Trudeau becomes first Canadian PM to appear on cover of Rolling Stone
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Gonna start calling you the Artless Dodger.
Either way, prepare for a lifetime of having your pockets emptied for you, sucker.
Unwritten tale of Fear and Loathing in Trudeautown
By Mark Bonokoski, Postmedia Network
First posted: Saturday, July 29, 2017 05:54 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, July 29, 2017 06:00 PM EDT
Back in 1970, gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, soon to be a fixture in Rolling Stone, wrote a letter to the magazine’s editor in praise of its coverage of the violence-plagued Altamont festival in California where one concert goer was beaten to death, two more died in a hit-and-run, and a third drowned in an irrigation ditch.
“Print’s a hell of a good medium by any standard,” he wrote.
He then added this warning.
“Just don’t f---k it up with pompous bullshit.”
So, here we are, 47 years later. Thompson has been dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound for 12 of those years, and Rolling Stone just thumbed their nose and disowned his warning with a pompous cover story on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the “North Star.”
If only Thompson were alive to have been assigned the task of interviewing such a shiny object as Justin Trudeau. It would have likely been more Fear and Loathing on the Rideau than the fawning profile now on the newsstands and online.
Or, if searching for a more apropos Thompson-esque title, how about a rework of Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Early Days of a Canadian Century?
These are confusing times, of course. To read Rolling Stone, and not be a Canadian who lives with him daily, is to see Trudeau as a world leader admired by all who has somehow grasped onto the correct way to advance progressive liberalism.
And, to top it off, he is as cute as a baby seal with a genetic pedigree that puts him atop the social and financial pedestal.
Thompson would have no doubt clubbed him. Such overt human perfection would have had him perplexed.
There were lots to pick and choose from in the gushing interview of Trudeau in Rolling Stone, and not all of it is nitpicking if one is prepared to look under a rock.
There is, for example, Trudeau’s reflections on the now-famous charity boxing match with young Senator Patrick Brazeau, his well-muscled and tattooed opponent, that put a positive stamp on Trudeau’s quest to be Canada’s next prime minister.
In his interview with Rolling Stone, Trudeau said it was all calculated for the best result for him, and no one else.
“It wasn’t random,” Trudeau admitted. “I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an Indigenous community.
“He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint.” Trudeau added. “I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”
Right. As if punching the crap out of a big bad “Indian” would mirror his promise to start making things right in our First Nations communities, and therefore the “right story to tell.”
The hypocrisy in all this was lost, of course, because Brazeau was also a media target, what with his troubles with the law, his troubles in the Senate and, worse, his troubles because he was appointed at the recommendation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, by then loathed by the national press gallery.
In retrospect, and with today’s perspective, Trudeau’s recollections of the bout with Brazeau speak volumes that it was much more than just a Liberal versus a Conservative, but a French colonialist versus a country’s conquered.
Hunter S. Thompson would have had a field day with this.
But, alas, Rolling Stone misplaced the warning Thompson delivered to them 47 years ago.
They f--ked it up with pompous bullshit.
And then put it on their cover.
markbonokoski@gmail
Unwritten tale of Fear and Loathing in Trudeautown | BONOKOSKI | Canada | News |
By Mark Bonokoski, Postmedia Network
First posted: Saturday, July 29, 2017 05:54 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, July 29, 2017 06:00 PM EDT
Back in 1970, gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, soon to be a fixture in Rolling Stone, wrote a letter to the magazine’s editor in praise of its coverage of the violence-plagued Altamont festival in California where one concert goer was beaten to death, two more died in a hit-and-run, and a third drowned in an irrigation ditch.
“Print’s a hell of a good medium by any standard,” he wrote.
He then added this warning.
“Just don’t f---k it up with pompous bullshit.”
So, here we are, 47 years later. Thompson has been dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound for 12 of those years, and Rolling Stone just thumbed their nose and disowned his warning with a pompous cover story on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the “North Star.”
If only Thompson were alive to have been assigned the task of interviewing such a shiny object as Justin Trudeau. It would have likely been more Fear and Loathing on the Rideau than the fawning profile now on the newsstands and online.
