Don't call the coroner yet
So, we have been led to believe that the Grit corpse is almost done twitching. The last bullet wound appears to have been self-inflicted, strangely enough. Should we blame lousy marksmanship?
And yet, while we may be tempted to draw a sheet over the body, and wheel it out on a gurney, the paramedics are still working away feverishly. Chances are, they will keep working on it long after it begins to stink. After all, it stank while it was still alive and kicking.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Monday, January 09, 2006
Prepare for impact in 3...2...
To protect his lead, all Harper needed to do in tonight's debate was to appear calm, statesmanlike, not freak out, keep hammering home his platform.
He achieved that.
Layton needed to slam both the Conservatives and the Liberals to position himself as the "third option".
That's exactly what he did.
Duceppe just needed to show up, and have fun poking at the other three.
No problem there.
To halt Tory momentum, Martin needed to hit one out of the park, and convince voters that Harper hates Canada, and was going to destroy Confederation and voluntarily surrender Canada to nefarious Republican interests.
Uh... didn't quite pull it off, did he?
To protect his lead, all Harper needed to do in tonight's debate was to appear calm, statesmanlike, not freak out, keep hammering home his platform.
He achieved that.
Layton needed to slam both the Conservatives and the Liberals to position himself as the "third option".
That's exactly what he did.
Duceppe just needed to show up, and have fun poking at the other three.
No problem there.
To halt Tory momentum, Martin needed to hit one out of the park, and convince voters that Harper hates Canada, and was going to destroy Confederation and voluntarily surrender Canada to nefarious Republican interests.
Uh... didn't quite pull it off, did he?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
So, have I ever told you that I did Basic Officer Training with one of the only Canadian soldiers to have engaged in combat between the Korean War and Afghanistan?...
Let me explain:
I only came to this realization last week, while reading Carol Off's new book, The Ghosts of Medak pocket, which my brother had gotten for me as a Christmas Present.
In the summer of 1997, I was in Gagetown, New Brunswick, suffering through RESO (Reserve Entry Scheme Officer), Phase 2 training. Our platoon was evenly divided between two groups. One the one hand, you had the mostly older (twentysomething) Reservists, many of whom had been Corporals (like me) or Sergeants in the Militia, and some of whom had done UN tours overseas in the early nineties in Bosnia and Croatia. On the other hand, you had the Regular Force "Ringnockers", as we called them: People from the Royal Military College. As a rule, these Officer Cadets tended to be younger, and extremely green, since most had gone directly from highschool to RMC. Most of them were hopeless at the beginning of the course, and many were hopeless right up to the end. There were, however, exceptions to this rule.
One of the exceptions was Scott Leblanc, a short, burly fellow in his mid-twenties with a friendly face, quiet manner, and bright blue eyes. When I first met him, aside from the fact that he was an older Officer Cadet at RMC, there was nothing remarkable about him. As time went on, some of the guys who had gone overseas in the early nineties would talk about Croatia and what happened to 2PPCLI (The Second Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) in the Medak Pocket. Every once in a while, someone would ask Scott about his decoration for his actions during a firefight which had never been made public, but the laconic former Artillery Reservist from the Maritimes who was not much of a braggart never seemed to have much to say about it. Even the instructors seemed aware of the "incident", which at this time, was fairly common knowledge among infantrymen. The Canadian Forces is not a huge organization, after all, and word seems to get around. We never really got the full story from Scott, only that in 1993, then-Private Leblanc's platoon had fought off an attack by Croatian forces during the course of a very dangerous operation in 1993. All that Leblanc would admit to is that he had burned off a couple of hundred rounds from his C-9 Light Machine Gun, and that the Croats had been repulsed.
I only got the full story when I read Off's account of that action, which included references to Leblanc and his section's heroics. It was easy to understand why this "incident" had never been made public. This fight occurred in '93, at almost the same time that the Somalia scandal broke, and Canadians had been shaken by the acts of the soon-to-be-disbanded Airborne Regiment. It simply wouldn't do to have another story in the media where Canadian troops, ostensibly involved in UN "Peacekeeping Operations", had been engaged in combat, and had probably killed Croat troops (The Croat government reported 27 KIA during combat in the Pocket).
Well, as we now know, the UN operations that took place in the Balkans in the early nineties were certainly not what would have been considered peacekeeping in the traditional sense of the word. It was an ugly, complicated conflict, and Canadian troops had been called upon to interpose themselves between the Serb and Croat forces in an attempt to halt the ethnic cleansing that we now know took place in that area. In spite of being hamstrung by complicated rules of engagement, the Canadians had acquitted themselves admirably, although many were scarred by what they saw there, and frustrated that because of the UN-imposed rules, they had not managed to prevent the murder of dozens of innocents. At the time, however, that isn't the way that the leadership of the Canadian Forces saw it, and so, as Off relates in her book, the brass decided to cover up the Medak Pocket incident. It wasn't until much later that the truth began leaking out. And only recently have the troops involved in that operation been fully recognized for what they did. Some of the members of the PPCLI Battle Group who were there have never recovered, mentally or physically.
