The NDP's research team has carefully examined Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's new book and found the personal pronoun "I" is mentioned 164 times.
Excellent, relevant work. I suppose the point of releasing such riveting information is to convey an air of vanity or ego. I think that's a fair observation, especially with the obvious contrast in humility:
26 comments:
Layton and his gang act like little snitchers in grammar school. Unbelievable.
So, should Ignatieff say - Me, Mr. Ignatieff, or the writer or something.
Is this pathetic or what.
The NDP spend all their time looking for something absolutely unimportant to snitch about. James Moore and his computer and bikinis, using the word I more than once - boy oh boy are the NDP in trouble.
You know it's jealousy - a very childish emotion.
Sandi
When you think about it, the "tally" is actually pretty meager, considering it's a BOOK about HIS perspective on Canada. Sheesh, Layton probably says "I" just as much in a five minute interview with Don Newman.
Sad that you count that, worse that you leak it to the press.
Yup - and Pat Martin holding a press conference with a puppet show and the NDP's birthday cake for Cons/Libs.
Definately need some adult supervision.
Layton thinks (or wants to be Canada's Obama) - now, would Obama resort to this silly nonsense? Na.
It is particularly sad for those of us who consider themselves NDP supports. Layton has hi-jacked a party that once stood for important principles and played an important opposition role in raising certain issues. Now it seems to be another party that plays games to jockey for position. Alas.... But Liberals should be glad, it means a better chance of a majority Liberal government.
kirby
I honestly don't know why you leak that to the press, because it just makes them look petty. The optics of NDP staffers wasting time, pouring over Iggy's book, counting pronouns, isn't attractive.
Did I just wake up and gain 3 1/2 weeks? Is it April1st? Is this a joke?
It is a book abut his family, their connection to Canada and his . How would they expect him to describe his relationship to them without using the first person singular?
Way to bring more attention to Mr. Ignatieff's book Dippers.
Now folks who might not have cared or even heard of his new book may decide to see what all of the fuss is about, giving Mr. Ignatieff yet more name recognition and stature with voters.
As well, the book is one of those feel good to be Canadian type of books which most non-partisan Canadians might like.
I have been wondering for awhile how the NDP would react when their poll numbers began to fade and now we know: petty AND stupid.
Note: The word verification string for this comment was "dunce". Very appropriate if you ask me.
Let's put up the full quote, shall we? The NDP's research team has carefully examined Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's new book and found the personal pronoun "I" is mentioned 164 times. Bob Rae, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and the carbon tax are not mentioned. In other words, the contrast is between Iggy talking about himself and Iggy talking about the Liberal party and its policies. And it's from an article -- I use the term loosely -- immediately before a "hot and not" section.
So, clearly, this is serious and official criticism of the Liberal party.
Again, this is why I don't take the Liberal party -- and, increasingly, Liberals -- seriously. You pretend to be the adults, and yet childishly and obviously lie.
ADHR, seriously?
In a book about his conection to Canada and not the party, he doesn't mention anything about the party?
Okay, I'm not a liberal, nor do I like the big Iggy and his policies, but come on.... no way the NDP look anything by stupid, childish and petty.
This book, coming out now, would have had to have a major re-write to include those topics of import today, due to the lead times involved in publishing and I simply doubt that....
It's not a book about the Liberal Party dim bulb and if you think that amounts to "serious official criticism" then I suggest you get out the sand box. Too funny.
Oh for heavens sake - it's a book about Ignatieff's mother's side of the family, it's about his vision of the Liberal party and he can't use "I"?
Serious stuff?
I shake my head (as Mulcair rubs his hands in the background, eyes gleaming).
ADHR has penned a lament on the state of Canadian politics, how we are obsessed with the "trivial". What a freaking load, because all this post is a reaction to the NDP FOCUSING ON THE TRIVIAL AND IRRELEVANT. Get a clue, the irony is staggering.
"The optics of NDP staffers wasting time, pouring over Iggy's book, counting pronouns, isn't attractive."
I think that with the most basic computer program you could count how many times ANY word was mentioned in a text in the space of about three seconds.
"I shake my head (as Mulcair rubs his hands in the background, eyes gleaming)."
