And the PB exits continue ... @DrDawg and @gallopingbeaver

The good folk over at DJ and Regina Mom we know about already.

Today, we note the departure of the Dawg and the collective over at TGB.

Not sure whether this is part of a larger pattern, but the need to reclaim the term "progressive" still stands. If you want to call yourself that, you don't put the rights of your fellow citizens on the debating table. You just don't.

And just so the PB admins can't misrepresent this, it's hard to square that with their suggestion that anyone was calling for banning. But apparently even a reiteration of that simple principle was asking too much.

Not only that, there's the arrogance and condescension of their response, for which Dr. Dawg has called them out (Thanks Dawg. Thought I was the only one for a minute there):

The response of Tribe and his moderators to legitimate concerns has been shocking, and I’m not easily shocked these days. This is 2012, and they still don’t get it. Their scorn, smugness and arrogance, with which they appear to be plentifully endowed, have been directed at the pro-rights crowd, not at those who want to debate whether those rights should even exist. The caricatures they’ve been pushing are drearily familiar to anyone following the feminist conversations over the past two or three decades. The goodly folks at DAMMIT JANET! who reacted to their rights being put up for debate have been stereotyped and lampooned. Fern Hill is an “idiot,” avers a prominent Liberal. Those concerned about a progressive aggregator offering safe harbour to those who want to debate human rights for women are, in Tribe’s words, “screaming banschees” [sic].

Not only that, but there's a disturbing willingness to smear and misrepresent as well -- if not on their parts, then on the part of one of their supporters ...

As our comrades note, it's not as if we need this particular aggregator in order to get traffic. But we can't let the term "progressive" be hijacked. Words matter, and so do their meanings. We've got work to do.

Related posts:

• And speaking of 'Progressive Bloggers' who Just Don't Get It, have you good people met Paladiea?
• Hey, 'Progressive Bloggers' and Scott Tribe: Are you giant wankers, or just trying to look like it?
• Hello, "Progressive Bloggers?" Open asses. Remove heads.
• On reproductive freedom, there is nothing to fucking 'debate'

Liberals, NDP, whoever. I don't care what we call them | #cdnpoli

The Tyee – This Year, Put the Country Ahead of the Party:

" ... with the election of Stephen Harper, everything changed. No prime minister in Canadian history has come to power with such a ruthless determination to implement an agenda so at odds with the interests of the country and the values of its citizens. This involves not just a set of policies aimed at eliminating the social and economic role of the federal government. It includes, on a parallel course, a determination to change the political culture of the country to one that either supports or acquiesces to that policy agenda. (The Governor General's Christmas message was about volunteerism and philanthropy, Harper's long-term replacement for the state.) Working in tandem, these two political streams, if allowed to proceed for any length of time, could effectively change the country permanently -- or at least for all currently living generations. Harper aims for nothing less.
If the NDP and the Liberals continue to do politics as usual, as if Harper is just another political adversary in a normally-functioning system, Harper is almost certain to win again."

'via Blog this'

From Murray Dobbin in The Tyee.

Care for a chaw, S-Supt. McGuire?

This weekend's Globe chronicles the story of four people caught in the infamous police "kettle" that became one of the central themes emerging from Toronto's G20 clusterfuck.

Smitherman's toast

Really, when was the last time anyone blew a lead like this (other than Paul Maurice's Leafs, of course?)  I think this sums up George's campaign about as well as anything:

There's a line between between chutzpah and arrogance, and with the suggestion that the anti-Ford vote should coalesce around him, I'd say George has just crossed it.

He started out as the front-runner, without much vision but with plenty of establishment backing and a big-time attitude of entitlement. Then when Rob Ford's message (stupid and simplistic though it is) started becoming the defining storyline of the campaign, he joined Rossi and Thomson trying to out-Ford Rob Ford. Andrea Addario sums it up beautifully:

The credible alternative to Rob Ford is not a candidate that panders to the same parts of the city’s lizard brain. Any campaign that successfully counters Ford’s rage, in both its incoherent and specific forms, needs to reach the progressive, compassionate heart of Toronto – the Toronto that rejected Mike Harris and still rejects Stephen Harper.

Is that George Smitherman? Not looking likely. In his craven bid to appeal to the same destructive anger as Ford, he threw away the opportunity to be that alternative. Smitherman has embraced spending freezes, privatization, and tax cutting. What’s the message here? Look at me! I’m just like Rob Ford! But I live downtown, so I’m somehow less scary? It hasn’t worked.

Time to face it, George: you're toast. You've gone in only one direction since the campaign kicked off, and you've had plenty of time to turn it around, so there's really no reason to think you've got any growth potential. Time to call it a day.

Update: The lady's got the right idea, although if this is true, she's leaning toward the wrong Italian. Take the hint.

Update 2: The lady's not for turning. Even if the car's heading for the cliff ...

Update 3: Globe curmudgeon Marcus Gee is writing as if it's a two-man race now. And George isn't one of them.