Harper’s credibility, the evening news and life outside the Commons

The mistake many politically aware and involved people make is believing everyone follows the ins and outs of every political development as much as they do. They don’t. People are busy. They have other priorities. Believing that everyone shares their anger is a mistake partisans too routinely make.

Most Canadians, for example, don’t watch Power and Politics or Question Period (sorry Evan and Don). Many of them do, however, watch their local evening news. What my extended family knows about current events, they get there. Myself, I watch CTV Toronto’s 6pm newscast most nights, having long ago resigned myself to the fact I live in Toronto and so I may as well learn what’s going on here.

And last night, for the first time I can remember outside a general election, federal politics led the newscast. CTV News at Six did four minutes on the day’s developments on the Senate front, and it wasn’t positive for Prime Minister Harper. The focus was on Mike Duffy’s speech, documents and allegations about the Harper PMO, with a mention of Harper’s evolving language on Wright (from resigned to dismissed) thrown in for good measure.

As I tweeted last night, that’s a broadcast that real people watch. And the report went directly to what has been a Harper strength with Canadians: leadership and competence. Step outside the bubble and what do most Canadians think of the Prime Minister? Not overly warm, but a competent manager and a strong leader that runs a tight ship. The Conservatives have played to this for years, branding successive Liberal leaders as “not a leader” and weak or in over their hands in comparison to Harper’s strong leadership as a beacon in troubled times.

The Senate affair is particularly worrying for the Conservatives (prompting Harper’s Mad As Hell radio tour) because it chips at those very strengths. It shows him as either unaware of what’s going on in his office or complicit in the very sort of unethical behavior he was elected to eliminate, as willing to write cheques to make problems go away and, increasingly, as unable to keep Conservative Senators, MPs and others in line, as they increasingly go off the script he has tried to set. Harper is the common thread -- he hired Nigel Wright, he appointed Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, his office is at the centre of it all.

He once ran ads alleging Stephane Dion wasn’t a leader because Liberal senators were acting independently – now even the former Conservative Party president, Senator Don Plett, is bucking under the Harper whip. When you sell yourself as a strong leader, it's hard to claim ignorance of what's happening around you.

Most people won’t look at it that in-depth. What they will get, though, is the impression that maybe Harper isn’t much of a leader after all. Maybe he’s not as ethical as he says. No one scandal can flip the impressions that people have, but they can plant seeds.

It’s too early to say what the lasting impact, if any, of this affair will be. However, the drip drip of scandal is cumulative. The Harper Conservatives have weathered many storms, some bigger and more important than others, from Afghan Detainees and contempt of Parliament to prorogation, robocalls and in and out. None will shift impressions on their own. But each nudges the needle, and germinate the seeds planted from earlier incidents. Eventually, new narratives begin to form.

Even then, new impressions don’t necessarily prove fatal. At best, people will become open to considering alternatives. For the government to pay a price, and for the opposition parties to be in a position to benefit, there has to be credible alternatives for them to consider. One reason Conservatives haven’t paid the price that some partisans felt they should for past scandals is that Canadians weren’t enamored of their alternatives. Sometimes, it’s better the devil you know.

The gallery and partisans tend to focus on the House of Commons and the melodrama of question period. But that’s the bubble. Canadians don’t watch question period. At best, they might see a few seconds in a clip on the evening news. They don’t care who is best at cross-examining Harper. The next election will not be won in the House of Commons.

The next election will be won in church basements, Legion halls and coffee shops across Canada. After the Conservatives lost in 2004, Harper planted the seeds for victory in 2006 with an extensive cross-country tour. The Commons is important and shouldn’t be ignored, but it’s not the real battleground.

The Senate scandal may cause Canadians to once again examine their alternatives. And what they’ll be looking for hasn’t changed: they want leadership that understands their challenges and shares their priorities. Scandal will come and go, but we should see the forest for the trees. Building that alternative must be our real and enduring focus.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

RCMP move Duffy investigation to PMO as those with knowledge relocated

A few years ago, we were treated to a new low in Canada when the RCMP had to raid the offices of the Conservative Party of Canada in relation to an Elections Canada investigation. And now, the RCMP are eyeing the Conservative Prime Minister's Office as well.

