Archive for the 'blogs' Category

The U.S. embargo against Cuba was never about ‘democracy’

“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record.”
                                                                                           -George Orwell, 1984

castro.pngThe progressive blogosphere (or at least what passes for ‘progressive’ these days) are awash lately in discussions about Cuba and the sudden decision of Fidel Castro not to seek the office of President of Cuba in the upcoming election.

Everywhere in quasi-progressive press and blogs, people are finding the courage to ask:  Why is there still an embargo on Cuba?  The problem is not the question — in fact, the question is the correct one.  The problem is that the corporate press — from which the blogosphere generally takes its cues — has managed to cripple the debate by intentionally leaving out an important detail about the long-standing, crushing U.S. embargo against thebush-with-turkey-in-crotch.png tiny island nation.  Namely, the U.S. embargo against Cuba was never about ‘democracy’ or human rights and the U.S. officials at the time that the embargo was enacted, were open and frank about this fact.

But you wouldn’t be able to tell that from the media reports about the recent events in Cuba.

What follows is a small sample of media reports.

The Associated Press [AP] reports that:

Asked by reporters at the State Department if Washington planned to change its Cuba policy now that Castro has stepped down, Negroponte replied: “I can’t imagine that happening anytime soon.”


We would hope that the departure from the scene of Cuba’s long-ruling dictator Fidel Castro would allow for a democratic transition. … We would hope that his departure would begin this transition,” Casey told reporters.

But he added that the United States is troubled by signs that Cuba’s leadership envisions this as a “transfer of authority and power from dictator to dictator light—from Fidel to Raul.”

Still, he said the Bush administration remains willing to help support the Cuban people in a true transition to democracy. [emphasis added]

The New York Times ran a report which, despite standing at 686 words, only mentions the embargo on Cuba once and even then, only in a dismissive context.  The Times reported:

Mr. Castro, whose photograph looks down from billboards across the island, is both revered and reviled by Cubans. In criticizing him in public, Cubans stroke an imaginary beard instead of uttering his name and possibly running afoul of the authorities. Those who praise him most often cite his investments in education and health care, and they agree with him that the country’s economic woes are caused not by neglect from Mr. Castro but by the trade embargo imposed by Washington.

Huffington Post contributor Sarah Stephens wins the Orwellian prize for her piece, on two grounds:

#1) Stephens writes that South Africa’s post-Apartheid democracy was “born with the help of U.S. sanctions”.  This is the height or Orwellianism.  It was precisely the U.S. that supported economically and politically the racist Apartheid South African regime up until the very end when it became politically impossible to continue to do so.  In fact, Ronald Reagan openly called Nelson Mandela a “terrorist” and here in Canada, even as late as 2001, we still had elected Parliamentarians such as Rob Anders calling Mandela a “terrorist”.

#2) If you read through her piece, it is interesting to examine why she believes the embargo should be lifted.  The reasons why Stephens believes the embargo should be lifted are not because of the massive loss of life it has caused in Cuba (more on that below).  Rather, the reasons she believes they should be lifted are:

a) “the Cuba embargo sullies our image around the world”

b) “[the Cuba embargo] undermines the national interest [of America].”

c) “The embargo sacrifices the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel.”

d) “[the Cuba embargo] trade sanctions cost U.S. businesses about $1 billion annually”

e) “[the Cuba embargo] den[ies] U.S. citizens access to vaccines and other medical treatments.”

f) “Enforcing the embargo drains [American] resources from the war on terror.”

Based on the above reporting, one could be forgiven for assuming that the embargo has #1) been reluctantly pursued in the interests of the Cuban people and democracy; #2) that only crazy pro-Castro communists believe that the hardships of the Cuban people are actually caused by the embargo; and #3) that the reasons the Americans should now lift the embargo is because it’s hurting Americans.

