Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Kevin Potvin Takes Potshots at Vancouver Sun, Province, CKNW as his 15 minutes end

The Green Party's now ex-candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway is not going gently into that good post-electoral night.

Kevin Potvin sewered his candidacy when a bizarre column he wrote following the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon was unearthed by my 24 hours/Public Eye Online colleague Sean Holman. Potvin also espoused his view that the "official conspiracy" version of the Al-Qaeda attacks was not believable.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May eventually vetoed Potvin's candidacy - leading the publisher of the Republic of East Vancouver to attack his former leader. In a somewhat milder version of "You can't handle the truth" a la Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, Potvin said the Greens were not ready to challenge conventional authority, etc.

Now Potvin is taking potshots at his many media critics, in particular the Vancouver Sun, The Province, the National Post and CKNW radio.

In a diatribe posted on the Republic website, Potvin breaks reporters' confidences in a rather sad effort to seek revenge.

The crusading Potvin brutally outs one reporter who told him - off the record - that an editor had made an error resulting in a quote being wrongly attributed to Potvin. Potvin, rather than appreciating that reporter's candour, instead decides to expose him - for being honest with Potvin.

"Oops, was that unprofessional of me?" Potvin states next.

Yes, actually Kevin, it was, not to mention twisted.

Potvin continues to right his wrongs by attacking others for setting him up for the fall, never once discussing whether maybe, just maybe, he might be the author of his own misfortune.

But here's what Potvin said in his own words on his website about his "Revolting Confession" article:

My essay revealed that inside me was a voice that said "Yeah!" when I saw the tower hit, and "beautiful!" when I saw it fall to the ground. In the context of the essay, the definition of "beauty" was that the attack had been a perfect example of a symbolic spectacle. More than half the essay was devoted to the awful deaths of that day and in other massive tragedies, and re-reading it then, I could well recall the anguish I felt at writing what I had.

Sorry Kevin, but you invited a lot of media scrutiny when you asked voters to elect you to the House of Commons. And the Green Party asked for trouble when they didn't bother to screen your candidacy properly before acclaiming you as the candidate.

I honestly do not wish you ill, nor do I imagine that being the instant epicentre for a media frenzy is a good place to be.

But taking ill-considered shots at all involved won't make it feel better.

16 comments:

Ian King said...

Had a look at this diatribe and I was trying to figure out who this 'Bruce Hutchinson' of the National Post is. Could be the late Bruce Hutchison, or to NP Western columnist Brian Hutchinson -- but for all his lambasting of journos, the least Potvin could do is get basic facts straight.

A. G. Tsakumis said...

Bill,

And then there were three.....

After his insane ramble about being excited that the towers fell, after an anemic mea culpa..now a new piece almost as crazy as the first! You have to hand it to old Kev, he really knows how to raise being a moron from a science to an art.

The fact that he has trashed media members is no surprise. He had no credibility as either a member of the media or pundit. Wonder where the Courier is in all of this? All they've had that's good for some time is Garr, who leaves the rest of them looking like sock-puppets for one whackjob cause over another. In the fall of 2006, Potvin even tried to tie the wards issue to Afghanistan and Iraq. Whackjob causes and theories, doesn't even begin to cover it.

Think about this: regardless of Potvin's disdain of corporatism or militarism, colloquialisms, which, at best, do nothing to further engaged or useful dialouge at it's base level, when he celebrated the fall of the towers on 9/11, it didn't occur to him that three thousand innocents died? That thousands of children would be orphaned? No zeal or feeling, passing even, to state what an utter shame this was? Tragic.

Think about it: he was more interested in passing comment on the "beauty" of the attack, than feeling one scintilla of sadness for the loss of life, for those who died and those who's lives would be as good as dead. What does this tell us about what type of demented individual we're dealing with in Potvin? Everything. Free speech is one thing, but celebrating the death of those innocents, is a kin to leaping for joy over the barbarism at Auschwitz. Did they deserve it too Kev? At points like these, free speech becomes hatred and bigotry. What else would you bloody well refer to it as? He weeps for the poor Iraqi kids armed with AK-47 and taught to use non-Muslims as target practice, but feels nothing for the kids orphaned by Satan's surrogate, UBL.

