That Time That I Got on the Wrong Side of the Right

This is Ezra Levant.

He looks like such a nice guy, doesn't he? Kind of like your friendly neighbourhood accountant. But instead, he's more like Canada's version of Ann Coulter, only less accurate and less likeable.

He's been a lawyer, a lobbyist, and a political candidate, but he's best known for his work for Sun Media, until their Faux News-wannabe station folded and they dumped his columns. Now he is the emperor of his own internet media domain, so he can spout out as many misrepresentations, out of context quotes, and outright lies as he wants to.

I don't follow him. I don't search him out. Almost every word that comes out of his mouth does nothing but enrage me. But I have some rather masochistic tendencies at times, and so once in a while when Facebook decides to taunt me by "suggesting" that I check out one of his posts I do get sucked in.

And of course, since the election was announced, and now that the Liberals have won, he's been especially petulant. He's especially gleeful since the announcement came that the Trudeau family will not move into 24 Sussex Drive, but instead will allow the renovations that The National Capital Commission says need to be done desperately and that Stephen Harper would not allow while he was in residence.

He's even claiming that the renovations will cost not the $10 million originally quoted by the NCC (which everyone agrees has increased since 2008 when the estimate was made) but $150 million dollars.

Um, what? (Note: there have, in fact, been several proposals put before the governement by the NCC, one of which included razing 24 Sussex and replacing it with a new, working residence like the White House. However, this was only ONE of the proposals put forward, and highly unlikely, IMO.)

And don't get me started on his campaign to get Calgary International Airport renamed in honour of Stephen Harper. Honestly, I could care less about the name of an airport, I just find the whole thing rather amusing.

But the truth is, I find him, and his band of Con-bots terribly frustrating. And I vented on Twitter. Probably not the smartest move, but hey - freedom of speech, right???

Then that last tweet caught his attention (despite that fact that he wasn't actually tagged in it.) He then decided to use me as an example, and retweeted it, with a comment.

Now, I'm a big girl, and I can take that. Would probably have gone to bed with a smirk on my face, thinking of all of the irony of that statement. Except here's the thing: Ezra Levant knew EXACTLY what he was doing with that tweet. It was like a Bat Signal to his 33,000 or so Con-bots to go on the attack, and they took up the task with all of the vigour of a Conservative making cuts to social services on Christmas morning.

Most of them simply accused me of not understanding freedom of speech (oh, the irony...)

Many honestly thought I wanted to go to Petsmart, buy a dog muzzle and put it on him (note to these people: you might want to look up the word "hyperbole.")

But a good portion of them went on a personal attack. I was accused of being a bad mother. I was accused of being stupid. Someone even thought it was insult to call me a single mother (which I'm not, but I think this was the most offensive of all, simply for the fact that they did think it was an insult.) And some people actually took the time to go through at least a year's worth of my tweets, looking for things to use to insult me. Because my taste in music totally has anything to do with my opinions of Ezra Levant. To these people, all I can really say is, GET A LIFE.

For the most part, I simply blocked them. In a few instances, I couldn't help from responding, but I'm sure that eventually those people will get blocked too. Because it's not that I don't prefer to debate, Ezra. I just simply can't have a battle of wits with opponents who are unarmed. So go ahead, gloat in your victory because the Socialist Leftie didn't fight back. With the Liberals in power I understand that you need to take your victories where you can get them.

Let Us Eat Cake

Are We Headed for Another French Revolution?

I'm a big reader (in case you haven't guessed by my other site) and although I read a lot of different genres, I love historical fiction. Being the inquisitive mind that I am, what tends to happen is that I obsessively read fiction about a certain era, and then I start researching, because I want to know the truth, or just MORE.

A year or so ago, it was the Tudor era. Lately, it's been the French Revolution.

The more I read, and the more I research, the more it scares me.

