the answer is buried deep in layton's otherwise unreadable mind

Posted by: kelly at January 7, 2007 02:20 AM

---

Way to keep picking up on the most important issues of the day. This is a scandal of major proportions.

Posted by: altacan at January 7, 2007 06:33 AM

---

Everytime I see Jack Layton's name associated with "homelessnes", I think of when the newspapers outed him and Olivia for living in a co-op when they were both raking in good money from their jobs on city council in Toronto. They could have done a lot for homelessness by not "moving in" to a unit that someone needier could have used.

When they were "outed", they moved out. But not before they were "outed."

So much for ethics.

Life's too short to waste time reading any of his books.

Posted by: anonymous at January 7, 2007 11:59 AM

---

altacan,

This is a blog. Who decided that bloggers should be limited to blogging about scandals "of major proportions" or about the "most important issues of the day"?

The fact is that I and, I'm sure many others, do find this post interesting. It's more confirmation of the view that I have that Jack Layton is the worst kind of hypocrite. He and his wife can sit in their taxpayer subsidized apartment, collecting their tax funded salaries and drone on about how the rest of us need to share equally the little bit of income we're left with after we pay our taxes. At the same time, he tries to manipulate the media to sell a few more books to augment his upcoming tax funded pension.

Posted by: Rob R at January 7, 2007 12:05 PM

---

Hey, maybe Jack and Olivia wanted to live among the poorer folk to have a better understanding of how they live.
How many people do we know who are on the bandwagon for the poor and underprivileged who themselves are very far from that reality?
We usually read books for enlightenment or entertainment, not sure where Layton's book would fit in.
Maybe if we join the Party we'll get a free copy.

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 01:27 PM

---

I'd respond to this if I wasn't afraid of looking as foolish as this guy.

Posted by: Robert McClelland at January 7, 2007 01:58 PM

---

So much for ethics.

I agree, but what can I do when rubes like you keep peddling lies. This smear has already been addressed countless times.

It's the epitomy of unethical behaviour to continue to propagate a lie while ignoring the truth.

Posted by: Robert McClelland at January 7, 2007 02:07 PM

---

I just finished reading Michael Chabon's "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" (highly recommended). On the cover is praise about the work as:
- a "a continual pleasure to read" by the Washington Post Book World (no mention of reviewer);
- a "crowd-wowing performance" by the Denver Post (no mention of reviewer);
- "a superb new novel" by the Newark Star-Ledger (no mention of reviewer);
- "a seamless performance" by the San Francisco Chronicle (no mention of reviewer);
- "one of the most pleasurable and moving novels of the past few years" by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (no mention of reviewer);
- a "novel of towering achievement" by the New York Times Book Review (no mention of reviewer);
- a "great American novel" by New York Magazine (no mention of reviewer);
- a "towering, swash-buckling thrill" by Newsweek (no mention of reviewer);
- and "a page-turner in the most expansive sense of the word" by the Chicago Tribune (no mention of reviewer).

On the back cover of Ingo Schulze's "33 Moments of Happiness":
- "Passionate, often exasperating, always adventuresome comedy" ~ New York Times (no mention of reviewer)
- "These stories are simply masterpieces" ~ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (no mention of reviewer)

On the back of the DVD cover for Woody Allen's "Annie Hall":
- "Woody Allen's best! A love story of high emotional power. A great pleasure to watch!" ~ Los Angeles Times (no mention of reviewer)

I could go on, but I'd be belabouring the point. Which is this: it's not an uncommon practise for review blurbs to cite only the publication source and not the specific reviewer (unless s/he is a household name whose mention could increase sales). But don't take my word for it--check your own bookshelf or swing by your local bookstore and take a look for yourself at the dust jackets of critically well-received titles.

Also, the Ottawa Citizen headline for the review was "Layton offers required reading for Trudeauites," so the NDP's website "misleads" the public only to the extent that the Ottawa Citizen itself "misled" the public. In any case, the review, while noting that the book may appeal more to policy wonks than lay audiences, is still a positive one.

Your quibble here is, in fact, an exceedingly minor one. Character assassination is a petty, dirty business--are you sure you want to head down such a low road?

Posted by: A at January 7, 2007 02:11 PM

---

Character assassination is a Liberal tactic, it's their first line of attack. Remember what they did to decent people like Preston manning and Stockwell Day.