Or, if searching for a more apropos Thompson-esque title, how about a rework of Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Early Days of a Canadian Century?
These are confusing times, of course. To read Rolling Stone, and not be a Canadian who lives with him daily, is to see Trudeau as a world leader admired by all who has somehow grasped onto the correct way to advance progressive liberalism.
And, to top it off, he is as cute as a baby seal with a genetic pedigree that puts him atop the social and financial pedestal.
Thompson would have no doubt clubbed him. Such overt human perfection would have had him perplexed.
There were lots to pick and choose from in the gushing interview of Trudeau in Rolling Stone, and not all of it is nitpicking if one is prepared to look under a rock.
There is, for example, Trudeau’s reflections on the now-famous charity boxing match with young Senator Patrick Brazeau, his well-muscled and tattooed opponent, that put a positive stamp on Trudeau’s quest to be Canada’s next prime minister.
In his interview with Rolling Stone, Trudeau said it was all calculated for the best result for him, and no one else.
“It wasn’t random,” Trudeau admitted. “I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an Indigenous community.
“He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint.” Trudeau added. “I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”
Right. As if punching the crap out of a big bad “Indian” would mirror his promise to start making things right in our First Nations communities, and therefore the “right story to tell.”
The hypocrisy in all this was lost, of course, because Brazeau was also a media target, what with his troubles with the law, his troubles in the Senate and, worse, his troubles because he was appointed at the recommendation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, by then loathed by the national press gallery.
In retrospect, and with today’s perspective, Trudeau’s recollections of the bout with Brazeau speak volumes that it was much more than just a Liberal versus a Conservative, but a French colonialist versus a country’s conquered.
Hunter S. Thompson would have had a field day with this.
But, alas, Rolling Stone misplaced the warning Thompson delivered to them 47 years ago.
They f--ked it up with pompous bullshit.
And then put it on their cover.
markbonokoski@gmail
Unwritten tale of Fear and Loathing in Trudeautown | BONOKOSKI | Canada | News |
Tories go all Mean Girls over Trudeau’s Rolling Stone cover
Party’s reaction, even suggesting it could endanger NAFTA talks, shows how surprisingly clueless they are about journalism’s mechanics
Watching Conservatives go into a sulk after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared in Rolling Stone magazine is kind of adorable.
“Mean girls” is how I’d describe the Peter Kent and Andrew Scheer crowd lately, “crankypants” if I’m feeling generous. There’s a fair amount of petulance in the Conservative emotion cloud these days.
No Conservative ever sees his prime minister on magazine covers unless, as commentator Stephen Lautens suggested, it was Stephen Harper in Taxidermy Today. “ ‘Get stuffed!’ says prime minister.”
This came right after Conservative MPs came to grief for asking the worst outposts of U.S. journalism — including Fox News — to let them tell Americans that Canada is bad and Trudeau is deplorable for having settled the Omar Khadr case. (Khadr was the Canadian teenage boy tortured by the U.S.)
The MPs did this as Canada prepared to enter NAFTA negotiations with an emotionally fragile president with a temper like Semtex. Trade is precious to Canada. It means jobs.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/201...ver-trudeaus-rolling-stone-cover-mallick.html
Party’s reaction, even suggesting it could endanger NAFTA talks, shows how surprisingly clueless they are about journalism’s mechanics
Watching Conservatives go into a sulk after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared in Rolling Stone magazine is kind of adorable.
“Mean girls” is how I’d describe the Peter Kent and Andrew Scheer crowd lately, “crankypants” if I’m feeling generous. There’s a fair amount of petulance in the Conservative emotion cloud these days.
No Conservative ever sees his prime minister on magazine covers unless, as commentator Stephen Lautens suggested, it was Stephen Harper in Taxidermy Today. “ ‘Get stuffed!’ says prime minister.”
This came right after Conservative MPs came to grief for asking the worst outposts of U.S. journalism — including Fox News — to let them tell Americans that Canada is bad and Trudeau is deplorable for having settled the Omar Khadr case. (Khadr was the Canadian teenage boy tortured by the U.S.)