A really quick, non-historian rundown of the French Revolution:

• Louis XVI (the 16th, for those with Roman numeral issues...) came to power in 1774. He was married to Marie Antoinette, of Austria, and together they had 4 children, two of whom died in early childhood.
• By the end of the 1780s, France was going through a very bad economic time, partly due to its participation in The Seven Years' War, and the American Revolutionary War.
• However, while the common people were struggling to survive, the aristocracy was living as if nothing had happened. Tales of royal excess were legendary, often focused -unfairly or not - on the Queen (we've all heard the "Let them eat cake" story, right?)
• VERY long story short, the people - lead by some lesser nobles (whose motives are more than likely questionable) - decided that they wouldn't take any more, and rebelled. After months of rebellion, The Palace of Versailles was attacked, and the Royal Family forced into a house arrest-type situation at a palace in Paris. They made a rather pathetic attempt to escape France, at which point they were locked down even further. As different factions fought for power in the new republic, the King and Queen - despite being stripped of any power - were considered a threat and were eventually executed. 
• As the rival factions continued their feuds, the "Reign of Terror" began and tens of thousands of people - both nobles and commoners - were executed, mostly by the newfangled guillotine. The unheaval led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and went on for decades. 
• The "rebellion" depicted in Les Miserables actually took place in June, 1832 - nearly 40 years after the executions of Louis XVI and his Queen. During those years, as I mentioned, Napoleon was in charge for 11 years (1804-1815), and the monarchy came and went several times, ending for good in 1848. This all just goes to show that there were DECADES of upheaval before France's current political system was finally settled.
  

So, what's the point of all of this? Why does it scare me? Because the more I read about the French Revolution, the more it starts to sound eerily familiar.

No, we don't have a real monarchy anymore - not in the way that the French did - but instead of the "First Estate" we have "The 1%" (who, incidentally, pay almost no tax in many cases - similar to how the nobility in pre-revolutionary France paid no tax, while the commoners were highly taxed.) Instead of lesser nobles claiming to have the best interests of the people at heart, we have celebrities advocating not voting as a means of rebellion. Instead of the satirical pamphlets handed out on street corners, we have bloggers who can (although not all do) write whatever they want - whether it's true or not with no repercussions (and yes, I see the irony in this statement). Corporations continue to make higher and higher profits, while their workers struggle to figure out how to pay rent and buy food at the same time.

Think that I'm blowing the similarities out of proportion? In just a few hours yesterday, these two news stories appeared in my social media feeds (the Russell Brand video I linked to above has also been posted all over everywhere recently):

• McDonald's Tells Worker She Should Sign Up for Food Stamps
• Palaces-in-the-Making

Every day, there is more and more unrest. Every day there is more division between the "Royalists" (the conservatives) and the "Constitutionalists" (the liberals.) More and more people are wondering aloud how it is fair for the gap between wealthy and poor to keep getting wider. Median income - when adjusted for inflation - is actually LOWER than it was a decade ago. The government in Canada - oh, sorry, The Harper Government - claims that the number of people on Employment Insurance is going down, but they neglect to mention the number of people whose Employment Insurance runs out before they find work, or those forced to take part-time and/or low-wage work. In the US, people are forced out of their homes because of predatory lending practices, and people go bankrupt just trying to pay for life-saving medical treatment for themselves or their families. Meanwhile some CEOs are making 1000x the pay of their average employee.

No matter which "side" you're on, you have to admit that our society is broken. And people are getting angry. What frightens me is to think of the violence that can come of a large group of angry people. In the Women's March on Versailles (the event that led to the Royal Family fleeing their home) there were an estimated 6,000-10,000 people who attacked the palace, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Really, when you think about it, there have been VERY few major societal revolutions that didn't involve violence.

So what does that mean for us? The "Occupy" movement was essentially a peaceful protest. Will people continue to utilize peaceful resistance, or are we looking at a future of angry violence? It seems that those in power have no interest in changing the status quo: corporations are intent on continuing their pursuit of profit for the few at the expense of the many; housing prices are becoming completely unsustainable; there is little in the way of job stability for anyone; people are now considered a disposable commodity (AKA "collateral damage".)

What continues to amaze and sadden me is how the economic issues plaguing us are causing those of us in "the 99%" to turn on each other. We say that younger generations have a sense of entitlement, and no work ethic; we say that the Baby Boomers refuse to give up power and revel in the failures of their own children. We blame everyone but those who are truly to blame.

Before you ask, at this point, no, I don't have a solution. Most of what needs to be done will never happen voluntarily under the current "nobility." They - or maybe we - have succeeded in creating such a gap between our factions that instead of working together, we just create barriers to prevent any real progress. I'm just trying to point out what I'm seeing, and where I'm afraid we're heading, and hoping that someone will be able to come up with a solution before it's too late.

Newtown: How can this not be the time?