In Summer of 1997, Scott, who four years earlier had, in the midst of heavy fire, bravely risen from his trench to fire his machine-gun into a Croat force attempting to flank his platoons position, and probably saved some of his comrades in doing so, ended up coming in second place overall on the course. Top candidate in my company was another RMC type, Ryan Latinovitch, who had transferred to the Infantry late in his time at RMC, and was therefore also older than most of the Regular Force Officer Cadets. Last I heard, Ryan was a Captain in command of 3PPCLI's Recce (Reconnaissance) Platoon,and done a tour in Afghanistan. I admire both of these guys.
The days of Suez or Cyprus-style "peacekeeping" are long past. Today, the Canadian Forces operate under very different and far more dangerous situations, and have been called upon to use lethal force more than once to protect themselves and achieve their objectives. The national myth of Canadian peacekeepers as benign observers should be put to rest. Canadian soldiers are trained to fight, and they do it very well, when they have to. Canada should be proud that men and women of the calibre of Leblanc and Latinovitch serve this country, put themselves in harm's way, and sacrifice so much for the rest of us.
Let me explain:
I only came to this realization last week, while reading Carol Off's new book, The Ghosts of Medak pocket, which my brother had gotten for me as a Christmas Present.
In the summer of 1997, I was in Gagetown, New Brunswick, suffering through RESO (Reserve Entry Scheme Officer), Phase 2 training. Our platoon was evenly divided between two groups. One the one hand, you had the mostly older (twentysomething) Reservists, many of whom had been Corporals (like me) or Sergeants in the Militia, and some of whom had done UN tours overseas in the early nineties in Bosnia and Croatia. On the other hand, you had the Regular Force "Ringnockers", as we called them: People from the Royal Military College. As a rule, these Officer Cadets tended to be younger, and extremely green, since most had gone directly from highschool to RMC. Most of them were hopeless at the beginning of the course, and many were hopeless right up to the end. There were, however, exceptions to this rule.
One of the exceptions was Scott Leblanc, a short, burly fellow in his mid-twenties with a friendly face, quiet manner, and bright blue eyes. When I first met him, aside from the fact that he was an older Officer Cadet at RMC, there was nothing remarkable about him. As time went on, some of the guys who had gone overseas in the early nineties would talk about Croatia and what happened to 2PPCLI (The Second Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) in the Medak Pocket. Every once in a while, someone would ask Scott about his decoration for his actions during a firefight which had never been made public, but the laconic former Artillery Reservist from the Maritimes who was not much of a braggart never seemed to have much to say about it. Even the instructors seemed aware of the "incident", which at this time, was fairly common knowledge among infantrymen. The Canadian Forces is not a huge organization, after all, and word seems to get around. We never really got the full story from Scott, only that in 1993, then-Private Leblanc's platoon had fought off an attack by Croatian forces during the course of a very dangerous operation in 1993. All that Leblanc would admit to is that he had burned off a couple of hundred rounds from his C-9 Light Machine Gun, and that the Croats had been repulsed.
I only got the full story when I read Off's account of that action, which included references to Leblanc and his section's heroics. It was easy to understand why this "incident" had never been made public. This fight occurred in '93, at almost the same time that the Somalia scandal broke, and Canadians had been shaken by the acts of the soon-to-be-disbanded Airborne Regiment. It simply wouldn't do to have another story in the media where Canadian troops, ostensibly involved in UN "Peacekeeping Operations", had been engaged in combat, and had probably killed Croat troops (The Croat government reported 27 KIA during combat in the Pocket).
Well, as we now know, the UN operations that took place in the Balkans in the early nineties were certainly not what would have been considered peacekeeping in the traditional sense of the word. It was an ugly, complicated conflict, and Canadian troops had been called upon to interpose themselves between the Serb and Croat forces in an attempt to halt the ethnic cleansing that we now know took place in that area. In spite of being hamstrung by complicated rules of engagement, the Canadians had acquitted themselves admirably, although many were scarred by what they saw there, and frustrated that because of the UN-imposed rules, they had not managed to prevent the murder of dozens of innocents. At the time, however, that isn't the way that the leadership of the Canadian Forces saw it, and so, as Off relates in her book, the brass decided to cover up the Medak Pocket incident. It wasn't until much later that the truth began leaking out. And only recently have the troops involved in that operation been fully recognized for what they did. Some of the members of the PPCLI Battle Group who were there have never recovered, mentally or physically.
In Summer of 1997, Scott, who four years earlier had, in the midst of heavy fire, bravely risen from his trench to fire his machine-gun into a Croat force attempting to flank his platoons position, and probably saved some of his comrades in doing so, ended up coming in second place overall on the course. Top candidate in my company was another RMC type, Ryan Latinovitch, who had transferred to the Infantry late in his time at RMC, and was therefore also older than most of the Regular Force Officer Cadets. Last I heard, Ryan was a Captain in command of 3PPCLI's Recce (Reconnaissance) Platoon,and done a tour in Afghanistan. I admire both of these guys.