Anyone who writes a book will expect some critique, good or bad it's proof it's being read.

Maybe McClelland should spend some of his time at Malls and on street corners flogging his Great Leader's political masterpiece.
HYDEE, HYDEE FOLKS, STEP RIGHT UP, READ ALL ABOUT
IT!

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 02:43 PM

---

Character assassination is a Liberal tactic...
Maybe McClelland should spend some of his time at Malls and on street corners flogging his Great Leader's political masterpiece.

Is this your way of telling us you're a Liberal?

Posted by: Robert McClelland at January 7, 2007 03:19 PM

---

To Robert McClelland:

Re Layton and his wife living in a housing co-op, it would seem that you really don't understand. I have lived for almost ten years in such a housing co-op here in Calgary, and they work the same way all over the country (I attend regular co-op meetings, and know of what I speak). Because they are CMHC subsidized, AND because they are run to break even (and not make a profit), the rents are lower than at equivalent rental facilities where the owner IS in business to make a profit. By continuing to rent such a co-op unit when they did not need to - until they were shamed out of it - they were depriving the family that was first on that co-op's waiting list.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 7, 2007 03:45 PM

---

Anyone who writes a book will expect some critique, good or bad it's proof it's being read

Except, of course, that you haven't actually read the book, have you? Nor, I'd be willing to wager, has Steve. Nor, for that matter, have I.

But then, this post was hardly about critiquing the book itself. No, it was a (rather petty, and entirely failed) smear, based not on anything remotely of substance, but on a tangential and innocuous (except in Steve's mind) one-liner in the back-pages of the NDP website.

Posted by: A at January 7, 2007 04:23 PM

---

Robert McClelland: Is it "character assassination" to suggest you try to flog your Great Leader's book? He is your Leader, you must think he's great.

Hey, at this point, if I had to make a choice between the Liberals and NDP on scruples and honesty, Layton's housing scandal aside, it would be tough but nothing tops the Liberals for dirty politics, so there you go.

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 04:28 PM

---

Rob R: At the same time, he tries to manipulate the media to sell a few more books to augment his upcoming tax funded pension.

Oddly, Steve failed to mention that net proceeds from the book's sales go to the Stephen Lewis Foundation (which you also have problems with, I'm sure).

Brian in Calgary: By continuing to rent such a co-op unit when they did not need to - until they were shamed out of it - they were depriving the family that was first on that co-op's waiting list.

But since they occupied a market-rent unit, "the family that was first on that co-op's waiting list"--whom you imply the Layton's were oh so cruelly and hypocritically depriving of affordable housing--would also not have been of low-income status. In fact, they quite likely would have been like the other professionals--lawyers, academics, executives--who occupied similar market units at the co-op during that time, more than 15 years ago, when this non-story first broke.

And there is that troublesome fact--ignored by you--that the Layton's had already been paying the CMHC a supplement equivalent to the mortgage subsidy, in addition to their rent, for some months when the first news article was published.

Posted by: A at January 7, 2007 04:44 PM

---

Oh man, what a lame post. You put up a few good ones and then go back to this sort of nit-picky, partisan, hack-job? It is amateurish.

1) Aren't you the guy who poked fun at McLelland for manufacturing a controversy about a cat? Do you honestly believe that this "story" is of much greater significance?

2) There isn't a book out there that doesn't cherry pick quotes from reviews for its dust-jacket. It is standard practice, and hardly something to nail one person over, let alone call it "dishonest". This is especially the case when the overall review of the book was positive.

3) Do you really think that Jack Layton, himself, is in charge of the minutia of the NDP website? I'd hope that the leaders of all of our Federal Parties have better things to do.

Hey, I don't care if you hate Jack Layton. I'd even welcome some discussion about his inconsistent policy directions, worthless tabled motions, and problematic links with organized labour. But to pretend that his character should be impuned because the NDP website has a link to his book with a nice quotation from an overall, but not entirely, positive book review is just ridiculous.

It does nothing but reveal, once again, that you are less interested in discussing important ideas from an honest conservative position, than you are in simple-minded partisanship. You are better than this.