I've been told in the past that, as a Canadian, I shouldn't have any opinion on American politics. However, anyone who knows me knows that it's not like me to keep my opinions to myself, and I'm not about to start now. Not now.

I heard about the shooting earlier in the day, but it didn't really register with me at first. I was at work, trying to get ready for an office Christmas party, of all things. After lunch, I left the office briefly to run a couple of errands. It was then that I saw a television news report, and realized the magnitude of what had transpired in Newtown, Connecticut.

Later that afternoon, on Twitter, almost all of the posts related to the shootings. They came in three varieties: shock and horror, dismay at brands who were continuing self-promotion at a time when people were only interested in grieving, and people saying, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control."

If not now, when?

Memories fade quickly. Right now, we are all grieving, but as our lives return to "normal", and we go back to our Christmas preparations, what about the parents who will have presents remaining unopened? After the Colorado theatre shootings it was also "too soon" to talk about gun laws, and the conversation never happened. How many more people have to die before it's the right time?

"But the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms!" you say.

As a friend of mine so eloquently put it earlier: "Fuck the Second Amendment." My right to send my children to school and have them come home safely trumps your right to own a semi-automatic.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

This is my all-time favourite gun argument. Especially when they couple it with "Guns kill people like spoons made (insert name of obese celebrity here) fat." You know what I say to that? Spoons serve a purpose other than as an instrument of death. Give me one purpose of a gun other than to kill - just one - and I will give up my argument against gun control.

Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of "Gun Owners of America", had this to say:

Gun control advocates have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to ensure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.

So there you have it: the answer to gun crime is more guns. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Heck, if EVERYONE had a gun - even little children - no one would ever shoot anyone! Maybe gun training should come right after potty training?

This Christmas, 26 families and their friends, will be in mourning. So many other children have had their innocence taken away far too young. How can this possibly not be the time to talk about gun control?

Election Rant #2: Mid-Afternoon Phone Call

This afternoon I received a phone call that has me... somewhat concerned. It was to do with the election, which is not surprising, given that there is only a week to go.

A very YOUNG girl called here asking if Colin Carrie (our local Conservative candidate) could count on my vote. At the time, because she'd woken me up from a nap and I was worried that she was going to wake up my toddler, I just told her flatly no, that I didn't vote Conservative.

Now that I've had time to think about it though, several thoughts occur to me about this phone call.

A) The call came directly to me, by name (not my husband, and not "Mrs. Hill" which I often get); Dr. Carrie, just because I wrote to you about the potential Quebec violations of the Canada Health Act does NOT make me your supporter. PLEASE take me off your lists! I've already unsubscribed from your preening "Look what I can do!" newsletter.

B) I'm kind of concerned that a girl that young is supporting him. I know some people just SOUND young, but I would be incredibly shocked if this girl was old enough to vote. Is she doing volunteer hours for high school? Does she have ANY idea of the Conservatives' anti-women policies? Is she just there because her parents are going to vote for him?

C) No, no he cannot count on my vote. In fact, I'd suggest exactly the opposite. Oh, wait... I already mentioned that.

Election Rant #1: The Outsider

It suddenly occurred to me this morning, as I was ranting to my husband about an election issue, that I hadn't used this blog in a LONG time, and, coincidentally, that this blog was originally intended for, among other things, my political rants. Hmmm...

So here's the rant of the day:

I am a Liberal. Not an official member of the Liberal Party of Canada, although I am now seriously considering it, just so that I can yell at whomever came up with this hairbrained idea. But I live in an area that is very much NOT Liberal. The last several elections have had a Conservative win the riding. You would think, given the GM plant, that it would be an NDP area, but I haven't seen much of that. However, back in the days of the Chretien government, my riding was Liberal. It seems that it's kind of a "go with the majority" kind of area.

The last several elections, both provincial and federal, the Liberal Party has run the same candidate, over and over and OVER again. Said candidate, Louise Parks, was a councilwoman on the City Council for many years, until she lost the mayoral election this past year. Said candidate is also a very polarizing figure: you either love her or hate her. I've tended towards the latter, and I believe that the majority of the city feels the same way. Something about her just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it's just the feeling that, rather than working for the electorate, she's working for her own political ambitions. Realistically (and somewhat cynically) I think most politicians may be that way, but most of them hide it a little better.

Anyway, the Liberals have dumped Louise Parks this time. Originally, when I saw a lawn sign showing another name, James Morton, I rejoiced in that they had listened to my rants (although, since I never expressed my dismay to the local party leaders, I wonder if they've been bugging my house or something...)