There is no need for conspiracy theories to debunk these claims that the embargo was designed to foster democracy.  Had any of the media outlets reported on the actual openly stated reasons for issuing the trade embargo — reasons given by U.S. government officials at the time, the reality would be all to obvious.

A brief history of the events leading up to this is illuminating:

viva-fidel.png1953-1960: Castro, contrary to popular belief now, but openly acknowledged at the time, was anti-Soviet during his revolution against the brutal U.S.-backed Batista regime.  Indeed his reform proposals were initially were pro-democratic and anti-Soviet.  (see, for instance, the work of Jules Benjamin and Noam Chomsky for more on this).

January, 1960:  The United States begins its first attempts to overthrow the popular Castro regime through assassination and, later, by invasion and terrorism, and re-install a client regime.

1960-1962:  The U.S., having now pushed the previously anti-Soviet Castro into the Soviet sphere, now begins to characterize Cuba as a threat to the United States (itself a laughable concept) by arguing it is a ‘proxy’ or ‘base’ of the Soviets 90 miles off the tip of Key West, Florida.  This, of course, ignores the fact that the U.S. was engaged in actions against Cuba as early as 1960 long before any Soviet relations had been established.  Noam Chomsky, in his work Hegemony or Survival writes:

Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His “main reason,” the British ambassador reported to London, “was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms,” a move that “would have a tremendous effect,” Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington’s successful demolition of Guatemala’s first democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by US intelligence and the “demonstration effect” of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala’s appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before.

jfk-on-phone.png1962: United States President John F. Kennedy orders a case of Cuban cigars for his own personal use.  Upon hearing that the cigars had reached U.S. territory, Kennedy promptly begins the embargo under the explicit justification that Soviet presence there posed a ‘grave’ threat to the United States.

1962-1990: The U.S. engages in decades of terrorism, bacteriological warfare and biological warfare against Cuba.  This ranges from the poisoning of the domestic Cuban pork and chicken supply, the attempted destruction of the Cuban cash crop: sugar, and the October 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner by Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles who currently live in the United States despite their terrorist past.   Cuba, having been denied its traditional markets for sugar export, becomes a ‘favoured export partner’ with the Soviet Union.

1991: The Soviet Union collapses.  Following this collapse, the entire stated justification for the Cuban sanctions are now officially satisfied.  Given the reason stated by the U.S. government for issuing the sanctions — Soviet threat — sanctions should now be lifted as there is no longer any Soviet threat in Cuba.

1992: The George H.W. Bush administration increases the sanctions.  Bill Clinton, running to unseat Bush in the election, also promises harsher sanctions.

1993: Average caloric intake in Cuba plummets by 1/3 in 4 short years.  (see Victoria Brittain, “Children die in agony as U.S. trade ban stifles Cuba.” The Guardian (U.K.), March 7, 1997)

1994: Mortality rates for Cubans over the age of 65 increase 15% over 2 years.

clinton.png1996: U.S. sanctions increased yet again under the Helms-Burton Act which U.S. President Bill Clinton gleefully signs into law.  The new harsher sanctions,  are now justified under the new, post-1990 mantra of ‘democracy’ — the same mantra which, if you read the press reports, you would believe was always the justification for the sanctions.  In fact, as Orwell famously wrote, this history must constantly be ‘brought up to date’ because any detailed look at the original justifications quickly discredits this contention.

1999: Severity of U.S. sanctions increased yet again under U.S. President Bill Clinton’s watchful eye.

2008:  Bloggers uncritically believe media’s insinuation that the embargo has always been about democracy and human rights.  Few liberals bother to research the topic.  Instead, they accept the premise and support ending the sanctions regime because it’s hurting the United States.  Conservatives take the matter further and support continuation of sanctions as a means of collective punishment, then turn around and deny that sanctions have any effect on the Cuban economy, but rather that Castro is to blame for all problems.  Socialist bloggers, anarchists and freethinkers are left staring at each other in disbelief.