The MPs did this as Canada prepared to enter NAFTA negotiations with an emotionally fragile president with a temper like Semtex. Trade is precious to Canada. It means jobs.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/201...ver-trudeaus-rolling-stone-cover-mallick.html
Yeah, never happens.
You're both morons.
We have an up-and-down relationship, Jin, but I've never called you stupid, and never will.
Seriously, check me on this one. I hold that the reason "team players" come up with their ridiculous "we're wonderful and them guys are evil" crap, even in the face of clear, objective evidence to the contrary (as you provided in this case), is the result of a deep emotional need to be 100% right. That applies left and right. In other words, political extremism is an emotional disorder.
Your comments, please? I'd honestly be very happy if you could give me some other explanation, because it scares me to think that half the population of rich, free, peaceful societies are so emotionally damaged that they shouldn't be let out without minders.
I hate to agree with you (well, not you per se but your premise) but you are correct. Political extremism could certainly be a sign of mental or emotional disorders. But I don't think it's just a case of needing to be 100% right. It's also a case of fearing they may have to re-evaluate their entire way of thinking and looking at things. That's one of the reasons progressives are all about social justice. It's easier to just lay blame on society and let the govt "fix" the problems than to look inward and see what needs to change about yourself. Society is fine, it's the individual that's f*cked up.
The trick is though to get them while they're still young and malleable. Like religion, indoctrination at a young age can severely limit a person's capacity for critical and independent thought. If you've been taught all your life about the way someone thinks things should be instead of the way they really are, you're going to have a very difficult time when reality comes knocking.
So yeah, be afraid. Be very afraid because the zombie apocalypse is coming. When you have this many people who seriously believe that authoritarianism is 'progressive' you know things are about to get really f*cked.
Oh, yes! The fear.
Robert Heinlein said "Never frighten a little man. He'll kill you."
There is no psychopath so deranged, so cruel, so vicious, that he can do half the horrors of good, honest, decent people who are afraid. Individually, and even worse, collectively.
Good point, BUT. . .
Just as people's fears have led them to use government to savagely oppress the source of their fears in the past, government does have a role in controlling fear and standing against oppression.
A minor role.
Absolutely. Teach 'em to be calm, strong, and thoughtful, and they will be. My grandmother taught me that.
Teach 'em to be hysterical screamers, and guess what?
It's the problem we face, amigo. Strength, courage, and rationality are HARD. So much easier and more comfortable to drink the Kool-Aid and get in line.
Yeah, never happens.
You're both morons.
Bush was on the cover of time about 12 times..
Which is odd when you think about it. An entire generation seeking their individuality while they willingly join the herd.
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air
You better watch out
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream.
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green he leadeth me the silent waters by
With bright knives he releaseth my soul
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places
He converteth me to lamb cutlets
For lo, he hath great power and great hunger
When cometh the day we lowly ones
Through quiet reflection and great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.
Bleating and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.
Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.---Pink Floyd
Nice! Never was a big Pink Floyd fan. Maybe I need to go back and pick up on it.
The thing that keeps me awake nights is this. . .
How much of this is a "slow Jonestown?"
And this. . .
Did the people at the Nurnberg rally envision what would come? Even the leaders of the Nurnberg rally?
The thing that keeps me awake nights is this. . .
How much of this is a "slow Jonestown?"
And this. . .
Did the people at the Nurnberg rally envision what would come? Even the leaders of the Nurnberg rally?
You should listen to the entire 'Animals' album, it's even more relevant today than when it was released.
Funny that keeps me awake at nights for two reasons. The first reason is just what you asked. The second reason is, am I starting to fall for conspiracy theories? It's like my eyes and brain don't want to believe what's happening.
Some might have, but I think most were blinded by the rhetoric.
I think they were counting on it to be honest. Hitler pictured his Reich lasting a thousand years. I think the one thing none of them envisioned was the disastrous end to the war that was yet to be started but was already being planned. But I think the leaders would be at least somewhat pleased that their toxic ideology is still hanging around.
People who enjoy making themselves appear big by making others appear small are best avoided in life, if possible.