But then I saw our local paper, listing the candidates and their backgrounds, and I knew that the Liberals haven't got a snowball's chance in the eternal fires of winning this riding. The Liberal Party, Oshawa riding, have decided that rather than finding a local candidate, they should put forward a Toronto lawyer who lives in Thornhill, but has "signed a lease" in Oshawa. In other words, they think they've brought in a ringer.

Pardon my language, but WHAT THE FUCK?

They honestly don't believe that there is a single qualified person anywhere in the city of Oshawa who could put up a fight for this Parliamentary seat? I believe that Whitby tried this in the last election, and it failed miserably. Oshawa people, if they actually read the news, will NOT be happy about a person who knows NOTHING about Oshawa being brought in to potentially represent their interests. Oshawa is a totally different kind of city - truthfully, it's one of the things that I like about it. Despite being a part of the GTA, it isn't Pickering, or Ajax, or Whitby, and it sure as Hell isn't Thornhill.

I will say that I'm sure he's perfectly qualified to be an MP. Reading about him on the website I'm not totally unimpressed, I'm just frustrated to be backing another sure loss. 

Nice going, Liberals.

Why Do I Care?

I haven't lived within the boundaries of Metro Toronto since 1998. The last Toronto election I voted in was also the FIRST Metro Toronto election after the "megacity" was created. Since then our family has moved around, but for the most part we've been within the boundaries of the Greater Toronto Area (some "greater" than others).

So you might wonder why I care about who was elected Mayor of Toronto. Here are a few reasons:

1. I may not live there anymore, but I really do love Toronto. I love wandering around downtown. I love Queen West and the Beaches (wait, the Beach?). I love the entertainment district and all of the mega-musicals put on by Mirvish Productions and Dancap, among others. I love the smaller theatres like Passe Muraille, the Factory, Soulpepper and CanStage. I love the fact that I can walk all over downtown Toronto in the middle of winter without a coat using the PATH system. I love watching baseball games at SkyDome (I will never admit that it's no longer called SkyDome, so don't even try to make me.) I love the Toronto Islands. Most of all, I love the people - well, most of them, anyway. So I don't want to see a loudmouth politician screw up "my" city. I also don't want any Lastman-sized international embarrassments (African cannibals, anyone? How does that compare to wanting someone's wife to be go over to Iran and be raped? Hmmm...)
2. The truth is, what happens in Toronto affects the whole province to a certain extent, most notably the 905 area (for those not familiar with Toronto, this is a horseshoe-shaped area outside of Toronto thus called because of their "905" area codes.) If not a majority, then a lot of 905-ers are commuters. We may start our mornings in Oshawa, Pickering or Mississauga, but we spend our days firmly in the 416. Gridlock and public transit are issues that don't just affect Toronto residents. 
3. Again, because so many 905-ers work in Toronto, if you mess up the economy of Toronto, you mess up the economy of a much wider area. Even if you don't take into account the commuters, products and services are regularly traded amongst the cities of south-central Ontario. The economy of the country's largest city has a ripple effect across the whole area, at minimum.
4. I was talking to someone last night who works in social services in Toronto. The look on his face when told Rob Ford was elected said it all. Outside of the Great Depression, this may be the worst thing to ever happen to the poor, under-privileged, and mentally and physically-challenged people in Toronto's history.
5. Why is it that the right wing is so against funding for arts organizations? My guess is that most of them can't read a book or have the attention span to sit through a play, but that's just my (somewhat biased) opinion. Arts organizations in Toronto are surely quaking today. Hopefully many of them have been making plans based on this possibility, because they can be sure sure to lose most, if not all, of their funding if Ford gets his way. It amazes me how people think this is such a huge waste of their tax dollars. Do you know how much Toronto currently spends per capita on the arts? THIRTEEN DOLLARS. Yes, that's right: $13 of your hard-earned money goes to support the arts. How much do you spend on coffee in a week? Or on take-out meals? Or anything else. You can't afford $13 per year to support thousands of artists and workers in arts organizations that bring in millions of dollars to Toronto's economy not only through ticket sales, but through hotels and restaurants as well? An article in the Star says that Pantalone and Smitherman both hoped to raise that spending to $25 per year. San Francisco, to compare one city to another, spends $86 per year on the arts. Yet Toronto, for example, is the third-largest centre for English-speaking theatre in world, behind only New York City and London.
6. Toronto will host World Pride Day in 2014, just a few months before the next mayoral election. Can anyone picture Rob Ford riding on a float in the Pride parade? Me neither. With the cuts that he surely wants to make to their funding, the entire experience will likely be embarrassing. However, I have faith in the Pride Week organizers, and I'm sure they'll find a way to get around the whole "bigoted mayor" thing.