See also:

Propaganda in Action (Series)

Che Guevara: Cuban revolutionary or puppy-eating serial murderer?

Kettle calls the teapot black: Bush calls Cuba “criminal”

On intellectual honesty and the Cuba debate

Idiocy doesn’t cease being idiocy because it’s published

What’s more powerful: Blogs or the mainstream media?

What’s More Powerful: Blogs or the Mainstream Media?

A funny thing happened the other day, for those of you who missed it. I had just come home from a long trip to our friendly neighbours to the South and I posted a quick little blog post to let my regular readers know that I’d returned. My plans were to wake up the following day and write the blog post that I’d planned to write on the occasion of my 100,000th hit which I received sometime on Christmas Eve while I was away.

Well, it turns out that I missed my 100,000th hit (which took 1 year, 1 month and 4 days to achieve).

And my 200,000th hit (which took about 16 hours to achieve).

And my 300,000th hit (which took about 14 hours to achieve).

So I figured that now was as good a time as any to reflect on blogs as an institution by comparing the power of blogs to the power of the mainstream media.

A quick comparison of the reach of blogs versus the mainstream media results in some interesting findings.

Let’s start with just this blog here, which is as far from being a widely read blog. In the past 48 hours, this blog received approximately 240,000 hits. While it is impossible to draw direct comparisons because some of those hits were undoubtedly repeat hits just as it is also true that some of people will leave their television set on while they are not paying attention or have left the room. But, ignoring those caveats, what does that compare to in terms of the viewership of mainstream media broadcasts?

Breakdown according to the 2006 year-end Neilsen Media Research report.

240,000 is a greater reach than the total viewship of the following top-rated TV programmes (in 2006):

THE ABRAMS REPORT on MSNBC (238,000 average viewers)

MSNBC LIVE on MSNBC (207,000 average viewers)

SHOWBIZ TONIGHT on Headline News (170,000 average viewers)

THE MOST on MSNBC (196,000 average viewers)

ROBIN & COMPANY on Headline News (198,000 average viewers)

CNN HEADLINE NEWS on Headline News (190,000 average viewers)

PRIME NEWS W/ ERICA HILL on Headline News (184,000 average viewers)

MAD MONEY on CNBC (158,000 average viewers)

THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON on MSNBC (128,000 average viewers)

BIG IDEA WITH DONNY DEUTSCH on CNBC (138,000 average viewers)

COVER TO COVER on CNBC (118,000 average viewers)

THE SUZE ORMAN SHOW on CNBC (118,000 average viewers)

Now, keep in mind, that’s just this relatively insignificant blog.

When we expand our search, we see some interesting statistics. Even if we ignore all independently hosted blogs, as well as all blogs hosted at blogspot and other popular blog hosts and focus only on all the blogs hosted at (including this blog), it isn’t even a contest.

Bill O’Reilly’s popular programme The O’Reilly Factor averages 2,094,000 viewers per night. O’Reilly’s programme runs 5 days a week (when he’s not defending himself against sexual harassment charges from his co-workers). Assuming O’Reilly takes two weeks off per year, that translates to approximately 523,500,000 total viewers per year (keeping in mind that those who watch his show regularly would be counted separately for every time they tune in)

Here is the data on only the blogs hosted by wordpress for the month of November alone:

416 million pageviews for blogs hosted with, and another 169 million on blogs hosted with Total: 585 million pageviews. (source)

So all of the blogs on just one of the blog hosting sites, in one month alone exceed the total annual viewership of Mr. O’Reilly’s #1 ranked television programme by 62 million.

When we compare the two in terms of annual reach, we see the following results.


So the question remains as to how long the mainstream media can continue pretending that blogs are insignificant? I believe I’ve shown the evidence to the contrary to be abundant.

