This year’s Super Bowl generated a fair amount of controversy, though nothing like the Janet Jackson debacle, because of Prince’s half-time performance and an ad by Snickers that showed two men kissing.

Now we have a chance to read some of the more ridiculous complaints that were sent in to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), courtesy of The Smoking Gun, featuring such gems as:

It was obscene to show Prince, a HOMOSEXUAL person through a sheet, as to show his siluette while his guitar showed a very phalic symbol coming from his below-midriff section. I am very offended and I would preffer not to have showed it to my 4 children who love football. One of them has hoped to be a quarterback and now he will turn out gay. I am actually considering to check him for HIV. Thanks CBS for turning my son GAY.

This is a commercial during super bowl. It was a candy bar commercial that showed two guys kissing. My husband was in the kitchen when our son said, “What the ?!” My husband rushed in to see the men kissing. This violates our religious beliefs and exposes our children to obscene and disgusting material that they are taught are wrong. I want something done about this!!

Thankfully, not all of the featured complaints are along these lines:

I find it highly unacceptable to have a family watching a sporting event only to find Prince stroking, manipulating and fondleing his guitar behind the curtain. This image only made him look extremely large which made the rest of us feel small, and unable to perform this evening.

In other controversy that revolves around homosexuality and the words used to describe it, conservative writer Andrew Sullivan responds to conservative commentator, writer and far-right whackjob Ann Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” to describe Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards:

Coulter’s defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn’t. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word “faggot” is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man.

The only people who think about gay sex more than horny gay people are the conservatives, Christians and controlling parents who despise it (or merely claim to, as scandals involving evangelical Christian leaders have shown).

Any kind of social contact that involves the company of people of the same gender must be an exercise in paranoia for these people. Thankfully, I’ve never had to share a tent or a locker room with any men who are this concerned about homosexuality or the appearance of it. Doing so must be like walking on the eggshells of hyper-masculinity.

I’m an optimist about social progress, and I think I may live to see a time when all this seems as tragically absurd as segregated washrooms for black people. Right now, it’s just tragic – and unacceptable.

A new poll by The Strategic Counsel says although Canadians identify with the Liberals and the Conservatives in equal numbers, Harper is seen as the most decisive leader, the leader with the clearest vision for Canada, and – amazingly – the leader with the most charisma.

The new survey also finds that voters have failed to warm up to recently elected Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, and that his party has lost its postconvention bounce to the Tories, who are seen to have the best handle on national issues.

Were an election to be held today, 34 per cent of voters would opt for the Conservatives, up three points from last month. The Liberals are at 29 per cent, down six points from the same period, while the New Democratic Party is down one point to 14 per cent. The main beneficiary appears to be the Green Party, which has the support of 12 per cent of voters, up from eight per cent.

Strategic Counsel chairman Allan Gregg believes these numbers are good enough for Harper to call a spring election. “I would say, looking at this, something untoward would have to happen for [Harper] not to call it.”

Even worse for the Liberals than the numbers on personal characteristics are the numbers on the issues, particularly the environment, which is supposed to be Dion’s strong point. Asked, “Which party can deal best with the environment and global warming?”, 23% of Canadians said the Liberals, just three points ahead of the Conservatives at 20%.

It ain’t over til it’s over, of course, and there is little doubt in my mind that the environment could still prove a lethal weapon for the Liberals if they wield it effectively. That means taking the Conservatives to task over it, perhaps with an emphasis on protecting Canada’s future from the environmental destruction bound to wrought under right-wing stewardship, or lack of it.

Could David Suzuki’s call to “put our children and grandchildren back on the agenda” be the core of a Liberal environmental strategy? Or will short-term economic considerations win out in the auto plants of Ontario and the oil fields of Alberta?

[tags]Harper, Dion, Liberals, Conservatives, Canada, politics[/tags]

The recent television ads produced by the Conservative Party of Canada have received mixed reviews. But for all debate over whether these ads are a positive or negative contribution to Canadian politics, I have heard little opinion about parallels between these ads and their American counterparts.

It’s not that political attack ads are anything new in Canada, but this time the ads are running outside an election.

Of all the ways that the Conservative government could have ushered in the political tenor for 2007, they chose to speak first with campaign-style attack ads. This says a lot about the kind of political dialog preferred by the Harper administration. Or, at the very least, it suggests where they perceive the winter session of parliament is headed.

———
This post was written by alevo.

“Let’s talk about the weather or, how the weather used to be.” – The Weakerthans

Ontario skiers are dumb founded. Victoria might need to invest in a snowplow or two. There’s frost in Florida and it’s raining in Restigouche. It’s January 2007.

A Strategic Council poll in the Globe and Mail asked Canadians if they felt that global warming could potentially harm future generations. 83% said yes. It’s hard to imagine otherwise given what’s on the weather channel these days. Environmental issues are getting a boost from, well, the environment.

The debate will rage. Is recent weather symptomatic of a larger trend in climate change? Do cyclical weather patterns preclude the need to be alarmed about global warming? Apparently not. The same G&M poll shows that environmental issues are currently Canadians’ number one concern, but we didn’t need a poll to tell us that. Take a look at Canada’s political elite and it is clear – it’s the environment stupid.

With this in mind, the federal Liberal party caucus has been testing campaign slogans. The dominant theme for a new Liberal mantra is a green economy, environmental technology and a clean environment. It’s the new Liberal Party: squeaky-clean party, squeaky-clean policies. And while Stephane Dion is trying to dust out the old Liberal rugs, the other Steve is doing cleaning of his own.

The Prime Minster has realigned his cabinet in light of political realities. Ostensibly, he shuffled a half dozen minister’s around, but the only move that mattered was John Baird’s. As the new environment minister, Baird will have to convince Canadians that the Conservative government has a green conscience. The rhetoric will reach gale force. Expect to see lots of pictures like this:

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Either way, the next election has unofficially started and the environment is the baby that every politician wants to kiss.

———
This post was written by alevo.

[tags]environment, global warming, climate change[/tags]