You've got it all wrong. Mulcair is already Layton's handpicked successor - they are practically co-conspirators joined at the hip. The torch will be passed to him regardless.
DL
Wow, that's pretty lame. Irregardless of time, although I do note the plural in the piece, the point here is actually releasing this information to the press. Of course, you don't address that.
BTW, my money is on Mulclair losing his seat, we will target it and given how he barely won last time, I don't necessarily like his chances.
I have noticed a pattern with Ignatieff though and that is that he seems to be a real narcissist (I know, I know, ALL politicians are to some extent - but even by that standard). Everytime I see him interviewed or see anything about his writings - he always seem to do nothing but talk about himself. Its always endless yarns about HIS family on his father's side, then endless yarns about HIS family on his mother's side, then endless yarns about HIS life abroad. I can just imagine a conversation with Ignatieff where he would bore you to tears for hours talking about himself and then FINALLY he would say "OK, enough about me. What about you? What do you think of ME?"
Hmmm... An autobiographical account of life in his family, and he shouldn't use "I"???
Are these "strategists" as dumb as the Conservatives?
Actually, I do find this an astounding figure. I am literally laughing right now because I cannot imagine how anyone writes a book about their family and their perspective of Canada and avoids using the word "I" constantly. I was planning on reading the book anyway, but it will add additional interest reading it with that in mind.
Note: I used the word "I" in this post 4 times in 3 sentences - not counting the reference to the word in quotes and the instance I eliminated in the last sentence with some quick shifting of expression in the last phrase of the last sentence.
Has Layton ever written a book? It would be so fun to play that little exercise if he had.
Actually Layton has published two books one on Homelessness and one on his policies for Canada.
Layton thinks (or wants to be Canada's Obama) -
God help us if that is true.
His policies or his party's policies? If he wrote a book on his party's policies, then the equivalent would be counting the number of times he references the NDP, would it not be? If it's his ideas and proposed policies, then it would be references to "I".
Anyone care to start counting? Frankly I don't feel like wasting any money to get my hands on Layton's book.
I get sick and tired of people claiming someone is like Obama. If these clowns want to be Obama, they should get a name that most average Canadians find "strange" (Jack doesn't cut it), then they should go live the "child of an immigrant" experience. Once they've graduated that school of hard knocks, struggled to get the nomination for their party, and created a "mania" among Canadians, they can start to claim they are "Obama-like". Until then, these comparisons are getting a little too commonplace, and just a little stupid.
Actually, that research interests me. Am always conscious when writing of ensuring the I-word appears as little as possible.
In fact, my ears perked up when listening to a recent interview of His Igginess precisely because I began noticing the number of times he used 'I'. The NDP research confirms that perception.
When one writes a book, the focus should be on the topic, not what 'I' think of the topic. It's implicit that the opinions expressed are the author's own, unless citations are made to others.
So..., Is the latest book by His Igginess all about him? Or about something else? If it's all about him, then all those 'I's are legitimate. Otherwise, they are not.
"Actually, that research interests me."
What a shocker :)
We suspect the reference to His Iggyness gives away your true perspective. Well, that and the fact that you apparently don't have a clue as to the topic of the book, which has been stated repeatedly even on this topic is about his family's experience in Canada and how they shaped him. Seems like a few "I" terms might be involved in such an undertaking. Thank goodness the NDP is here to ensure we have an unbiased assessment of how many times is appropriate. Was there a sliding scale? Was 115 just right, or was it 89? Would 50 or less been inappropriate, given the topic - perhaps indicating an immature sense of self?
We so look forward to the detailed analysis they'll release in the coming weeks? Perhaps hearings should be called in the House of Commons?
We use the term we because it seems to be how you got around using the term "I" - at least from a casual glance at your web page. (the "your" btw is taken directly from your profile which links to "my web page").
I hasten to add your website seems quite interesting, though the introduction did strike me as a bit unusual with all the "we" references - even if I hadn't linked to it as part of this discussion.
Duh - it is about him - his family.
Imagine the word "I" being such an important contraversial issue these days.
Layton - working for Canadians alright - he's lived off the public purse all his life, hence his love for unions. His father was a politician (Cons/Mulroney gov't) plus his own jobs - yup, Layton literally works for Canadians and has always been paid by Canadians.
Post a Comment