Posted by: bob at January 7, 2007 04:47 PM

---

"A": No, haven't read the book, haven't critiqued it either. Actually wasn't even aware of it.
I admit I wouldn't buy it, but may be an interesting read in Chapters for various reasons.

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 04:53 PM

---

"A": The fact that the Laytons were paying the CMHC a supplement equivalent to a mortgage subsidy doesn't excuse the fact some family who badly needed the housing who couldn't afford such a "subsidy" were still in line. It flies in the face of NDP "principles".

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 05:16 PM

---

A little out of date Steve (when was that book published?), but interesting none the less.

I look forward to the review of his next book:

"Layton's book is... not... (a) piece of crap"

Original quote:

"Layton's book is absolutely obnoxious, naive, and definitely not worth reading. In short, it's a complete piece of crap"

Posted by: olaf at January 7, 2007 05:35 PM

---

Liz,

The Hazelburn Co-op in which they lived only set aside 30% of their units as "low income". The remainder were designated for individuals like Layton/Chow who wanted to pay market rates. The Co-op, itself, set it up this way specifically to encourage mixed-income tenants.

Got that? The Co-op members, themselves, wanted both high and low income earners living in the same area in order to encourage interaction, etc.

As such, to the extent that Layton/Chow were using up someone else's potential space, those potential folks are just as likely to have also been high income earners.

Posted by: altacan at January 7, 2007 07:48 PM

---

altacan:
Got it alright.
Sounds like a real true socialist set-up.

Another socialist set-up gone amok was putting young low income people, druggies and troubled people in units with low income seniors who became prisoners in their own homes, afraid to set foot out their doors.
Got it?

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 07:59 PM

---

Huh? Socialist set-up gone amok? Is that what the Hazelburn Co-op is? I'm not sure what druggies, low income seniors and troubled people have to do with anything I said.

I never even gave an opinion on whether Housing Co-ops are a good idea, bad idea, or something in between depending on their particular set-up. All I did was point out that your assertion that Layton/Chow were somehow 'stealing' the place of more 'deserving' individuals is not in-line with the set-up of that particular Co-op.

Seems to me the people who are best qualified to assess whether this is a "socialist set-up gone amok" are the folks who actually live there. I haven't seen them complaining, but hey, maybe you have more information on that than I do.

Posted by: bob at January 7, 2007 08:44 PM

---

Having done editing work in a former life, I know how important it is to credit quotes, essential, in fact, in order to verify the veracity of the quote. Crediting a quote protects the person who includes it in the text, the publishing company, and the person who made the comment.

So what, A, if countless "reviews" of movies and other books don't credit the sources of the quotable quotes on the book jacket or the DVD? Two wrongs don't make a right. Even when it's a quote promoting a Woody Allen film.

OT: I just read a biography of Woody Allen, BTW, and discovered that he is a thoroughly disagreeable and rather nasty man. Like Picasso, before him, who was also a mean-spirited misogynist, Allen may be a consummate artist (and I have to admit I like his films) but that doesn't excuse his lack of humanity.

Now back to Jackass Laydown: If the best that can be said for his book is that it is "required reading for anyone who yearns for the optimism of Trudeau-era Liberalism," then la-dee-dah. Doesn't Jack realize that Trudopey-an Liberalism is a dead duck, it's passe, it's OVER?

What we want to hear from Jack is some NEW ideas, some ideas that will move Canada forward after being stuck in the socialist, statist mire for far too long. His ideas are stale and recycled: not what's needed now.

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 7, 2007 08:58 PM

---

Bob:
It appears you missed something. The post your referring to was not to you unless your moniker is "altacan".

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 09:03 PM

---

Gee, I remember Toronto in 1989, and 1990, and so on over the years. I know a lot of people (including myself) who were on waiting lists to get into co-ops. I know the exact one he and Olivia lived in. It's a shame that they couldn't figure out on their own to move out. As for co-op lists, don't let people tell you that there isn't a priority list. I know of someone who knew someone who knew someone and got into a different co-op in Toronto.

So, perhaps Olivia used her connections to get in there....or Jack....he's a fake no matter what anyone says.

Posted by: anonymous at January 7, 2007 09:06 PM

---

Yeah, that last "bob" was me, sorry. I try to use altacan here to distinguish myself from the other "bob", who commented earlier, but occassionally forget and slip back into being myself.