Paulitics wins a 2007 Unofficial Blogging Dipper Award

Uncorrected Proofs recently ran an unofficial contest to vote for the best New Democrat blogs in 5 categories:

(1) Best Overall Blog;  (2) Best Feminist Blog; (3) Best Labour Blog; (4) Best Partisan Blog; (5) Best Radical Blog

Now, I spend about as much time criticising the NDP as I do praising them, so I was genuinely surprised when I found out that I’d been nominated as one of the three finalists in the “Best Radical Blog” category.  Then, the other day, I was even more  shocked to discover that I’d actually won in the radical blog category especially considering that I was up against Eugene Plawiuk from La Revue Gauche who’s practically a one-man institution in the left Canadian blogosphere.  (Although Eugene was nominated in two other categories and won in the Best Labour Blog category).  So thanks to whoever it was that nominated me and thanks to those who voted for me in the best radical blog category.

Here is a summary of how the awards panned out:

Best Overall Dipper Blog

Accidental Deliberations
La Revue Gauche

Winner: Accidental Deliberations, Best Overall Blog

Best Feminist Dipper Blog

Idealistic Pragmatist
F-email Fightback

Winner: Politics’n’Poetry, Best Feminist Blog

Best Labour Dipper Blog

La Revue Gauche
Rusty Idols
The Daily Dissidence

Winner: La Revue Gauche, Best Labour Blog

Best Partisan Dipper Blog

Accidental Deliberations
Northern BC Dipper

Winner: Buckdog, Best Partisan Blog

Best Radical Dipper Blog

La Revue Gauche
Red Menace

Winner: Paulitics, Best Radical Blog

Thanks to Uncorrected Proofs for putting the effort in to run this awards competition. I actually had never heard of Red Menace before, so if nothing else, the awards presented me with a new, and well written, Canadian Marxist blog that I can now add to my regular reading list.

Saskboy joins Paulitics, Jim Harris and the Green Party in the ‘dog house’?

conservative-party-support-september-to-november-2007.pngFor those of you not aware, a while back I posted mathematical evidence that Ipsos-Reid’s polling numbers are dramatically off from every other major polling firm in the country insofar as the level of support they attribute to the federal Conservative Party.

Jim Harris, the former leader (not ‘president’ as John Wright claimed him to be) of the Green Party of Canada, read my blog and enjoyed the post enough to reproduce it (with my permission, of course) with some additions of his own over on his blog.

Ipsos-Reid’s senior vice president John Wright (he seems to like it when we use his full title) didn’t particularly like what Jim and I wrote, and thus has, how shall I say, become a regular reader of Paulitics for the past few days.  Since then, however, it seems as though some additional bloggers have stumbled across Wright’s comment on this blog and have written posts on their own sites discussing what they think of Wright’s tactics.

I am not going to comment one way or another on whether I endorse Saskboy’s analysis or not.  However, in the interests of ensuring that my readers have every opportunity to critically consider and contemplate for themselves all facts as well as what they think on their own about his analysis, I have decided to link to it.

Specifically though, I wanted to draw my readers’ attention to two comments on Saskboy’s post which very much interested me.  The first was one by Wright himself wherein he wrote:

“each one of those who posted the comments have now, on their own advice, taken them down or altered them, because in the end they knew you cannot make unfounded or defamatory claims about a person or company.”

This, of course, is demonstrably untrue.  As I informed Wright when I made the changes on my blog, the changes I made, to use legal language, were made “gratuitously” and thus were accompanied by no admission of guilt nor were the changes an admission that the original text was defamatory or unfounded.  Moreover, Jim Harris explicitly spelled out, in an e-mail to Wright, that his changes to his blog post were also not an admission of guilt or an admission that the original posting was defamatory.

So, I found it interesting that Wright received explicit wording stating that changes were not made because they were defamatory, yet he still wrote that above comment on Saskboy’s blog.  Thus, I invite my readers to critically consider and contemplate for themselves whether Wright’s comment is founded in reality.

