Bob 2011: Best of babble

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Bob 2011: Best of babble


Could it be that time already? Why yes, pilgrim. It's:


Best of babble 2011



2011 was a long year. Please make it last by reposting your most brilliant witticisms from the last eleven months. And other people's, if you insist. For inspiration, check out BOB 2010.

Some hits:

Karl-Marx-Allee, Friedrichshain

We were among the first to skewer the CBC's Vote Compass skewered results, analysis that almost earned an interview with our national broadcaster to critique the "tool."

Vansterdam Kid wrote:
I agree with the general sentiment that this survey is useless. For instance, why do they even ask the party and leadership questions, when the point of the test is to determine, based on your answers to the 'issues' questions, who you should vote for? As a joke, I re-calibrated my answers and pretended to be in favour of Quebec getting more power, essentially making it look like I was a separatist, and it still told me I should vote Green.

Michelle wrote:
They have compound questions in the survey - that is, questions with more than one question in them, but that you have to answer with only one answer.

Example: "The government should fund daycare instead of giving money directly to parents."  That's actually two statements, not one, and should be separate questions: "The government should fund daycare" and "The government should not give money directly to parents."  Because if you believe the government should fund daycare AND give money directly to parents, there is no way to answer this question.  And if you believe the government should not fund daycare AND they should not give money directly to parents, there is also no way to answer it.

MaryGP wrote:
I agree - it was right at putting Conservative furthest away but I was identified with Green Party - I would think I would have been NDP or Liberal ... not Green for sure.

Someone tweeted yesterday that if you answer no opinion/don't know to all questions you turn out Liberal ...

An unhappy, but touching number of posts came after Jack Layton passed away this August. babblers offered their generous, mournful thoughts on his death: Remembering Jack Layton: our thoughts

duncan cameron wrote:
The NDP rolled out its brilliant French language television ads featuring Jack. During the campaign, the hip Radio-Canada Sunday night tv talk show Tout le Monde en Parle invited him twice onto its platform, where Jack charmed a viewing audience of a couple of million.  In the leaders debate, Jack turned the tables on Gilles Duceppe, who claimed to have stopped Stephen Harper. Jack fixed his gaze on Duceppe: “He is still there, he is still there! ”  

Rebecca West wrote:
I first met Jack while working on his mayoral campaign as a volunteer.  I was not only impressed by his energy, and his willingness to engage people (especially those working for him), but I was impressed and moved by the people who worked so hard for him and were so committed to his campaign.  That kind of loyalty is not for sale.

Stockholm wrote:
One of my favourite personal anecdotes about Jack was from sharing a taxi with him from the airport a few years ago (after he was leader of the NDP though). After talking about politics, somehow we started talking about food and where to buy groceries and he suddenly got very animated in telling me about one fruit and vegetable store in Kensington Market that sold over a dozen different types of bananas! He was so visibly excited about the idea that in an era where factory farming and biotechnology has killed off so much biodiversity and we usually think that there is just one type of banana we could eat - here was one store that had TWELVE types of bananas - each a different shape and colour and taste and each had different uses for different recipes!

Too many good ones to list here.

We also had some of the best #occupy coverage in Canada, with on-the-ground reports from HalifaxMontrealToronto (part two here), London, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver (with exceptional coverage from epaulo13!).

And finally, a not-safe-for-yuletide thread:babble gets its swear on. (And not like Pat Martin).


Anyone else have any favourites? Funnies? Pithies? Transformatives? Infinitives?

In the spirit of remembrance, I'd like to enjoin you all again that:

Catchfire wrote:
N.B. The hope here is for the good kind of nostalgia, not the bad kind. Don't start fights!

So, what do you remember fondly from this past year?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Wot, no suggestions? Everyone must be knee-deep in the archives looking for their favourite thread.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think Sean's posts in this thread are worthy of nomination, especially #12


Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In a nutshell they undermine the equality of people -- those with more property end up with more rights.

The reality is there is no such thing as property rights. Nobody seriously thinks a piece of property has rights. What we are talking about is additional rights for people with property.

The second thing you need to consider when discussing property rights is that the assertion of rights are never in a vacuum. These are always about conflicts. The only time you are prevented from doing something is either if there is a specific law against it or what you are doing conflicts with someone else's rights. So the introduction of property rights is intended to trump other people's individual rights.So a person with property rights trumps a person without so when their rights are measured against each other the person with property wins. This is especially problematic since that person with the property already has the advantages of the control of the property. If you add the advantage of the control of the property (wealth) to additional property rights then the power-shift away from human rights is complete.

It is critical to recognize that rights are about power-- both moral and legal. Property is already power through control. If you add to the power of wealth additional rights related to the existence of that property then human rights, even when considered, become so weak that they are irrelevant in practice. Consider that the power to control property is already there in the absence of a declaration of an additional right to go with it. Already rights like freedom from hunger or the need for housing cannot compete, even without property rights being recognized, with the control of property so that people still face the fact that others control the housing and the food. If we go further what really is left?

Now consider the concentration of wealth in this country. The property owners are doing fine and gaining as it is. Why do they need property rights enshrined when they have increased their relative share of property to the point wealth is the most concentrated it has been in the last 100 years? The addition of property rights would effectively undo the gains of human and civil rights and return us to a previous time. Property rights used to exist even in voting-- at one time you had to own property to vote. That is the direction property rights take you.

Anyway, hope this helps you.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Nice selection, Boom Boom!

Also: bump!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I will keep posting more and more Kenny G-related content until other babbler chime in with their Bob suggestions. What will our poor, fearless readers read over the holiday break if you don't come through?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Catchfire... we are a community of critics... you might be more successful in bumping up the content by starting a WOB (Worst) thread. Just sayin'

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

A Wobbly thread? Not a bad idea...

Normally I would rend my clothing in despair at your cutting cynicism two years' running for my harebrained scheme, bagkitty, but seeing as you are the only babbler who has posted about this more than I have, I have chosen instead to embrace my brother.




What do babblers have against nostalgia anyway?

Freedom 55


Catchfire wrote:

I will keep posting more and more Kenny G-related content until other babbler chime in with their Bob suggestions.


Oh, so that's who that was. I thought it was a young Bob Saget.



Catchfire wrote:

What do babblers have against nostalgia anyway?


I've got nothing against nostalgia, but I'm having trouble thinking of something other than the memorable fights.

Catchfire wrote:
N.B. The hope here is for the good kind of nostalgia, not the bad kind. Don't start fights!


Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The photo is Kenny G's memorable meeting with Miles Davis. Well, memorable for different reasons for different people.

Ken Burch

Miles looks just THRILLED to be meeting this guy...


bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Everything that has to be said about Kenny G was said over a decade ago... by Pat Metheny.... damn I wish I could write as well as he did on that occasion.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Now, if Pat Metheny were a babbler, and he wrote it in 2011, we'd be getting somewhere. As much as I enjoy a good skewering of Kenny G. Which that was.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Rebecca West and I got our wires crossed and she missed this thread, but she posted these beauts here. Anyone else with some suggestions?

Rebecca West wrote:
If it made you laugh, cry, cheer or scream, post it here!

Here are but a few:

The short but sweet Levant dinged for over $32K in libel Court Costs

Election results

Jack Layton has died after a long battle with cancer

Freedom 55


oldgoat wrote:

That's because you live in a community where your internet service provider uses telegraph.  I'm sure however, you appreciate the step up from semiphore.