I am not completely terrified of Rob Ford as mayor - just yet. I admittedly do not know much about those who have been elected as councillors, and so I don't know how much of his mandate he will really be able to pass. It could be - as many have speculated - that we'll have gridlock until the next election. Not that four years of a stalemate is a good thing, either, as we've seen in our years of minority federal governments, but at least it may mitigate the damage Ford will likely do. With any sort of luck, we can all just look back on the Rob Ford experience in four years as an amusing anecdote, and let the grownups go back to running the city.

Stephen Harper Can Bite Me

Okay, not my most eloquent title, but in this case, fitting.

Harper is making Canada a laughingstock amongst the G8 right now. We are the ONLY country that is putting a caveat on what our money can be used for in terms of maternal health in the Third World. Now he's actually got the gall to say that the majority of Canadians don't support allowing abortion funding.

Bite me. Abortion is legal in this country. Abortion is federally funded. Women in this country have access to safe, legal abortions. What gives us the right to deny women in situations that are MUCH worse the same right? The fact is that in most of these countries, pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. If a woman even survives a pregnancy, there may not be enough food to support another mouth in the family. Rape is a common occurrence in many of these places.

Do you know what is considered an abortion in sub-Saharan Africa? Try drinking turpentine or bleach. Impaling themselves. Jumping off roofs.

A woman desperate not to continue a pregnancy will do anything to achieve this goal. It's just pathetic that Harper is crowing about saving women's lives while he's allowing so many to remain at risk. Bev Oda should be ashamed of herself. I'm just disgusted.

ARGH!

This is probably why as much as I'd like to, I'll never get into politics.

Yesterday on Climbing Up the Slide I wrote about the new changes to the sex ed curriculum in Ontario. If you didn't read the article, I'm fully in support of them.

What I'm not in support of is wishy-washy politicians who fold at the first sign of protest. A few hours after I wrote my post Dalton McGuinty decided that there hadn't been enough consultation with parents, and that apparently the Catholic bishops hadn't been consulted, and so the changes are "on hold."

You believe in something enough to publicly announce it, then stick to your damned guns! Yes, you may run the risk of alienating some voters, but face it: the ones you're going to alienate wouldn't have voted for you anyway.

I know I'm obnoxiously opinionated. Heck, that's the whole point of this blog. One thing about me is that I'm not easily swayed from my opinions. Not to the point that I won't even consider the other side, but I'm not going to change just because someone tells me (even repeatedly) that I'm wrong. Maybe I wouldn't make a good politician just for that very reason, but then again, maybe I'd make a damned good one.

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on Quebec...

...but seriously? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-muslim-woman-ordered-to-unveil-or-leave-french-course/article1530874/

I can understand that in government security situations, your face needs to be seen. If you're presenting your photo ID, the person looking kind of needs to be able to see your face. It's pretty simple that way.

And I'm not a big proponent of veiling women. In fact, I'm generally pretty outspoken about it, however, the fact remains that this is a free country, and if she chooses to wear a veil, well, that's her choice. If she feels that forcing her to remove it is embarrassing to her modesty, then what's the harm? This was an immigrant integration course - the whole point is to help these people integrate into Quebec society. Easing them into it, not throwing them to the wolves. Not handing them a French-English dictionary and a bowl of poutine and putting them down in the middle of Old Quebec City.

What security risk was this woman posing by wearing her veil in class? The teacher didn't object. Her classmates didn't object. Where is the logic in this?

Quebec Adds User Pay Charge for Health Care

I am furious.

The Canada Health Act says:

User charges
19. (1) In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, user charges must not be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province. 

Apparently Quebec didn't read that part of the act. In that province's latest budget they introduced a $25 user fee for each doctor's appointment. Are you freaking kidding me? This terrifies me. It's one of the things that I hated about living in the US. $25 might not sound like a lot to some people, but to someone living below the poverty line it might be the difference between going to the doctor or having food for a week. Even for some middle class families it's more than they can manage. Think about my family: I have four kids. If all of the members of my family were sick at the same time, including my husband and I, that's $150 to go to the doctor! And to possibly be told "It's just a virus. Drink lots of fluids and get some sleep."