We hear now that the PMO has confirmed the RCMP has asked them for information related to their investigation into a $90,000 payment former Harper chief of staff Nigel Wright made to Mike Duffy, who was facing a demand for repayment of improperly claimed expenses he charged to the Senate.

The RCMP have contacted the Prime Minister’s Office as part of its investigation of a secret payment to Sen. Mike Duffy.

A senior government official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, said that investigators have officially asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office for information.

This follows a report last week that the RCMP had requested an e-mail from the PMO that allegedly outlined the terms of a deal for repayment between Wright and Duffy with other PMO staff members included on the chain, which would contradict the Harper line that only Wright had knowledge and was responsible for what transpired. The PMO was accused of dragging its feet on turning the e-mail over -- contradicting Harper's claims of full cooperation -- and denied it has received any request for information.

As the investigation moves closer to the PMO, it seems that those who may have direct knowledge of the deal -- and could contradict the Harper line that Wright acted alone -- have been quietly moved along.

In what would otherwise be an interesting set of coincidences, Of those with alleged direct knowledge of the e-mail, former PMO issues management director Chris Woodcock was moved to a minister's office,  one-time legal advisor Benjamin Perrin has returned to the private sector, and, of course, Wright himself got resigned. And while she hasn't been linked to the e-mail, Senator Marjory Lebreton resigned as government leader in the Senate just one day after being interviewed by the RCMP in relation to their Duffy investigation.

Lots of movement away from the centre as the RCMP investigation moves closer to the PMO. Could this be the first government to have both its party offices and its PMO raided by the RCMP? Suppose it depends on just how "cooperative" they choose to be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mike Duffy: Expert in media bias

CTV "journalist" turned Conservative senator Mike Duffy isn't backing down from his criticism of journalism schools, which he attacked for daring to teach "critical thinking." After refusing media requests for a few days, he went on a radio program yesterday to accuse journalism schools of "brainwashing" students:

Senator Mike Duffy isn’t backing down on his criticisms of the University of King’s College and other Canadian journalism programs, saying he “dared to show a little spotlight on some of the bias in the media.”

Last weekend, Duffy delivered a speech to local Conservatives in Amherst criticizing journalism schools for teaching critical thinking and Noam Chomksy’s book Manufacturing Consent. He also said students aren’t being taught to be fair and balanced.

“They all get preached to with the same cookie cutter thing,” Duffy told Tom Young’s Afternoon News program on Rogers radio Thursday. “And when you talk to these kids in job interviews, you realize some of them have been brainwashed.”

Actually, if there's anyone who would be an expert on biased media, it's Mike Duffy. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, arbiter of media ethics on the airwaves, certainly thinks so:

The arbiter of ethics on the airwaves ruled Wednesday that CTV violated industry codes when it included three false starts in a broadcast of an election interview with then Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.
...
The standards council also studied complaints lodged against CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live program. The show rebroadcast Dion's false starts and discussed it with a panel of politicians and later with journalists.

During the discussion, Liberal MP Geoff Regan suggested Dion might not have understood the question because of a hearing impairment, but then said it was not a subject worth discussing.

Duffy then repeatedly said that Regan was accusing the network of ridiculing a handicap.

The CBSC's national specialty services panel said Duffy "went too far."

"He was not fair, balanced or even-handed," the panel said, also agreeing the rebroadcasts of the restarts were in breach of industry code.

So Mike really knows what he's talking about here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

NOW Duffy cares about his reputation?

Since he became a Senator, former CTV "journalist" Mike Duffy has been very eager to show his appreciation to Stephen Harper for calling him to patronage heaven, becoming one of the most partisan Senators in recent memory, and certainly the most partisan Senator that up until his appointment wasn't a long-time party hack but, rather, was a purportedly unbiased political journalist.

