged.

...never has, never will. He'll jaw on until we all accept that no one should even giggle about Ms. Smith's wide-open beaver shot.

Dr.Dawg said...

Maybe I'll stop when you can demonstrate the political relevance of it. Until then it's just sexist crap under cover of an alleged political struggle.

Adam C said...

...upon review (after having a chuckle the first time through) I'm with the Dawg on this one. Obsessing over the private sex life of a public official is an unattractive wingnut trait. I feel kind of dirty for having looked at her private photo...

CC said...

Yes, it's cheap, it's tacky and it's tasteless, and I just don't give a crap.

If this pic came out of the blue with no rationale whatsoever, I wouldn't have posted it either.

But given that Smith has firmly inserted herself into what is a crass and possibly unconstitutional attempt to subvert basic democracy in Canada, well, I just don't feel like playing nice with these people anymore.

I posted an (edited) embarrassing pic of Smith. She, on the other hand, is fucking with the results of a federal election. Which one of us is doing more damage?

No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Ti-Guy said...

Maybe I'll stop when you can demonstrate the political relevance of it.

The *political* relevance has already been demonstrated, Dawg. Do you really not understand what political means?

God you're tedious. And you're no friend of political progressives, that's for sure.

Ti-Guy said...

I feel kind of dirty for having looked at her private photo...

Right. You chuckled about it, then found it kind of dirty. Good on you. You're a typical WASP who has conflicting feelings about nudity and sexuality.

I felt nothing. Ms. Smith's rack and cootch mean absolutely nothing to me. But the political ammunition to nail the CPC fascists is too good to pass up.

...and anyone who thinks differently is simply a self-righteous solipsist.

Zorpheous said...

Sorry Ti,

Dawg is just living by his standard that this picture is not the issue and it should not be exploided. ?He would be like this if it were a liberal or and NDP political wonker.

And I have to agree with him, though I be sorely tempted to Wingnuterer Photoshop Crazy on this, I am going to resist.

Actually the photograph detracts from the real issue, and the Blogging Tories will use this posting of the picture to deflect from the real issue, and that is the CPC's blatant disregard for the elected officals of this riding. Shit why doesn't Harper "Appoint" Liasons officers in all ridings where "Other Party" MPs reside so that they too can benefit from direct access to the NuGoC.

Ti-Guy said...

...and a prig. ;)

Ti-Guy said...

Dawg is just living by his standard that this picture is not the issue and it should not be exploided. ?He would be like this if it were a liberal or and NDP political wonker.

*yawn*

Kingston said...

Oh Well, I am with Dawg on this, the picture has no relevance to the story. The fact that is was stolen just adds to my indignation.

Ti-Guy said...

See, Dawg? You invite the approbation of people like Kingston, whose indignation extends to boobs and bush and retreats before the real assault on democracy.

You prepare the ground on to which rightwingers tread, Dawg. You indulge their fatuous arguments out of a misguided sense of charity and intellectual generosity, but in the end, you make these fascists acceptable.

You are, in the end, an enemy of democracy.

Kingston said...

Wow ,,, A fascist ,, damn,, now I can put that on my resume, you know what Ti, Just because some people were raised with manners and to treat people with dignity, does not make them evil, or an enemy of democracy. And my sarcastic grumpy friend, I have never retreated from anything in my life. You want to debate the story, bring it, I actually agree with you on it, I think its a bullshit move for that MP to say that and to do it. I also think its a bullshit move to use this picture to attempt to degrade this woman, her hubby and her family. It that makes me a fascist, Well then so be it.

Ti-Guy said...

Remember...Dawg considers Kate McMillan "Intelligence on the Right."

*rolls eyes*

Ti-Guy said...

I actually agree with you on it, I think its a bullshit move for that MP to say that and to do it.

Good. Write Stephen Harper and tell him you think it's appalling that an MP from his government would designate a government representative to circumvent an elected MP.

Sorry for implying you're a fascist, Kingston. You're actually a decent sort. I should have used the term "proto-fascist"...

