If that accurately sums up Ms. Barbot’s assessment, I agree with it.

VLB writes a good article, whose normal result should have been to get a lot of people reconsidering what Canada is, realizing once more the form of government it really has, the actions the government takes day to day in our name, the laws and regulations being adopted and being funded by our tax money. In other words, get people to do what citizens are supposed to do.

When did we vote for an increased military budget?

When did we vote to the instrumentalisation of the GG by the PM for yet more neo-con propaganda?

But this is too much to ask. It would appear too many of us are used to being entertained by the details all the time. Rather than feeling insulted by the lack of respect for our intelligence, we fall right in the trap set by political commentors paid to make a diversion.

I think Pratte deserves a raise for this one.

Of course, VLB is going to be a polemicist as he has always been. Of course he is going to try to attract popular attention to himself and his party. But is it possible to dismiss him AFTER reading his text and disagreeing over its substance?

That pretty much seems to be Mr. Niemi’s function in Québec society: to dutifully provide an offended quote to reporters whenever they’re trying to turn a mildly controversial comment into something shocking.

It is true that Malcolm X used similar language to describe people whom he believed were selling out to the whites, but I suggest that people’s perceptions about such terms change drastically when the person using them is a Caucasian; things would be very different if a souverainiste Haitian-Québécois had written what VLB wrote.

There are those who try to get informed before they speak, and then there are the other pretended leftists who pathetically label “right-wing” or “racist” anything that could appear politically incorrect to weak minds who cannot decode propaganda by themselves.

This behaviour gives them a good Catholic conscience and allows them to continue thinking they are right not to have radical opinions and therefore avoid being defamed in the mass media.

“Swear the heat in: ‘Your honor, he said blah blah blah.’

The judge: ‘He said blah blah blah?!’

Then the cop really yenta’ed it up: ‘That’s right! I couldn’t believe it! In front of women, a mixed audience, he said blah blah blah!’

The judge: ‘This I never heard, blah blah blah.’

Then they dug something: they sort of liked saying blah blah blah! Cause they said it a few extra times. It got so people were talking, and the bailiff was yelling, ‘shut up, you blah blah blah!’”

The story in La Presse left me with the impression that VLB, too, sort of likes saying blah blah blah.

The n word in French also refers to slavery of people.

Far from me the idea of trying to justify any of VLB language, he is pretty good at that but VLB likes to maintain ambiguity in his speeches and likes to divide and conquer.

While we’re at it, VLB just gets what he wants, media attention and that will certain give him a hand in an eventual election where he will face Mr Reasonnable accomodations himself, Mario Dumont that he once publically supported in last provincial election in his quest to become one of the first PI member of the legislative assembly of Quebec (I don’t see it coming though).

Look for other political coups from VLB in the coming nearby future.

I can’t help thinking that he could have made the same point just as forcefully without (repeatedly) injecting race into his argument.