Bigotry, that's precisely what you call it.

Typical of the loons on the far left: damn wars and violence, with what? Why with war and violence of course. It's the same for the crackpots on the far right who want abortion docs shot. Don't "kill" babies because life is precious, oh but kill an abortion doc, cause I guess he's protozoan, and, by virtue, insignificant.

Sounding like an al-Qaeda sympathizer, with fist firmly hoisted in air, did Potvin in. It was, as you astutuely point out Bill, a self-inflicted wound. He will forever have as much credibility writing about political issues, as Rachel Marsden has making mindless social commentary on FOX, including nuggets on harassment.

Potvin's attack, particularly on Michael Smyth, is as pathetic as anything I've ever read. Mike is a well-respected guy and it only sinks Potvin further to do this.

At the end of the proverbial day, Potvin talks about suing for libel and foaming at the mouth about how he was treated.

Say a surviving child of one of those parents lost on 9/11 is trolling the internet and comes across Potvin's delusional thoughts. Potvin talks about what a better place the world would be if we all were kinder and gentler to one another. Well, that has to begin one at a time. Are there exceptions to his rules that only he can claim?

Kevin Potvin is a very sick fellow, who isn't worth any of the attention he's getting. Let's forget about him and move on. His internet rag is only for those whose brains suffer from one bong hit too many. It would make sense only to them.

When I read Potvin's original rant about his feelings and realized his candidacy would soon be over, I thought "yeah", and when I watched in glee as Potvin's career crumbled to the ground, I pumped my fist in the air and thought, "BEAUTIFUL".

I can't stand bullshitism and fanaticism, you see.....

Anonymous said...

tsakumis tells us the fellow Potvin isnt't worthy of attention and then writes a long item about the fellow. But just couldn'r resist linking the guy to the left of center folks. So why rattle on? dl

Anonymous said...

Bill, Potvin's article may be over the top but he's on the mark about Smyth (and I'm not talking about sharing a joint)

Smyth has given some of the worst interviews I've ever heard. He's condescending and smug and has an annoying habit of cutting off or speaking over any guest he disagrees with. Smyth only wanted Potvin on to belittle him further.

Unprofessional of Potvin? Sure, but it was a guilty pleasure to finally read some muck on our so-called muck rackers.

A. G. Tsakumis said...

OK dl...criticism accepted...

I can link Potvin to Dubya as well...

If it's true that, as the socks and sandals set claim, Dubya, Skull and Crossbones, The Carlyle Group, all conspired to drop the towers...

Then I guess Potvin was cheering on the President.....

Better now dl?

What else would you connect to such a looney? The far left, that's what. And he makes no bones about it. Think a nutter like Anne Roberts would write for a balanced internet source? Of course not.

I wrote a long comment because none of the questions I asked were asked by any media or answered by Potvin and his al-Qaeda action loving friends. Mind, you didn't bother to answer either, cause you can't.

Enjoy the windmills dl, don't tilt too far...

And the attacks on Smyth, by the way, are comical. The guy calls it the way it is.

Anonymous said...

http://www.vancourier.com/issues07/043107/opinion/043107op2.html

He blames the NDP for leaking the article.

Anonymous said...

"And the attacks on Smyth, by the way, are comical. The guy calls it the way it is."

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, is it Tsakumis?

I wasn't opining on whether Smyth calls it the way it is. His interview style sucks, he talks over guests he doesn't agree with and falls back on cheap inflammatory language... he's a bore.

Now Palmer, he gives good interview...

Anonymous said...

Methinks tsakumis has a thin skin, sure likes to dish it out and seems to like to insult folks who wonder why his long rambling disertations. I don't tilt at windmills but sure like to notice windbags when I see one writing in this blog. dl

Budd Campbell said...

So we are all agreed that Kevin Potvin is a flake, are we? Good.

I hope this episode helps to remind Vancouverites that there are limits to what the rest of Canada will put up with in terms of West Coast political eccentricities.

