Friday, May 16, 2008

Things that make you go eww

I’ve been trying lately to catch-up on my reading of MacLeans. The Rogers behemoth recently offered me a subscription for $1.50/month, finally dropping it down to a price I don’t mind paying.

And the mag isn’t really too bad these days, as long as you ignore Mark Steyn, Barbara Amiel (really, why does she have a job with you Macleans, seriously?) and the ridiculous editorials. There’s usually some pretty decent and informative articles in each issue, not to mention columnizing from Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne.

It was in a recent Wells column called “Generation Harper” that I came across this disturbing insight. I was at Manchu Wok at the time and somehow, I managed to hold-down my honey garlic chicken.

The bars don't rock until closing time with quite as many suit-clad political staffers on the make. Tory staffers — never, ever speaking on the record to journalists — admit there's a subtle in-group pressure to get married and start raising a proper brood of children.

Growing the next generation of Conservative voters with good, strong, pure conservative genes. Have another baby for Steve Harper, do your duty for the leader.

I just hope this party-mandated baby boom has nothing to do with this:

Bemused Toronto commuters were repeatedly informed that "Stephen Harper eats babies" after a hacker tampered with advertising signs on city trains.

I'll remind you Harper never denied the allegation...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


The Mound of Sound said...

Jeff, if you've got $1.50 a month to waste on MacLean's, why not do something much more useful with it - like take up a hobby, say smoking. Lung cancer or Barbara Amiel? Decisions, decisions.

Jeff said...

As I said, I skip past the Steyn and the Babs. I think they're probably more toxic than tobacco.

For $1.50/month though, I'll get MacLean's, if only for Wells, Coyne and some of the news coverage. Up it to $2 though, and the deal may be off.

Geekwad said...

I am a proud ex-Macleans subscriber. And far too proud to actually buy an issue, but I do enjoy their blog coverage of The Commons. Except it's been oddly quiet lately.

The Rat said...

Did you read the article on international adoption? As my wife and I are going through the process right now I know what's what and it was a pretty darn good article.

To relate that to your lunch heaves I can tell you that a lot, A LOT, of international adopters do so for religious reasons. When I heard someone say they wanted to "save" a child through adoption I used to think it was just saving them from a poor life growing up in an orphanage. Then I started reading adoption sites and I found very quickly that "save" meant save as in the Christian sense. They want to "save" a pagan for Christ. I kid you not!

It pisses me off no end because most programs do not give preference to childless couples or infertile couples. My wife and I have to wait for our first while some out-to-lunch evangelical adopts her "Save" child to add to her 5 or 6 kid brood. Again, I kid you not!

So, not only are us conservatives breeding you guys into submission, we're importing them too :-)