Duffy has been speaking at every fund-raising dinner and corn roast for obscure Conservative backbenchers from Courtenay to Come By Chance, he's been heavily on the partisan stump, and he's even the star of their funky new personalized web marketing do-thingy where he'll say your name, as long as its not too foreign. (It's since been fixed.)

For someone who has dived so deeply into the partisan poll, therefore, I found this news from the Duffer a tad amusing:

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the Winnipeg advertising and design firm that had landed a big contract with the federal Conservatives to produce direct-to-your-inbox videos.

The story became slightly more interesting when, after my column ran, Mars Hill Group removed the promotional paragraph on its website mentioning the contract. It was reported the change was made because Senator Mike Duffy objected to the company saying he was a longtime party supporter.

The controversy didn't affect Duffy's participation, however. He was, as advertised, the star of the first of the videos that hit email inboxes last week.

Actually, that's pprobably fair. Duffy hasn't been a long-time Conservative supporter, although there's no-one more feverent that a convert. Rather, Duffy has been a long-time supporter of whichever party was able to appoint him to the Senate. Had the Liberals appointed him, I have no doubt he'd now be the most partisan Liberal Senator you've ever seen.

I'm just amused he was so concerned about making that correction. Because what he's lacking in length he's more that making up for in ferocity.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don Newman's dig at the reluctant Senator Duffy

With the reluctant Senator Mike Duffy insisting he had to have his arm twisted into this whole Senate thing, it was amusing to see that balloon popped by none other than his former colleague, Don Newman:

...although he notes his former fellow broadcaster Mike Duffy, who is now a senator, always had an interest in the upper chamber. Notes Newman, “I am very happy for him that he finally got where he wanted to go.”

Speaking of the Duffster, the reluctant Conservative is continuing his extended fundraising tour on behalf of the party. He was in the Comox Valley last week doing little to soothe military veterans pissed-off about their pension benefits:

“(Veterans) are getting exactly what they signed up for..."

And this week he was in Kamploops demonstrating his expertise of the forestry industry:

"We’re surrounded by wood in Canada,” he said.

It's sterling insights such as these that made Mike Duffy Live a must-watch for years, and will surely serve him well in the chamber of sober second thought. And if anyone knows deadwood, its Duffy.

Feschuk has more fun with Duffy, and Impolitical is also following Duffy's Magical Mystery Tour.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reading the tea leaves

From tomorrow's calendar of media events, this will be interesting to observers of the Quebec scene:

QUEBEC _ Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff attends a Fete nationale event hosted by Quebec Premier Jean Charest. (11:45 a.m. at Musee des beaux-arts du Quebec, Parc des Champs-de-Bataille )

Meanwhile, on the comedy circuit:

VANCOUVER _ Senator Mike Duffy discusses the Conservative government's response to the global recession during the Fraser Institute's series, "Behind the Spin." (5:30 p.m. at VOYA Restaurant and Lounge, 1177 Melville Street)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Bob Rae on Duffy

Unfortunately I didn't manage to record Bob Rae's press conference today, but I did manage to grab this interview Bob did yesterday evening on Mike Duffy Live:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is sad

I spent the late afternoon/early evening hours of this chilly Thursday on the Left Coast burma-shaving with a hearty group of Liberal volunteers and Dana Miller, our Liberal candidate in Delta-South Richmond. We got more cheers than jeers from the afternoon commuters, so it was a good outing.

When I got back to my computer, I was greeted by a deluge of blog posts and stories on Stephane Dion's interview on ATV, the Mike Duffy program, and the Conservative press conference. I'm sure you've read all about it too, so I won't rehash it.

I'll just say this: this is a personal issue for me. If you've met me offline, you know that I have a stutter at times. Sometimes, when I'm nervous, or tired, or I just get talking too fast, it will cause me trouble. I've had the problem since I was a kid, and I can't seem to shake it. It's not something I can easily control. Sometimes it's embarrassing. Sometimes its maddening. But I don't let it hold me back.