Posted by: altacan at January 7, 2007 09:08 PM

---

Another socialist set-up gone amok was putting young low income people, druggies and troubled people in units with low income seniors who became prisoners in their own homes, afraid to set foot out their doors.

Not sure if you're referring to a real or hypothetical case, but you've described precisely the sort of economically homogeneous residential mix that mixed-income and socially diverse co-ops were designed to avoid.

Posted by: A at January 7, 2007 09:32 PM

---

Well altacan/bob, as long as you know who the hell you are. It's still a bit of a mix-up. We have a "bob" who may or may not be you and another "bob" who is or isn't you but may also be his/your alter ego, "altacan". Thanks, glad to have that sorted.

Posted by: Liz J at January 7, 2007 09:39 PM

---

Two wrongs don't make a right.

True, except it's hard to argue that either "wrong" is actually wrong. Having done editing work in my current life, I agree with you (!) that citing sources accurately is important. Level of detail, however, all depends on where you're publishing and for whom you're writing. An academic tract? Reference fanatically and with exhaustive detail. A popular newspaper or magazine article? Describe the source, but no need for detailed footnotes. A blurb from a review quoted on a website or a dust jacket? Standard practise demands only the publication title -- given the context, unless the meaning is drastically altered (Olaf, above, provides a helpful if absurd example), no reasonable person would consider this an act of dishonesty. That is, unless you've a pre-existing axe to grind.

Posted by: A at January 7, 2007 09:52 PM

---

Wow Steve... you must've hit some note to wake McLa-La-Land from his eternal slumber. And he's still whining about how you nailed him to the wall over that "photoshopped" (must... hold back... the laughter...) Christmas photo of the Harpers.

If Bobbie considers himself the height of NDP strategy and strength... boy are the Dipsticks in trouble.

Posted by: Surecure at January 7, 2007 10:55 PM

---

Actually, surprising news would be that Layton didn't have to search for a positive bit about his book.

Let's put it this way - would you or anyone you know, even lefties, buy it or even read a free copy?

Posted by: Selma at January 7, 2007 11:44 PM

---

"A":
"Another socialist set-up gone amok....."., no hypothetical there, it's REAL.

What would anyone expect from that mix?
Think about it?

Who in their right mind would want to have an elderly parent living in such an environment?

They were "designed to avoid" this ? Well they're the exact opposite and what any thinking person would anticipate happening.

Posted by: Liz J at January 8, 2007 08:21 AM

---

A,
What Liz J speaks of is, in fact, true. I've seen it first-hand myself (more 'anecdotal evidence' I guess, except to Liz and I -and any seniors stuck in such a horrible position).
It may be compassionate as hell to druggies and troubled people (and we all know how the left has the monopoly on compassion), but it doesn't show a whole hell of a lot of compassion towards relatively helpless seniors.

Posted by: up north at January 9, 2007 06:07 PM

---

To this point, I thought the smear on Jack Layton and Olivia Chow living in a co-op was limited to Warren Kinsella and his cohort Derek Raymaker, and other Toronto area Liberals. But with this thread I see that apparent Conservatives, especially LizJ, are into it as well.

The truth, of course, as Kinsella and Raymaker have always known, is the exact opposite of what they put forward. Layton and Chow and others were paying full market rates so that, with some public subsidy, lower income residents could pay less to live in the same building. Layton and Chow were among those who were making the subsidized housing possible.

LizJ adamantly refuses to get this point even after it's been pointed out to her several times. She keeps stubbornly insisting that Layton and Chow were occupying a subsidized unit, even thought she knows that's not the case. That kind of puerile and partisan obstinacy is so very much like Kinsella and Raymaker that it's uncanny! I wonder, does LizJ ever listen to SFH???

Posted by: Budd Campbell at January 10, 2007 02:55 PM

---

When I hear the words 'activist government" I reach for my Browning!

(with apologies to Hanns Johst)

Posted by: felis corpulentis at January 10, 2007 10:38 PM

---

When I hear the words 'activist government" I reach for my Browning!

(with apologies to Hanns Johst)

Posted by: felis corpulentis at January 10, 2007

What is that supposed to mean? That you threaten people you disagree with with a gun?

Posted by: Budd Campbell at January 11, 2007 06:49 PM

---