Admittedly, that’s hard to do when they’re the Prime Minister.
Three times since July 1 alone -- twice in foreign media -- Justin Trudeau has gratuitously aggrandized himself at the expense of other Canadians.
Each time, it’s been in interviews with friendly reporters. He wasn’t harangued into it.
The latest incident, for which Trudeau has apologized after his remarks angered indigenous leaders, occurred in his recent Rolling Stone interview.
Asked by Stephen Rodrick how much of his 2012 charity boxing match with Tory Senator Patrick Brazeau was planned in advance, the author reported Trudeau, “mischievously" smiled before telling him:
“‘It wasn't random. I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an indigenous community. He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint.’ Trudeau says this with the calculation of a CFO in a company-budget markup session. ‘I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.’”
So, a PM who insists he’s all about reconciliation with indigenous people now calls it “a very nice counterpoint” and “the right kind of narrative” to mock an indigenous senator with well-known personal troubles over an incident five years ago.
Why, other than vanity, especially since it isn’t even true?
As respected Ottawa journalist Susan Delacourt writes in her iPolitics column, she knew from interviewing Trudeau in 2011 that at least two other Tories -- Peter MacKay and Rob Anders -- had turned down Trudeau’s offer of a boxing match, before he approached Brazeau.
Last month, asked during the G20 by a friendly editor from the German newspaper BILD: “Just very briefly – what is your view on Germany?” Trudeau responded:
“You are perhaps a little more … I’m looking for the right word – predictable? No, you’re more organized, maybe, than Canadians can be. We’ve got enough French and Latin blood in us to be less organized.”
Widely interpreted as a shot at francophone Quebecers -- and ironic given that Trudeau was born in Quebec and is of French Canadian (and Scottish) descent -- his comment again raises the question of what was the point of this remark?
Other than for Trudeau to stroke his own ego by resorting to the wanton stereotyping he routinely condemns in others, while posing as an all-knowing, dispassionate analyst of Quebec francophones.
Finally, there was Trudeau’s Canada Day interview with CTV, with another friendly reporter.
When she told the PM her parents emigrated from Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) to Canada because of a speech his father, Pierre Trudeau, gave there, Trudeau instantly made it all about himself, saying he’s “jealous” of immigrants who choose Canada because they care more about the country than those who are “Canadian by default.”
“Which is why I always laugh,” Trudeau continued, “whenever you see people, not many of them, but intolerant, or think, ‘Oh, yeah, go back to your own country’. Well no, you chose this country, this is your country more than it is for others because we take it for granted, we default into this place. ”
So, invited by a friendly reporter to make the unifying point on Canada Day that we’re all equal as Canadians, no matter where we come from, Trudeau instead turned it into a virtue-signalling mini-lecture aimed at bigoted “Canadians by default”.
That’s Trudeau. The ego who walks like a man.
Trudeau?s ego reveals his character | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
Admittedly, that’s hard to do when they’re the Prime Minister.
Three times since July 1 alone -- twice in foreign media -- Justin Trudeau has gratuitously aggrandized himself at the expense of other Canadians.
Each time, it’s been in interviews with friendly reporters. He wasn’t harangued into it.
The latest incident, for which Trudeau has apologized after his remarks angered indigenous leaders, occurred in his recent Rolling Stone interview.
Asked by Stephen Rodrick how much of his 2012 charity boxing match with Tory Senator Patrick Brazeau was planned in advance, the author reported Trudeau, “mischievously" smiled before telling him:
“‘It wasn't random. I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an indigenous community. He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint.’ Trudeau says this with the calculation of a CFO in a company-budget markup session. ‘I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.’”
So, a PM who insists he’s all about reconciliation with indigenous people now calls it “a very nice counterpoint” and “the right kind of narrative” to mock an indigenous senator with well-known personal troubles over an incident five years ago.
Why, other than vanity, especially since it isn’t even true?
As respected Ottawa journalist Susan Delacourt writes in her iPolitics column, she knew from interviewing Trudeau in 2011 that at least two other Tories -- Peter MacKay and Rob Anders -- had turned down Trudeau’s offer of a boxing match, before he approached Brazeau.
Last month, asked during the G20 by a friendly editor from the German newspaper BILD: “Just very briefly – what is your view on Germany?” Trudeau responded:
“You are perhaps a little more … I’m looking for the right word – predictable? No, you’re more organized, maybe, than Canadians can be. We’ve got enough French and Latin blood in us to be less organized.”
Widely interpreted as a shot at francophone Quebecers -- and ironic given that Trudeau was born in Quebec and is of French Canadian (and Scottish) descent -- his comment again raises the question of what was the point of this remark?
Other than for Trudeau to stroke his own ego by resorting to the wanton stereotyping he routinely condemns in others, while posing as an all-knowing, dispassionate analyst of Quebec francophones.
Finally, there was Trudeau’s Canada Day interview with CTV, with another friendly reporter.
When she told the PM her parents emigrated from Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) to Canada because of a speech his father, Pierre Trudeau, gave there, Trudeau instantly made it all about himself, saying he’s “jealous” of immigrants who choose Canada because they care more about the country than those who are “Canadian by default.”
“Which is why I always laugh,” Trudeau continued, “whenever you see people, not many of them, but intolerant, or think, ‘Oh, yeah, go back to your own country’. Well no, you chose this country, this is your country more than it is for others because we take it for granted, we default into this place. ”
So, invited by a friendly reporter to make the unifying point on Canada Day that we’re all equal as Canadians, no matter where we come from, Trudeau instead turned it into a virtue-signalling mini-lecture aimed at bigoted “Canadians by default”.
That’s Trudeau. The ego who walks like a man.
Trudeau?s ego reveals his character | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
Dear Sir,
I have a very complicated benefits question. Many years ago, I married a widow out of love who had an 18 year old daughter. After the wedding, my father, a widower, came to visit a number of times, and he fell in love with my step daughter. My father eventually married her without my authorization.
As a result my step-daughter became my step mother and my father became my son in law. My father's wife (also my step daughter) and my step-mother, gave birth to a son who is my grandchild because I am the husband of my step daughter's mother. This boy is also my brother, as the son of my father. As you can see, my wife became a grandmother, because she is the mother of my father's wife. Therefore it appears that I am also my wife's grandchild. A short time after these events, my wife gave birth to a son, who became my father's brother-in-law, the step-son of my father's wife, and my uncle. My son is also my step mother’s brother, and through my step-mother, my wife has become a grandmother and I have become my own grandfather.
In light of the above mentioned, I would like to know the following:
Does my son, who is also my uncle, my father's son-in-law and my step mother's brother fulfill the requirements for receiving childcare benefits?
Sincerely yours,
Mohammed Abu Laden Habib
THE ANSWER:
Of course, you qualify Mohammed! I have arranged to start mailing the checks to all of you just as soon as you arrive here in Canada.
Yours faithfully,
Justin Trudeau
I have a very complicated benefits question. Many years ago, I married a widow out of love who had an 18 year old daughter. After the wedding, my father, a widower, came to visit a number of times, and he fell in love with my step daughter. My father eventually married her without my authorization.
As a result my step-daughter became my step mother and my father became my son in law. My father's wife (also my step daughter) and my step-mother, gave birth to a son who is my grandchild because I am the husband of my step daughter's mother. This boy is also my brother, as the son of my father. As you can see, my wife became a grandmother, because she is the mother of my father's wife. Therefore it appears that I am also my wife's grandchild. A short time after these events, my wife gave birth to a son, who became my father's brother-in-law, the step-son of my father's wife, and my uncle. My son is also my step mother’s brother, and through my step-mother, my wife has become a grandmother and I have become my own grandfather.
In light of the above mentioned, I would like to know the following:
Does my son, who is also my uncle, my father's son-in-law and my step mother's brother fulfill the requirements for receiving childcare benefits?
Sincerely yours,
Mohammed Abu Laden Habib
THE ANSWER:
Of course, you qualify Mohammed! I have arranged to start mailing the checks to all of you just as soon as you arrive here in Canada.
Yours faithfully,
Justin Trudeau