rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Alberta Diary

djclimenhaga's picture
David Climenhaga, author of the Alberta Diary blog, is a journalist, author, journalism teacher, poet and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions with the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. His 1995 book, A Poke in the Public Eye, explores the relationships among Canadian journalists, public relations people and politicians. He left journalism after the strike at the Calgary Herald in 1999 and 2000 to work for the trade union movement. Alberta Diary focuses on Alberta politics and social issues.

The cheek of Jim Flaherty … expensing his Maybelline while preaching austerity!

| January 10, 2013
Jim Flaherty

Who would have thought that when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he was going to powder his nose … he was! (Ba-Bam!)

OK. That's already enough. Get the drummer off the stage right now! You get the idea.

But seriously … and I mean that, people, seriously … beyond the obvious hilarity of Canada's hard-ass Finance Minister (the tough guy who's promised to stick around till the deficit dragon is slain one copper penny at a time no matter how many civil servants have to lose their jobs) getting busted for expensing his Cover Girl and his Maybelline, there's a quality of cognitive dissonance to this story.

Leastways, there is out here in Alberta, where the local franchise of Prime Minster Stephen Harper's Wildrose/Conservative Party of Canada, in whose service Flaherty toils, is trying to pass off expenses by public officials as evidence of "corruption" in a Progressive Conservative government that's not as far to the right as they'd like.

Meanwhile, back in Ottawa, the same actors (these types are pretty interchangeable, after all) are pleading the "Rob Ford Defence" and arguing that since the cost of Flaherty's foundation and blush were slight, the offence ought not to matter.

That's not the way it works with principles, alas for them, and the principle in this case is that another richly rewarded Conservative ought not to be taking advantage of his position to get the public to pay for something the rest of us would assume we had to buy ourselves. (I say the "rest of us" advisedly, because, heaven knows, my balding pate reflects the lights alarmingly on those rare occasions I am asked to appear on TV, so I could probably use a tub of Smashbox myself to tone things down a bit.)

I mean, really, the unblushing cheek of these generously compensated right-wing types, expensing their makeup and muffins, their parking and Perrier, not to mention plenty of high-cost items like orange juice and helicopter rides, while they preach at people who live from paycheque to paycheque about the need for austerity and restraint.

The double-thinking Wildrose/Conservatives who recite these contradictory talking points say this little tempest in a compact is meaningless and will go away quickly because the expense in question was so small. It's said here, however, that it won't, for the same reason former Harper cabinet minister Bev Oda's notorious $16 glass of orange juice sticks in the memory like a fishhook: its outrageous novelty.

If a glass of juice so expensive most ordinary Canadians would never even consider it seemed scandalous to those of us who buy our beverages at Tim Horton's with our pocket change, the incongruity of the hard-assed Finance Minister squeezing the fiscal pips until they squeak one minute and powdering his nose with a nice blush the next is certain to remain cemented in the public memory.

This effect is made more intense, it seems to me, by Flaherty's more-than-passing but surely completely coincidental resemblance to J. Edgar Hoover, the late director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation who brought new implications to the hitherto innocent phrase "Little Black Dress."

Unlike Oda, of course, the Prime Minister and his echo chamber of neoconservative commentators and their enraged chorus of adolescent online supporters will work harder to dismiss the criticism of Flaherty, as he is a key part of their team of recycled Mike Harris and Ralph Klein era dead-enders.

But Flaherty -- whatever it was he was trying to cover up, just the shine on his nose or his increasingly unhealthy pallor -- is going to go down in Canadian history as the guy who got caught with his hand in the … moisturizer jar.

The finance minister can take some comfort from the knowledge makeup for men is nowadays de rigueur in Korea, the home of such manly pursuits as Tae Kwon Do and rogue atomic bomb development. But here in Canada, I'm afraid, there's just no way he can avoid a loss of face. (Ba-BOOM!)

This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.

embedded_video

Comments

Mercedes - this is all about Flaherty taking from us because the Federal coffers can't afford it BUT they can afford his makeup.  That is all it is about so don't make it about something else please.

Becuz mens in makeup iz funny! *cough-ueer!*  *cough-ueer!*

I'm not going to get too irate about this just yet, because I know that society still doesn't get all the nuances in play where gender assumptions, sexual orientation, and trans issues intersect.  It's still all too common for people to rush in without realizing how something they just said borders on subtle misogyny, homophobia, transphobia or some combination of the three.  Plus, we could get into all sorts of arguments trying to divide what is being implied from what is being inferred, which would miss the point entirely.  I know you don't mean it this way.  Consciously.

While there's obvious hypocrisy in expensing something used to sell austerity, I do want to challenge people to question just what it is that they're finding comedic value in.  Would this story still have the same legs, sensationalist potential, or guffaws if it were about studio lighting instead of makeup?  Or if makeup had been expensed for a female minister?  And if it's the makeup that makes it funny and memorable, why is that, exactly?

Login or register to post comments