The second comment on Saskboy’s blog that I found interesting was made by an acquaintance of mine (but was not made at my behest or request).  While I have no opinion or comment one way or another on whether I endorse or share Kim’s analysis or not, I did want to present this comment to my readers for them to be free to draw conclusions on their own.

Kim wrote:

“You know, I showed Wright’s original comment to a lawyer friend of mine and she asked if he’d gotten drunk one night and went trolling on the internet. Just saying.

And Wright, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Paul at Paulitics changed his post “gratuitously” for your benefit. Just in case you’re not near your legal counsel at the moment, I’d like to refresh your memory that the legal definition of “gratuitous” is something that is done unnecessarily, without admission of guilt – so essentially, giving the baby his bottle.

The blogosphere knows you’re full of it, Jim. Instead of attacking a bunch of bloggers, I suggest that you make some inquiries into your survey-taking at the lower levels, where the mistakes are evidently being made. As a former employee, this seems entirely plausible to me. It could be the callers, or those people writing the questions themselves.

Numbers aren’t a personal attack on you – the methodology of some people in your company has been found to be lacking. Unless Ipsos-Reid has a mysterious database of Conservative supporters that nobody else has access to (you and I would both agree that this is ludicrous), Ipsos-Reid and other polling firms are contacting the same public. Why they would not get the same result is something you may want to look into, instead of making empty threats to bloggers who, despite what you may think, aren’t out to “get” you.

My point is, relax and carefully consider the facts before you comment on the blogs of others. Paul didn’t change his post because he believed what you were saying – he spoke to three or four lawyers and they said that changing the language would be the easiest way to appease you, even though he did nothing wrong. I actually know for a fact that one of his lawyers begged him to take it to the media, because nothing would be better than a story about a grown man, executive to a major polling firm, bullying a college student who crunched numbers and found his company’s polling to be inadequate, just because he can. It’s fear-mongering, John. Paul gratuitously changed his post, when he could have met your case and won, or taken you to the media and made a serious dent in your personal reputation.

And instead of attacking the evidence, be the better person and admit that there might, just might, be a problem, and look into it.”

Once again, I’m not saying I endorse Kim’s comment or not, and I certainly didn’t ask her to make it, but as a public service announcement, I felt it best to allow my readers to draw their own conclusions from it and to draw their attention to the lively (and still ongoing) debate over at Saskboy’s site.

Happy reading!

Two great cartoons from Class War Panda

I just came across a fantastic and fairly new blog called Class War Panda that’s definitely worth a look at for anybody who has even the slightest bit of a sense of humour.

Nick, the good comrade who runs the site, proves once again — if ever more proof was needed — that humour can disarm unlike any other weapon.

Here are a couple of selections from his work:





Crazy, stupid and just plain weird things people google search for

Regular readers of Paulitics may remember that a while back I held the first annual ‘Paulies” awards for outstanding humorousness, weirdness or stupidty in a blog comment.

Well, I’ve collected all of the outrageous google search terms that people have used to find my blog and all I can say is that there are some weird people out there.

So, another round of Paulies are in order, this time, for the categories of overwhelming weirdness and outstanding stupidity in a google search term.

Just as before, it should be noted that much like the Oscars, yes, the Paulies are also political (and rigged). And, also like he Oscars, the Academy for the Paulies (i.e., me) considers it an honour just to be nominated.

For the first category: overwhelming weirdness in a google search term, the nominees are:

Paul’s thoughts on religion

For a while, I was actually the #1 search result when people searched for this. Seriously. Me. Not St. Paul. Not Pope John Paul II. Paul from Paulitics. Just more proof blogs are fantastic institutions.

list of top canadian people

Sorry to disappoint, but if you searched for “top canadian people” and google brought you to me, then google really has to work on their algorithm.

what can paul do me us

I don’t know whether this person was searching for me or Ron Paul, but either way, I highly doubt that either of us will be “doing” either “you” or “us”

famously undesirable quality

Ouch. Google this and and you get me?


Okay, now this one I’m kinda proud of.