I will say that having lived with co-pays in the States I do think twice before running to the doctor, but I don't like it, truthfully. My son was showing signs of an ear infection. Since the thinking now is that most ear infections are viral, I decided to wait it out. His eardrum ruptured.

The Canada Health Act is one of the most fundamental parts of this country. It's one of those things that we trumpet as making us better than *ahem* other countries without universal health care. The fact that NO ONE at the federal level has said anything about Quebec's decision is troubling. Not even the NDP! Seriously??? Jack Layton, who is currently undergoing cancer therapy using Canada's universal health care system and paying NOTHING, thinks it's okay to start down this slippery slope?

I realize that the healthcare system is hurting. I'm not naive. There are changes that need to be made. This is NOT one of them. There will be those who can't afford to go to the doctor for troubling symptoms. They will wait until they simply cannot wait anymore. Isn't this going to cost more in the long run? I know a woman in the US who had ovarian cancer. She is supposed to follow up every six months. She never has, because she can't afford the cost of the ultrasound. Is this the route we want to take?

Acts of Cowardice, Ignorance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/house/2010-03-24-threats_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating acts of vandalism and a death threat aimed at Democrats who voted for the health care legislation.

A freshman Democrat from Virginia reported that a gas line had been severed at his brother's home, and two congresswomen — one in New York and another in Arizona — said windows at their district offices were smashed.

"A significant number, meaning more than 10" members received threats, said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and officials from the FBI and U.S. Capitol Police talked with House Democrats Wednesday about how to protect themselves. Hoyer and other Democrats said the incidents may have been the work of angry opponents of the health care legislation, which President Obama signed Tuesday.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who on Wednesday disclosed two "alarming" incidents that occurred last week, blamed Republican leadership for "fanning the flames."

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio condemned such misconduct. "Violence and threats are unacceptable," Boehner said Wednesday on Fox News. "Yes, I know there is anger, but let's take that anger, and go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign."

The FBI is "seeking to identify those responsible" for threats against members of Congress, spokeswoman Katherine Schweit said Wednesday. She did not know how many threats had been made.

"Anybody who has information, we want them to contact us," Schweit said.

Slaughter, who had a prominent role in passing the historic legislation as chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said a window in a district office was shattered by a brick and a voicemail "referencing snipers" was left on a campaign office phone. She said the FBI, Capitol Police and local authorities are investigating.

Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va., said the FBI and local authorities are investigating the incident at his brother's house.

Perriello, who defeated Republican Virgil Goode by fewer than 800 votes in 2008, has been a target of conservative ire because of his vote for health care. Earlier this week, a "Tea Party" activist posted Perriello's brother's address on a blog, mistakenly identifying it as the congressman's home and urging readers to "drop by ... and express their thanks regarding his vote for health care."

"While it is too early to say anything definitive regarding political motivations behind this act," Perriello said in a statement Wednesday, "it's never too early for political leaders to condemn threats of violence, particularly as threats to other members of Congress and their children escalate."

Mike Troxel, the blogger who posted the Perriello address, could not be reached for comment Wednesday and his website was inaccessible. Troxel is a "participant" in a Tea Party group in Lynchburg, Va., said Mark Lloyd, the group's chairman. Tea Party members are conservatives who oppose increased government spending and regulations.

Lloyd said in an e-mailed statement that his group does not "encourage violence, damage to property, or criminal activity of any sort." He added: "If bad taste and poor judgment were a crime, then most of Congress would be behind bars."

In Arizona early Monday morning — shortly after the health care bill passed the House — vandals smashed the glass door at the Tucson office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., her office said.

Giffords' spokesman, C.J. Karamargin, said a security guard reported the incident hours after he and others had left the office after watching the health care vote on television. Giffords voted for the legislation.

"That was the frightening thing, that people were here just before this happened," Karamargin said in a telephone interview from the Tucson office. "We feel lucky no one was injured."

He said the office had received many phone calls with "nasty and rude and hateful comments" from opponents of the health care bill.

President Obama believes that "people should have a right to ... passionate views," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. However, Gibbs said, people should "exercise those views not in a way that threatens anybody's safety or security, not in any way that foments violence."