...oh, c'mon. If you can't laugh, you're..well, you're a fascist.

...;)

Cherniak_WTF said...

I also think its a bullshit move to use this picture to attempt to degrade this woman, her hubby and her family.
I seem to recall many obsessed by the Clinton baby gravy on some dress - funny how connies only get prude when it involved their lot.

Adam C said...

You chuckled about it, then found it kind of dirty. Good on you. You're a typical WASP who has conflicting feelings about nudity and sexuality.

Oh, fuck, Ti-Guy, it wasn't the nudity it was the invasion of privacy. You've got a bad habit of lashing out at everyone who disagrees with you even slightly.

Cherniak_WTF said...

it was the invasion of privacy.
She was using a publicly paid office.
Can I borrow the house of commons to go fuck?

Ti-Guy said...

Oh, fuck, Ti-Guy, it wasn't the nudity it was the invasion of privacy.

What privacy? She's cavorting around her place of work, a public office. I know she intended all of that to be private, but well...

You've got a bad habit of lashing out at everyone who disagrees with you even slightly.

I'm fed up with liberal/progressive "niceness." (actually, it's pretty obvious that I've never had any patience with it). Some of you have been tolerating the authoritarians and their smears and lies to the point that I think some of you are almost masochistic.

Where I come, liberalism and social democracy are hard-won and you fight for them. And if it means embarrassing some anti-democratic dip-stick who didn't have enough sense to not behave like a porn star while holding public office, then so be it.

Niles said...

She was using not just a publically paid office, but the office of the chief political representative of the town, wearing nothing but the official office bling of the chief political representative. For making personal use erotica.

What kind of head trip is someone going through to get off on a scenario like that? If she didn't want publicity about her private sexual interests, did she ever consider NOT going nude after hours in the taxpayer paid property? Or was the conclusion at the time "it's ok, because who would catch us?" Behaviour like that certainly gives me pause about what other lines between private and public spheres the individual might have troubles with.

What I find interesting, is that that Canada's Conservative government found a person with internationally publicized fantasy sexuality, scandal free enough to boldly appoint her as an end run around elected officials they don't like balking them.

What part of "this story has long, naked legs and it's a slow summer news day" did they think would NOT be grabbed by media? Bloggers, or otherwise?

If the lack of shoe was on the other political foot, on TOP of the end run appointment around a Conservative MP, the Conservatives would be all over this like bawling calves on one teat.

thwap said...

"Dr. Laura's" youthful 'indiscretions' are fair game.

But I'll admit to being conflicted about this.

The Prime MInister's residence is public property too. I assume they're allowed to fuck in private?

This looks like a small town mayor doing something a little bit goofy.

I'll admit, what she's doing NOW for the CPC is hugely scuzzy (this is the unelected "liason" right?) but this.

Dave said...

Has anyone considered that her past actions and demonstrable willingness to indulge her own self-gratification using the public trappings of office are an indication of how she would perform in the future?

Whether she likes it or not, whether she intended to get caught or not, her past actions mocked the position handed to her by the voters of Houston.

It is a demonstration of the way her mind works.

It's also the kind of thing the CPoC would run with if it was someone other than one of them.

You want to fight them, then be prepared to fight dirty. Clearly they don't believe in "the rules" or the "liaison" appointment never would have been considered.

Scotian said...

Nils at 1:56 am and Dave at 8:53 am provide the same thinking I have on this.

Dr. Dawg:

While I understand your concerns in this case I do not agree with you. If this had not involved that mayoral chain I likely would agree with you about the invasion of privacy, but she used the official symbol of her power and position of mayor as a piece of erotica, something I rather doubt many to most of her constituents found appropriate. She is also a public figure which means she should know full well to secure any such "private" pictures. However, the final point here is that the CPC leadership should damned well have known about this picture (given the prominence the story got at the time) reflecting her questionable judgment regarding her use of power (when she has it) yet appointed her to this position (which is clearly beyond the acceptable and as you yourself noted arguably unconstitutional) on top of accepting her as a candidate to run for the party in the next election. That makes this a political question and therefore makes the use of the picture legitimately political.