Somebody not understand how search engines on the internets work?

something to do for Paul

I don’t know, I could use a chauffeur to drive me places.

asian reporter

Seriously, I get at least 3 people finding my blog by searching for this every freakin’ day.

asian reporter trisha Takanawa

…Or this.

paul’s empire

DANCE minions, DANCE!

great Atheists

Again, I’m terribly sorry, you’ve searched for great atheists and found me.

what does communism say about children

It says we like children… FRIED!

What does astroglide smell like?


funny jesus one lines

Umm…. no!

reality sucks

Why would somebody google search this??


I’m certain that this person didn’t find what they’re looking for. Please, please, please oh god let this person not have found what they were looking for!

all about hitler

That sounds like a variety show.

Ron Paul or Death!


And the winner of the Paulie is…


“For my next miracle, I’m going to turn water into… FUNK!”

[cue music]

Now for the category you’ve all been waiting for…

In the second category: outstanding stupidity in a google search term, the nominees are:

how many legs do monkey have?

Are you kidding me?

ron paul personality

Sorry, he doesn’t have a personality to speak of.

When does sex start?

It starts shortly after you stop googling “when does sex start?”, and start meeting people!

is canada a capitalist or socialist country?

And they say the U.S. education system is deteriorating?

ron paul seems like a socialist

Well then.

But the hands down, uncontested winner of the Paulie is…

Why God doesn’t agree with socialism?

I’m truly speechless with this one. This person has clearly been told that “socialism makes baby Jesus cry” and so they decided that the place to go for the AUTHORITATIVE WORD OF GOD was a google search!

[cue music]


My girlfriend wants me to dedicate this post to her since she’s been telling me to do this for some time now.  So, I hope this was everything you had hoped it to be sweetie, happy anniversary!

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength

My god, Orwell was prophetic.

Here’s the latest capitalist Orwellian doublethink, this time via Saskboy.

“Get your vote out Ontario. Mixed Member Proportional is on the ballot today, so even if you don’t like any of the parties (which would bewilder me, since Green is an option ;-) you can still vote in the referendum for MMP. Who doesn’t want a more representative democracy? (Amusing answer: Fascists, Authoritarians, Dictators, Communists, Jason Cherniak, James WDIKGrit, Saskatchewan NDP, most Americans, and political hacks.) “

I understand that not everybody is going to be a communist or a Marxist.  Heck, I even appreciate that probably a significant portion of this blog’s readership don’t actively identify as either communist or Marxist.  But c’mon, let’s at least have an ounce of honesty here!

This is my response to Saskboy via his blog.

“Communists don’t want more democracy? Wow, that’s news to me! I was under the impression that we advocated radically expanding democracy both within the current spheres of politics, but also into economic spheres (i.e. to ensure democratic control of the economy as opposed to elite control).

Silly me, all this time I’ve actually been opposing democracy when I’ve been meaning to expand it.

I also thought that I voted FOR MMP less than 1 hour ago in the Ontario election, but I guess since you say that we’re opposed to it, then I must be wrong.

Oops, wrong again. The Communist Party’s candidates say they support MMP and encouraged others to vote for it.  see here

Also, if you’re interested, you can also see here, here and here ( for more proof that the Communist Party not only supports MMP, but actually supports a MORE vigorously proportional version of proportional representation.

But kudos to Saskboy for not letting those pesky and inconvenient “facts” get in the way of his red-baiting.

I guess that supporting MMP actually means opposing MMP.

I guess that supporting a radical expansion of democratic rights means opposing democracy.

And, I guess that War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

What should Paul do?

Help, I need my readers’ advice.

As my regular readers will know, I’ve been contemplating expanding Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations now for some time.

I’ve been wanting to develop an American Empire Encyclopedia — possibly as a wiki, but at the very least with a clickable map containing links to academic scholarship documenting the democratically-elected governments the U.S. has overthrown throughout history and the brutal dictatorships they’ve supported.