Most people are very understanding, and patient. Sometimes, though, people think its funny. Sometimes they'll laugh. That hurts, but I don't let it bother me. Because frankly, I think their reaction says a lot more about them than it says about me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The secret to good health and long life

I think it'd be safe to describe myself as somewhat of a political junkie. Heck, with the hours spent blogging about the stuff it be hard to claim otherwise.

As I read blogging coverage of Jim Prentice's appearance on CTV's Question Period today though, where the Harper minister (biggest spending budgets in Canadian history) tried to laughably paint the Liberals (eight straight balanced budgets), I'm reminded again of where I've decided to draw the line with my political interest.

I don't watch these sorts of shows anymore. Haven't for about a year now. No Question Period. No Mike Duffy Live. And no Politics with Don Newman either, I have to say.

And I've never felt better. Those shows are bad for you. Raises the blood pressure. Angries up the blood. Partisan hacks and talking heads spewing their talking points. Media "pundits" trying to sound important and informed. All flash, all intrigue, no substance. No debate of policy. No debate at all really. Rarely a challenging word from the hosts.

I used to tune into Newman's broadcast regularly, but it's all theater. A theater of the absurd, really. And it's all waste of energy, as no one is watching that doesn't already have their mind made up. I even mute the TV when Duffy comes on for his daily hit during the 6pm news on CFTO. He's aggravating. The only time these shows matter is when someone screws-up...beer and popcorn. Otherwise...

So as much of a political junkie as I am, as interested as I am in strategy and election timing and move and counter-move, I draw the line at watching these shows. I'll count on my fellow bloggers to let me know when something of interest occurs, but I won't be tunning in. And I'd advise them to take their Duffy, Oliver and Taber in small doses.

I went to see Cloverfield instead. Enjoyed it. I was concerned with the references to it being shot in a Blair Witch Project style, because that movie sucked, but it worked well here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper is not a leader

So, Harper announced yesterday that instead of Parliament returning this month he’s going to prorogue Parliament, with Parliament instead re-opening with a Throne Speech October 16^th.

Reading Conservative talking points as gospel from his Blackberry, CTV’s Mike Duffy explained this is really all about the Ontario election. Speaking on Newsnet, Duffy sagely told us his Conservative sources have said the PM decided to prorogue so as to not interfere with the Ontario election, since the Feds have so many dealings with Ontario and they didn’t want to get dragged into the election. Yeah, and I’m sure Parliament will prorogue during PEI’s next election too Mike.

That’s a huge load of BS that you shouldn’t have just parroted unchallenged Mike. Since when have provincial elections been a cause to prorogue Parliament? That’s a ridiculous suggestion. Let’s look back into the very recent past…

Harper didn’t prorogue during the Quebec election, did he? No. Not only did he not prorogue, but Parliament sat and Harper passed a budget designed to give Jean Charest an electoral boost. He didn’t get dragged into that provincial election, he dove-in head-first. So, sorry Mike, but you should have called BS on that sad Conservative spin.

Why did Harper prorogue? Because he’s stalled in the polls, has failed to inspire Canadians and desperately needs to give a fresh start to a government lacking in both newness, direction and accomplishment. A little pageantry to distract from the long list of flip-flops and broken promises, and try to give the impression they’re doing something.

What they’re doing though is letting a long list of bills from the last Parliament die. According to the usual Conservative logic, they therefore must be against all those things, right? Among the bills in limbo because of Harper’s need for a fresh coat of paint for his not so new government:

C-7, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (Conservatives are against National Defence?)

C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (Conservatives are soft on crime?)

C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act (Conservatives even softer on crime?)

C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) (Conservatives crazy-soft on crime)

C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace) (Conservatives megasoft on crime)

C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) (Conservatives soft on the environment)

C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences) (Holy cow that’s a lot of Conservative softness on crime)

C-43 An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate (Conservatives stalling on Senate reform)

C-44 An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Conservatives soft on human…nah)

So, according to the usual Conservative logic, the Conservatives are soft on crime, didn’t get it done on the environment and stalling Senate reform.