I also do not think you used a fair comparison with this: "So next time, when your're up against some wingnut who happens to be gay, you'll just fag-bait him to the ground, right? In the name of progressive politics, of course." as being gay is not something one chooses to be while taking illicit pictures like this using public property in your custody as Mayor is most certainly a choice and reflects directly on judgment regarding use of power. Indeed, I must say DD I found your use of this comparison to be somewhat on the offensive side for that reason as it is not a reasonable comparison for the reason I just pointed out.

Dr.Dawg said...

Scotian:

My point was simple. Well, on reflection, maybe it wasn't. And maybe I had more than one.

First, the photo was never intended for public consumption. The whole point about privacy is that it's private--we aren't supposed to know what goes on in the private sphere, by definition. So whatever she did with her chain of office, no one was meant to know. The public nature of that chain--its authority and symbolism that come into being only in a public forum--was never compromised until a theft of the photo took place. This was far from a misuse of power, although it may have been a minor lapse in judgement, given the possibility of such photos being stolen. What we have here is really akin to poor old Prince Charles' infamous cell-phone pickup (the tampon incident). Hideously embarrassing, but hardly a public offence until someone else illicitly made it so--and nothing whatsoever to do with "power," which is something that can only be exercised in public (i.e., in social relations).

Secondly, the picture has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Harper's folks interfering with the duties of a sitting MP.

Finally, with respect to your last point, a couple of observations.

To begin with, I find it a bit amusing that objectors to the use of this picture have been characterized as priggish and so on, when the defence that has been mustered has included expressions like "porn star" and so on. There's a lot of finger-wagging and moral rectitude going on, but it isn't from the likes of me. I submit that the priggishness can be found in those who think that the photograph indicates that Smith did something wrong, and who then go on to snigger about it, or (in your case) to get a little righteous about the "chain of office" and all.

If the photograph had revealed gay sex, are you so certain that it wouldn't have been used in the same manner?

To conclude, I don't think we can safely employ the same values that we oppose just to score a cheap point or two. It makes us look just a wee bit hypocritical.

Niles said...

Thwap, I'd have to say you're not making an equivalent comparison either.

The PM's *residence* is a state owned property set aside as a private retreat of a grandeur level appropriate for hosting intermittent smallish socials in a standard location. There are beds there. Kids have been raised there. People have argued over drapes there. People have likely swung from the chandeliers there. It's a house and a temporary home.

Canada's PM's governmental business is done (quibbling aside that phone calls and meetings might occur at the residence) on Parliament Hill, in the infamous PMO. Ground zero of all the accusations of micro-management against whomever is PM at the time.

If the PM decided to take erotic photographs wearing nothing but his/her PM bling in the PMO, that would be the equivalency of the Houston mayor indulging in the eroticism of her political duties.

I amenably accept there's been a lot of sexual antics accomplished over the decades in the halls of political power of this country. It's the people who have the urge to take those private acts and take them to the 'woohoo see what I can get away with' level while castigating others for not having "traditional family purity values" that highly irritate me. The Houston mayoralty events fall into that category for me. They'd still be small potatoes if it wasn't for this new "elected officials from other parties? We don't need no steenking elected officials from other parties" *authority* she has just been handed by our Federal Government over a large section of a province.

The Conservatives and those that would be their candidates can just cowboy up and take the same x-rays they administer to everyone else.

Adam C said...

CC: I don't actually believe you've crossed any "bounds of decorum" - if this offended me that much I'd have stopped reading a long time ago. But comments are for discussion, and my contribution is that I don't get any political gratification from this story (no pun intended, but what am I gonna do?).

The office and chain may be trappings of democracy, but they are not themselves democracy. The story here isn't who the Cons decided to appoint as MP, it's that they feel they can appoint MPs.

And to be honest, if my wife were mayor, I'd take that picture. WASP or no (oops, better leave off that 'P')...