I’ve also been wanting to develop a home for far left bloggers to put their feeds all in one place and read what each other thinks.  I figure if libertarians, Liberals, Tories, and New Democrats each have one, there’s no reason why can’t we anarchists, Marxists and socialists have some sort of a website to promote each other’s blogs, get more readers, and find new far-left blogs that are interesting.

Now, unfortunately it looks like both of these things will require me to host my own blog and thus to move Paulitics away from wordress (but I’ll make sure to pay wordpress for a domain mapping service so that it redirects).

In order to afford the bandwidth and the hosting services and the domain mapping services, I will have to put some advertisements up on the new blog and that, I realize, is a sensitive issue for leftist bloggers.

My plan for the ads is that I would place the ads in a few select locations (not everywhere like most bloggers) and I was hoping to take from the revenue only the money needed to maintain the site, and then with 100% of the profits that remain, host a monthly or quarterly ‘election’ with Paulitics readers to decide which charity/leftist political party should receive the left-over money.

This way, I figure, not only would we be blogging and expressing important revolutionary opinions, but we would also be able to generate revenue for important charities and revolutionary causes.  These charities could be anything that was democratically elected by you, the readers, such as Amnesty International or homeless advocacy organizations or local charities such as women’s shelters or even political causes such as a particular candidate for the Communist Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party, Quebec Solidaire or the Socialist Caucus of the NDP.

So, given that this would be a big move, and one which would require the implementation of advertisements to pay for the newly-found overhead, I wanted to ask my readers what they thought and what their advice was.

I’ve created a poll for this topic and I’d appreciate it if you’d all go and vote to give me your opinions.  You can find it here:

Vote Now!

Top 100 Canadian political blogs

Here’s a sort of ‘top 100’ list for the Canadian political blogs which I compiled for fun (I know, I’m at work right now and I’m bored and I have a really distorted sense of ‘fun’). Actually, the idea wasn’t really mine, I stole the idea from a post that Greg from did back in 2006 and I decided to expand it to a top 100 list, take out the now defunct sites, and update the rest.

Just a few caveats to keep in mind when going over this list. First, about one third of all blogspot blogs that I entered into‘s traffic analysis generated no data. For some reason though, all other blog hosts such as wordpress (and all people who host their own blog) seemed to register just fine. So, if you don’t show up on the list, don’t take it personally, it’s possible that alexa just doesn’t have data on you. Second, I believe that the traffic ranking at Alexa is based on the past 4 months or so, so if you’ve been taking the summer off (as I believe Rick Mercer has) then your traffic rank will probably reflect that more than your normal traffic flow. Third, this isn’t an exhaustive list. What I’ve done is taken Greg’s list, deleted all the blogs which no longer exist, and then simply went down the list of blogs at Bound By Gravity, starting at the top, until I filled in enough empty slots to equal 100.

If I’ve left out some blogs that generate data on (and are, say, under the 7,000,000 mark) and you’d like them included in the list, feel free to comment below with the Alexa url of the blog traffic overview and I’ll add it as soon as I get a chance.