More proof Stephen Harper is not a leader! And so on, and so forth.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reality check: Mike Duffy parrots Conservative talking points, forgets he's a "journalist"

I’m watching the supper-hour newscast here on the Toronto CTV affiliate, and every evening the anchor does a live chat with Mike Duffy from Ottawa for an update on the day’s events on Parliament Hill. Duffy just spewed a pile of crap so odious I had to hit rewind on the PVR to watch it again, then once more to transcribe the exchange.

The topic was the Decivin’ Steven’s rejection today of a call form the McGuinty Liberal government in Ontario for a ban on hand guns. Rather that present all sides of the issue, Duffy launched into a one-sided, unchallenged recitation of the Conservative talking points on the issue (probably straight from Sandra Buckler to his famed BlackBerry) and flat-out misrepresented, if not worse, the facts of the issue and the Liberal position. And running through it all was an strong sense of smugness and superiority from the Duffster.

First, here’s the complete exchange:

Anchor: Michael, I have to tell you, this seems like a no-brainer to many people in Toronto, especially in the wake of the Jordan Manners shooting. But the Federal Conservative government has rejected Ontario’s call for an all-out ban on handguns.

Duffy: And the reason is it’s chicken-soup legislation. I.E., it’s a law you can pass and it makes everyone feel good but, like chicken soup, it really doesn’t cure the cold. The federal government is saying they looked at this…Paul Martin tried this one during the last election campaign and it smacked of desperation. The Tories here tell me that Dalton McGuinty, with an election coming-up here October 10^th, is trying the same thing as a way to say don’t blame me, blame the federal government for gun violence in Toronto. What the federal Tories are saying is that a total ban would just be so huge, so difficult, it would take up so much resources trying to go after every gun collector and target shooter why don’t we just concentrate on gun violence among gangs, get the guns we an get now that are illegal out there. Let’s bring in mandatory prison terms for gun crimes. The Liberals are stalling and are opposed to it. The New Democrats and Conservatives voted in favour of it. So, at the end of the day, it’s time for a little (smugly fake-clears throat) reality check. Everybody hates guns. One politician saying blame the other doesn’t solve the problem. What solves the problem is more police putting more people in handcuffs and saying no to the hug-a-thug theory.

What a steaming pile of crap. You’d almost think Buckler had written the script for him, as a Blogging Tory couldn’t have done better. No ‘well this is one side and this is the other side’ but just a straight Con propaganda regurgitation.

First of all, Duffy claims this is “chicken soup legislation” which would seem to be his condescending way of saying a hand gun ban wouldn’t be effective. Stockwell Day made this same point today (same talking points no doubt) although he made it more eloquently than the Duffman:

Day argued that other countries where handguns have been banned have seen the numbers of gun crimes increase.

"In jurisdictions that have eliminated or tried to eliminate, to ban handguns - the United Kingdom, Ireland, other jurisdictions - in fact crime with guns has unfortunately gone up," Day said.

Unfortunately, Day was flat wrong. Rather than swallowing and regurgitating the Con talking-point like Duffy, the journalists at CP did some “journalism” as the kids like to call it and reported this (Scott's on this too):

Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with the facts.

There was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms offences in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year, according to figures from Britain's Home Office. Injuries related to gun crimes also fell while fatalities rose slightly.

Police in London also reported an 11 per cent decrease in gun crime in the metropolitan London area during the same period.

Opps. You see, that’s the value of research Duffster. You must have some young interns on staff for that, right?

Then there’s Duffy’s ascertain that the Liberals are stalling on anti-crime legislation. Again, Duffy parrots an oft-repeated Con talking point unchallenged. Again, the talking point is full of crap. I don’t know if Duffy can remember as far back as, say, October, but if so he’d remember the Liberals offered to fast track more than half of the Conservative government’s crime fighting legislation. Yes, fast-track it. As in pass it quickly.

