Sunday, January 03, 2010

Fellow Blogger Hits a Home Run With a Funny Bone.

Chris LaBossiere is my friend and fellow-traveler on the Reboot Alberta journey.  Today he has a most interesting and entertaining blog post.  He has discovered a new program that apparently turns text into "movies."  The technology is pretty ridimentary (think Mario Brothers meets South Park) but it is potentially at the threshold of a new social media platform.

This is Chris' first adventure into animated political parody.  His content is as focused, biting and pointed in his animation as he is in his text blog posts.  His context is even better with this animation tool.  He takes on the Wildrose Alliance Party political policy positions.  He makes a very clear point about what they will not talk about, like donors and social policy.  What they do say speaks loudly but it is mostly one-line media ready sound bites that glosses over complex environmental, economic and social concerns.  His post has all the links you need to the WAP policy documents to check them out and decide for yourself.
He promises to take on Reboot Alberta next.  He calls it the "Goldilocks" of Alberta politics.  With a set up like that I can't wait to see what he comes up with. I don't think Chris is going to be Alberta's next Frank Kapra or Donald Cameron.  But he may be well on his way to being our Trey Parker or maybe even our Jon Stewart

Well done Chris.  Thanks for the laughs - but also for the information and the insights which you have presented in such a clever and entertaining way.


  1. Anonymous10:27 pm

    Chris LaBossiere's attempt in being funny is downright offensive against Danielle Smith. He owes her and the entire Wildrose Alliance an apology.

  2. What is inaccurate or offensive? The avatar is a bit off but not the script.

  3. Anonymous12:51 am

    Well, lemme see. . .

    1. He alleges that Wildrose won't reveal campaign donors. False: Smith wouldn't reveal her campaign donors, but donors to the party are public knowledge.

    2. He alleges that all the other parties also have their policies decded by the membership. False: the PCs, at least, leave policy development in the hands of Caucus.

    3. He gets on a wacko hobby horse about the party's policy on Section 3 of the AHRMA. According to him, it isn't valid for Smith to take a position on Section 9. False: Party leadership can take a position on anything that isn't opposed ot policy, and make it stick (see Wildrose on the royalty review, pre-merger).

    4. He goes off on Danielle having said that the party won't decide divisive social issues such as gay marriage, portraying it as a refusal to talk. False: she said that the party would decide such things by referenda rather than partisan politics. Gay marriage is ultra vires anyhow, because th Supreme Court ruled it a Federal issue.

    That's only what I heard in about the first five minutes. Basically, it was all false, no scores. I stopped watching after that, because it wasn't funny -- frankly, LaBossiere doesn't have a sense of comic timing.

    Seriously, self-delusion isn't limited to politicians. Looks like bloggers also have a knack for only hearng what they wish they had heard.

  4. Ahh Anon 10:27pm invoking the politics of manufactured victimhood. Care to give us any 'details' on WAP instead of equivocated talk ?

  5. Anon at 12:51 - lets be clear. The question was about Smith not revealing her leadership campaign donors. The party by law has to disclose donors over $375. that was not the issue. There is nothing in law requiring her to say who paid for her WAP leadership campaign. Your response is misleading by conflating the two different and alledging a false accusation that was never actually made.

    I served on the PC party policy committee for over a decade and know first hand that policy conferences of party members have an impact on the party policy. In fact every resolution of the PC party is discussed in Caucus committees and written responses are published.

    Re Human Rights and hate speech. Of course Smith can take a personal position provided there is no party policy yet set. I applaud her for that. All politicians in all parties can do that, but they don't do it enough. Not the point. The problem is not her postion but what is the party position. Saying certain social policy issues like respecing equal rights for homosexuals is divisive is not good enough. It is the law of the land.

    Why is hate speech only a concern if it is criminal? Surely it is unaccepteable at a community level in a civic society too. Why does she want only criminal sanctions for hate speech? Is it only the government who gets to decide is something is hateful? I thought you guys did not like government interfering in people's lives.

    Beef up the Human Rights process to stop it being used by extremists at both ends as a show case for media attention but don't take hate speech out of the civil law.

    Which goes to your point #4. Gay Marriage is federal jurisdition but that is not the point again. Demonizing gays and victimizing teachers in the provincial education system by Bill 44 a draconian policy and intraviries for the province. This kind of exclusion of peoples rights because they are different is what is divisive - in Alberta society, not just the WAP.

    You should watch the whole animiation too so you don't run the risk of "only hearing what you want to hear."

    And next time sign your comment - why are you anonymous? You obvioulsy value your personal right of free speech. Surely you have nothing to fear from speaking up as a citizen in a free and democratic state like Canada.