But rest assured that if Potvin runs again municipally in 2008 there will be some who will insist on taking him at least somewhat seriously, and will excoriate anyone who mentions this episode for persecuting this environmentally sensitive cyclist. And it won't be just a few fringe characters hanging out in bars and cafes, either.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am quite sure that Charlie Smith and the Georgia Straight endorsed Potvin for Vancouver City Council in 2005 and did so because Potvin was a sworn opponent of Port Mann and Gateway.

That's really what I mean by West Coast political eccentricity, extreme devotion to extreme policy positions even by those who are normally thought to be in positions requiring a more balanced and responsible approach.

Dan Reid said...

whatever dl. you sound as much a flake as the wierdo you are defending. Tsakumis is not a member of our party but he gets respect because he does not hesitate to call bullshit even if it means offending his own. you have a case of envy and that's about all. i will never be a tory like tsakumis and he will never be an ndp like me but he has earned my respect for the positions he takes.

Anonymous said...

I never indicated much of anyhting about the fellow Potvin. I simply noted that a poster told us the fellow was not much and then went to great lenghts to talk about him. I could care less what party anyone is supporting. I do care about being told i'm tilting at windmills or an a flake as the fellow Reid states. The more I read on this story the more I wonder just who is shilling for whom? I most certainly am not nor ever been a tory as I'm much farther left than that.as ofr envy" whydon't you grow up a bit. why would one be envious of someone who prefesses to be a expert on so many things. You say you respect him, well good for you dl

Anonymous said...

I didn't see the Sun article, which seems to have been deleted from the Canada.com site, but the impression I get is that a comment was fabricated and attributed to Potvin, and the Sun's "professional courtesy" was to blame it on an anonymous underling instead of acknowledging that it was an error. A convenient technical alibi that allows mudslinging to have it's intended effect. This sounds more like whistleblowing than the insane ramblings of a lunatic. The more I read about this issue, the more convinced I am that the problem with the traditional media in this country isn't so much all that stuff Noam Chomsky goes on about as it is the lying and deliberate misrepresentations by journalists. But as long as it discredits the Greens, those flaky, vote-splitters. Isn't that the point you're trying to make here Bill? And Ian King, the version I saw said "Brian Hutchinson" not "Bruce Hutchison," which means either you got the facts wrong, or a mistake was made and corrected, which apparently deviates from the accepted practice in journalist cliques these days.

Patrick Ross said...

Come on, everyone. We're supposed to feel SORRY for Kevin Potvin.

He's a victim, you see.

http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2007/05/kevin-potvin-victim-of-censorship.html

Patrick Ross said...

Well, "anonymous" he actually sent this to his internet server originally idenifying mr Hutchinson as "Bruce", rather than "Brian".

The fact remains pretty simple, despite the attempts of all the world's Kevin Potvin apolpogists to cloud the matter:

Potvin said everything that was attributed to him. He's also said things that were even more ridiculous.

Cry about it all you want, but Kevin Potvin is NOT a victim. He doesn't even qualify as a proper martyr. All he is is a deluded, self-indulgent hack who managed to make himself enough money (as a capitalist) to start up a little newspaper, and suddenly he's supposed to be a capitalism-fighting journalist.

It would be funny if there weren't so many people being sucked into his delusions of grandeur.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Potvin did not cheer 9/11-- he FAKED cheering 9/11. His original response to 9/11 was "I am simply mute"-- written on Sept. 14, 2001. His famous article cheering 9/11 was published more than a year after 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to the actual forum post by Kevin Potvin on Sept. 14, 2001-- predating his 9/11 cheer article by more than a year.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/153202/message/1000533089/My+editorial+for+the+next+issue+of+my+paper

Here are two of Kevin Potvin's original forum posts on Sept. 11 where he says it could NOT have been Bin Laden. (This makes a lie of Kevin's later claim that he imagined himself saying "go Osama go".

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153202/message/1000273517/It+can%27t+have+been+O+B+L

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153202/message/1000274063/Untitled