And how did Crime-fightin’ Decivin’ Steven respond to the offer? He said no thanks. As Globe columnist John Ibbitson explained, having the ‘soft on crime’ club to beat the Liberals with is more important to Harper than actually being, you know, tough on crime:

Then why do it? So Prime Minister Stephen Harper can turn the defeated bills into a wedge issue in the next election. "You see?" he will say. "This is the price we pay for a minority government. The Conservatives want criminals doing real time, rather than lounging around under house arrest. We want to keep dangerous offenders behind bars, and we want to protect people of faith from being compelled to act against their principles.

"But the opposition parties are more worried about the rights of criminals and pleadings of lawyers than they are about your protection. That is why we need a majority government."

The Liberals tried again in March, offering to pass four crime bills (C-18 (DNA Identification), C-22 (Age of Consent), C-23 (Criminal Procedure) and C-35 (Reverse Onus in Bail Hearings)) through the HoC in one day. The Con response? The used procedural measures to stall their own legislation! Yes Michael, the CONSERVATIVES stalled their own crime bills.

What’s more, to Duffy’s erroneous claim the Liberals are opposed to getting tough on gun crime and tough sentences, here’s what the Liberal platform has to say on the topic (I’m sure the OLO would be happy to hand-deliver him a copy) with some key parts bolded:

Tougher penalties – A Liberal government will re-introduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes. These reforms will also prevent courts from using conditional sentences in cases where there was serious personal injury, including all forms of sexual assault; terrorist activities; and organized crime-related offences.

Once again Michael, doing research beyond the Con talking points can be quite conducive to not only balanced reporting, but accurate reporting. Which is supposed to be the general idea.

And finally, what the hell was this “hug-a-thug” BS about Michael? How in the heck is banding handguns the equivalent to hugging criminals? I mean, seriously man?

I have to admit to not being a regular viewer of Mike Duffy Live. Is he always this full of crap, or did I just catch him on a bad day or something?

UPDATE: As Olaf mentions in the comments, Bob Tarantino has dug into the report cited in the CP piece on UK gun crime and found that while technically accurate, CP was selectivly misleading because overall, since the UK ban the stats have actually come up overall, although down in the period cited. So, bad CP, and bad me for taking CP at faith value. Let's hope the Brits have turned things around and numbers will continue their recent downward trend. Is the recent downward trend ban related? I dunno. Warren (the other Warren) has also examined the UK numbers and has some more nuanced thoughts.

My crow eaten and faith in CP shaken, back to selective and misleading stats. Some of the commenters over at Scott's find it quite selective that Stock specifically mentioned the UK and not, say Japan and Australia which they say also have bans and showed a drop. Are they right? I wouldn't put it past Stock but I don't know, and it's Friday night so I'm going to watch South Park instead of hitting Google.

Let me sign-off though by saying this, and I'm getting off my original theme of the Duffman here. But I'm sure no one is saying bans increase gun crime. You could read Stock that way, but I don't think that's what he was going for. I think the point he and most on his side would make would be that a ban would be ineffective. The veracity of that contention is unproven, barring a wider statistical sample of countries other than Stock's well-chosen UK example.

But even if a ban only leads to a minor decrease in gun crime, or serves to stem the rate of increase, isn't that a good thing. It's not an either/or situation as Duffy tries to make it out to be. We can both get tough on crime AND ban handguns. We can do both. Why not do everything we can to lower gun violence. Won't every bit help?

While Day and hand gun proponents, or ban opponents, whatever you want to call them, will argue a ban won't make a major difference, I don't think that's the real motivation for their opposition. For many of them, it's just that they like guns. They like the gun culture. They think owning a gun will make them more safe, they want it for protection.

And I don't buy that. I grew-up in the semi-rural West, and unlike many Liberals I'm willing to meet the right halfway on gun control. I understand the case for long-guns for hunting and pest control, the Liberal policy on the registry went too far in that regard. I worked on campaigns in B.C. where we made that point, and promised if elected to bring that view to the caucus table.

But you're not going to sell me on handguns. You don't shoot deer with a handgun. You shoot people with a handgun. So, not using any statistics, tell me again why we shouldn't ban handguns?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers