Sal’s no cougar but she’s a bit of a log-finder, a real maritime polecat. And the gal has been a’hunting, she has. She’s out there right now as I sit here blogging, looking to wrangle some more loose, cellulose cannons. Just as well, we are pounding through the woodpile right now.
The kinds of logs we like are the lesser diameter ones and such logs are often called pecker-poles ’round these here parts.
But for obvious reasons, that term is no longer acceptable in polite society so I have circumcised it down to simply a ‘pole’. God knows, Sherry Romanado, for one, will feel a great deal less stressed, I am sure, when it is cut into shorter lengths and eventually burnt. Maybe stomp on the ashes too, eh,Sherry?
I am trying to be more sensitive to the sisters like her but I think the best way to deal with such ugly-word realities is simply NOT to tell her that such disreputable poles exist. She’s empowered and independent and worthy as the MP for Longueuil-Charles-LeMoyne in Quebec but that doesn’t mean she has to take any man-abuse. Seems she found the words, ‘threesome’ and ‘sandwich’ very upsetting and sexual in nature and has been upset for months. Five apologies were not enough to assuage our honourable member’s feelings.
Apologies for the use of ‘member’. (Apologies for the use of ‘honourable)’.
Apologies also to those born in Poland, by the way. NOT for being born in Poland, of course, but for the rather insensitive use of the word ‘pole’.
Apologies to the descendants of the late Earl of Sandwich, too. That noble gentleman ate meat buffeted by bread so that he could continue gambling back in the 18th century. Hmmm….by gambling, I mean games-of-chance, NOT prancing and leaping about in a hedonistic way (gamboling).
Do I have to now apologize for ‘cannons’? Given the juxtaposition of the words ‘cougar’ and ‘poles’ and ‘cannons’, my meaning could be misconstrued as sexual. Let me rephrase that: I KNOW it has been misconstrued if, for no other reason than I drew that interpretation possibility to your attention.
And therein lies the major part of my point: Ms Romanado’s ‘take’ on Mr. Bezan’s comments were the worst possible interpretation of the words. In fact, when it came to the word ‘sandwich’ there was no bad connotation to infer except the one she attributed to it. The offense was 100% in the ears of the beholder on that one and 99.5% in the primary one, ‘threesome’.
Given that the preponderance of meaning can easily lie with the listener and given the innocuous wording itself, wouldn’t it be somewhat safe to opine that the offense was actually hers? Didn’t SHE make the incident a bad one, not him? Isn’t she being the ‘sexual one’? (Ironic note: Ms Romanado was particularly upset over this horrendous verbal assault because the incident occurred at a Veteran’s Affairs announcement and she was trying to build credibility with Veterans.)
I don’t really know about this kind of nonsense. I don’t really care. It was less than a pimple on a wart in the mountain range that is the current gender battle. How ludicrous it all is. How utterly asinine that such stupidity is taken seriously by anyone.
He should apologize for apologizing.
To be fair, the office of hysterical reactions to human relations abuses, OCHRO, (Office of the Chief Human Resource Officer) did an investigation of the original complaint and concluded that no offense had occurred back in June. Such is the nature of our world that the OCHRO conclusion and the five apologies made by the ‘perp’ (now known to the police) were not enough for Ms Romanado and her life has been stressful and upset ever since.
Apologies for the word ‘asinine’, of course.
I may have strayed from topic…..apologies for that, too. Please see pics of ‘Po**cat Sa*’ and one of her ‘trophies’. We are calling the loose logs ‘Bobbitts’ from now on. You know, cause they ‘bob’ in the water…. ? There’s gonna be a lot of Bobbitts floating around from now on. Of that, I am sure.
Wood gathering and processing are so important. Not sure ours will last the winter. May go on another run with the barge. Oh, by the way, do I have to apologize for the word “wood”? It always made Bevis and Butthead laugh. Oops, used a “b” word. Better quit while I’m ahead. Oh, no …. – Margy
Mr. Bezan should have known or ought to have known that in the world of ‘real politik’ anything said can and will be used against one. Mr Bezan said, “ I made a partisan political joke.” As we know sexual innuendo is not allowed in the house as indicated when your friend Elizabeth May, was accused of an ‘all nighter.’ It was not found to be a joking matter. The remark had to be with drawn. It’s worth noting that it was Mr Bezan that wordsmithed with Defence Minster Sajjan who misspoke when he said he was THE architect of the Afghan mission, instead of ONE of the architects. Bezan was being deeply partisan in his attack against Sajjan. He admitted to being partisan at a function outside of parliament. He claimed to being partisan about a threesome. A remark that he knew full well he could not be made inside parliament so when caught he claimed to be joking. The joking defence is poor cover for sexual innuendo. Day after partisan innuendo from the Conservative side is asserted but the Conservatives will not repeat it outside of house. Outside the house Bezan pounced at a social occasion to make his joking leering comment and from the amount of belly crawling and the taking sensitivity training it’s clear Bezan knew he had done wrong. But is trying to laugh his way out of it. Sad really, very sad but he deserves no pity, no laugh track to get out of it.