Canadian Political Blogger rank. Site name (& url) / site’s global Alexa ranking

  1. Paul Wells / 70,893
  2. Small Dead Animals /133,987
  3. Matthew Good /187,454
  4. Le Blogue du Québec / 210,363 (blogue francophone)
  5. The Politic / 274,126
  6. Progressive Bloggers / 283,480
  7. Steve Janke / 318,783
  8. Antonia Zerbisias / 324,154
  9. Garth Turner / 356,627
  10. Blogs Canada / 378,886
  11. Blogging Tories / 396,832
  12. Damian Penny / 455,529
  13. Vues d’ici / 460,543
  14. Vive le Canada / 461,727
  15. Amériquébec / 469,643 (blogue francophone)
  16. Emotion Creator / 484,553
  17. Andrew Coyne / 551,817
  18. Warren Kinsella / 593,125
  19. CalgaryGrit / 614,119
  20. Western Standard / 664,824
  21. Ken Chapman / 683,125
  22. Samantha Burns / 732,689
  23. Gen X at 40 / 735,226
  24. Werner Patels / 738,070
  25. Joseph Facal / 821,472 (blogue francophone)
  26. Montreal Simon / 840,565
  27. Stephen Taylor / 850,234
  28. Colby Cosh / 889,912
  29. Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations / 911,369
  30. Bound by Gravity / 912,488
  31. Dust my Broom / 939,419
  32. Abandoned Stuff / 949,762
  33. Scott’s DiaTribes / 954,036
  34. Canadian Cynic / 1,013,469
  35. David Akin / 1,070,642
  36. James Bow / 1,104,491
  37. Getting it Right / 1,113,156
  38. Girl on the Right / 1,166,381
  39. Red Tory / 1,175,715
  40. Far and Wide / 1,360,164
  41. Rick Mercer / 1,372,926
  42. April Reign / 1,387,411
  43. Prairie Wrangler / 1,440,822
  44. The Galloping Beaver / 1,455,318
  45. La Revue Gauche / 1,486,069
  46. Jordon Cooper / 1,518,839
  47. Canadian Cerberus / 1,553,403
  48. Buckdog / 1,591,003
  49. Big Blue Wave / 1,715,540
  50. Daveberta / 1,762,705
  51. The Blog Quebecois / 1,772,550
  52. / 1,870,127
  53. Jason Cherniak / 1,929,394
  54. Big City Lib / 1,960,969
  55. Larry Borsato / 2,065,636
  56. Section 15 / 2,065,958
  57. The Monarchist / 2,066,261
  58. The London Fog / 2,067,851
  59. Jay Currie / 2,190,102
  60. Stageleft / 2,238,667
  61. Green Bloggers (Canada) / 2,252,729
  62. / 2,391,081
  63. Quebec Politique / 2,575,012 (blogue francophone)
  64. Un homme en colère / 2,653,297 (blogue francophone)
  65. Urban Refugee / 2,661,034
  66. Accidental Deliberations / 2,717,441
  67. Devin / 2,718,187
  68. Idealistic Pragmatist / 2,725,501
  69. My Blahg / 2,800,670
  70. Uncorrected Proofs / 2,891,152
  71. Adam Daifallah / 3,018,846
  72. Political Staples / 3,222,345
  73. Marginalized Action Dinosaur / 3,302,191
  74. Rootleweb / 3,327,246
  75. Dr. Roy’s Thoughts / 3,622,245
  76. The Vanity Press / 3,622,958
  77. Crawl Across the Ocean / 3,625,835
  78. JimBobbySez / 3,632,287
  79. Bill Doskoch / 3,637,532
  80. Verbena-19 / 3,672,713
  81. The Spirit of Man / 3,787,343
  82. Cathie from Canada / 3,789,273
  83. Peace, Order and Good Government, eh? / 3,794,370
  84. Odd Thoughts / 3,796,069
  85. Canadiana’s Place / 4,020,291
  86. Unrepentant Old Hippie / 4,284,573
  87. A BCer in TO / 4,802,829
  88. Dawg’s Blawg / 4,817,302
  89. Red Jenny / 4,838,538
  90. East-End Underground / 4,874,982
  91. The Cylinder / 5,185,136
  92. Maxwell’s House / 5,533,134
  93. WingNuterer / 5,563,968
  94. Woman at Mile 0 / 5,610,425
  95. Begin Each Day… / 5,623,330
  96. HarperBizarro / 5,626,895
  97. Liberal Catnip / 5,776,892
  98. Antagoniste / 5,797,151 (blogue francophone)
  99. Blogging Dippers / 6,135,616
  100. Fuddle-Duddle / 6,238,129


home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.


Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 863,959 hits since 20 November, 2006