I disagree. 100%. I am no supporter of the Conservative ‘brand’ carriers but the comment (to me) was inoffensive as was the reference to making a sandwich with the co-photo VET. It is, in my opinion, the taking of offense as demonstrated by Ms NUTBAR that has led to some of the Trumpists being so rude and belligerent. They are Bubba-reacting to true nonsense. In other words: they are kinda right sometimes in their feelings that cause such over-the-top backlash.
Political correctness is a yin and yang issue. SOME words can be misconstrued and some contexts are bad but those should be handled with mild rebukes, apologies and the like. A thrown martini at worst. And any phrase that CAN be interpreted as harmless should be. Benign, harmless and neutral should be the DEFAULT interpretation. The offending experience should be irrefutable and impossible to interpret any other way.
Why did Ms May get an apology? Once a remark is made it can not be taken back. The remark was floated and it was not surrounded with little winking emojis. It was offensive and it offended the house. Was Ms May just scoring partisan points? No she was defending the house. These days the proprieties of polite behaviour might be in tatters. Bezan’s sense of humour released an odious vapour that many would find funny but informed self-interest suggests that it might be misinterpreted so prudence suggests that it ought not be said. Some one might not be amused.
Sorry. Still disagree. Oooooopsss…..NOT sorry…just disagreeing.
Bezan has impeached himself as a credible critic. His supporters claim he has not been found guilty of anything. Okay point taken! innocent until proven guilty but what is this daily slander by the Cons every day in the house? You know the Conservative comments they will not repeat outside the house. So if Bezan was partisan joking outside the house does that mean when the Conservatives go outside the house with their innuendo that their cover will be that we were joking? Oh those Conservative! Such jokers.
I think your bias is showing. Equating the CONs (in the house) who exaggerates and twists and is, at the very least, twisting phrases around and mis-stating for partisan political reasons is not the same as one who is arguably (not to me, anyway) simply a bit sloppy in his casual banter at a photo shoot. Should both speech patterns be held to the same standard? I think yes. I think an MP should be able to call another MP a liar if they have the absolute, bona fide proof to justify such an accusation. And I think basic, street gutter talk should be raised up, too, to bring it all closer to the same kind of ‘high speech’ we expect of parliamentarians. But, until that is so, do not confuse the two. He (Bezan) will lie and twist to politic in the house. He may also lie and twist to gain something outside the house. But KNOW the difference.
Anyway, had it been me and I said that offensive remark, I would simply say, “I am not apologizing. The OCHRO called it OK. My conscience calls it OK. My guess is her therapist will also call it OK. She should go there as soon as possible.”
Mr Bezan is a Conservative who said he was trying to made a partisan remark outside the house. There is no conflation here none. He has made partisan remarks inside the house and he had made partisan remarks outside the house. His defence is that he was trying to be funny and partisan but he was not making a sexual innuendo. Let’s suppose that he was just being partisan to Ms Romanado. For heaven’s sakes why? Is there an off switch for Mr Bezan? Bezan admitted to making “inappropriate and flippant “ remarks for partisan reasons. Why the remarks? The incident took place at the Ottawa City Hall where a veteran was being honoured. Mr Bezan is the defence critic and he took the honouring of a veteran to be the time to make “inappropriate and flippant” remarks by his own admission. He talk about making a sandwich of the threesome. He knew what he was saying but to call it a joke is pure dissimulation. He has no defence.
Again, I disagree.
Me too. Let’s get back to the West Coast. I have no idea what you are innuendoing about. About what you are innuending.
Innuendo: an Italian suppository.
NOT that there’s anything wrong with that!
That was the funniest
Piece you’ve done in a while,
Thanks for the laugh