The days of Suez or Cyprus-style "peacekeeping" are long past. Today, the Canadian Forces operate under very different and far more dangerous situations, and have been called upon to use lethal force more than once to protect themselves and achieve their objectives. The national myth of Canadian peacekeepers as benign observers should be put to rest. Canadian soldiers are trained to fight, and they do it very well, when they have to. Canada should be proud that men and women of the calibre of Leblanc and Latinovitch serve this country, put themselves in harm's way, and sacrifice so much for the rest of us.
I waited a long time to see Fahrenheit 9/11, now here is my three-and-a-half word review:
Mendacious, misleading grief-porn
Mendacious, misleading grief-porn
Monday, January 02, 2006
The Electoral Reform Parliament?
On New Year's Eve, I was deep into a discussion on the election campaign with some of my fiance's family, speculating on all sorts of scenarios the morning after the polls close, when someone raised a fairly straightforward question:
In the event of a Conservative minority, what issue could the NDP and the Conservatives possibly find common ground on?
My answer: Fixing our democracy and changing the way we vote
As
this article reveals, both the Knee-dippers and the Tories lament the fact that our "First-past-the-post" system tends to exagerate and distort voting patterns, leading to the impression that "Alberta is Conservative" and "Ontario is Liberal", when in fact no region or province in the country votes as a homogenous bloc, and vote percentages are nearly always much narrower than final seat tallies would indicate. That's how some parties have won solid electoral majorities in the past in spite of not necessarily garnering a large plurality of the popular vote --Jean Chretien's back-to-back-to-back majorities comes to mind.
Both parties favour electoral reform in some form or another, mostly in order to fix a system that seems designed to produce Liberal Government after Liberal Government, often at the expense of the NDP and smaller parties. A proportional representation system, or some combination of A and B, might be a solution to this problem. One which Conservatives and NDPers could work on together in spite of the ideological chasm that divides them. I can think of a few more. Senate reform, for example.
The "strategic voting" phenom of 2004 (soft NDP supporters who switched to the Liberals in the polling booth because a Conservative victory "scares" them) must be a spectre that loom large in the mind of Jack Layton. Although pundits indicate that Layton favours holding the balance of power in a Liberal Minority, his "Results for Canadians" campaign theme could get flushed down the crapper in 2006, if the Liberals steal his votes and a puny, impotent NDP caucus results.
It is clear that the NDP has choices to make. Generally, sending more NDPers to the house means sending less Liberals, because that is where the electorate on the centre-left intersects. The story is a bit different in BC, where you have three-way horse races, and in Quebec, where the NDP and Conservatives barely register, but in Ontario, the 900lb gorilla in the Canadian electorate, NDP fortunes will live or die depending on how many 905ers get spooked back to the Grits.
Knowing this in his heart, can Layton make common cause with the Tories and convince people to not fear a non-Liberal Government in the second half of the campaign in order to steal some Liberal seats? I'm not sure. I imagine he recoils in disgust at having to do so. But both the NDP and the Tories have stated their desire to see the Liberals punished --what better way to do so than being bounced from Government? --and it is useful to look at areas of possible collaboration in a house with a decimated grit caucus, a strong NDP, and a fragile Conservative minority looking to get things done.
On New Year's Eve, I was deep into a discussion on the election campaign with some of my fiance's family, speculating on all sorts of scenarios the morning after the polls close, when someone raised a fairly straightforward question:
In the event of a Conservative minority, what issue could the NDP and the Conservatives possibly find common ground on?
My answer: Fixing our democracy and changing the way we vote
As
this article reveals, both the Knee-dippers and the Tories lament the fact that our "First-past-the-post" system tends to exagerate and distort voting patterns, leading to the impression that "Alberta is Conservative" and "Ontario is Liberal", when in fact no region or province in the country votes as a homogenous bloc, and vote percentages are nearly always much narrower than final seat tallies would indicate. That's how some parties have won solid electoral majorities in the past in spite of not necessarily garnering a large plurality of the popular vote --Jean Chretien's back-to-back-to-back majorities comes to mind.
Both parties favour electoral reform in some form or another, mostly in order to fix a system that seems designed to produce Liberal Government after Liberal Government, often at the expense of the NDP and smaller parties. A proportional representation system, or some combination of A and B, might be a solution to this problem. One which Conservatives and NDPers could work on together in spite of the ideological chasm that divides them. I can think of a few more. Senate reform, for example.
The "strategic voting" phenom of 2004 (soft NDP supporters who switched to the Liberals in the polling booth because a Conservative victory "scares" them) must be a spectre that loom large in the mind of Jack Layton. Although pundits indicate that Layton favours holding the balance of power in a Liberal Minority, his "Results for Canadians" campaign theme could get flushed down the crapper in 2006, if the Liberals steal his votes and a puny, impotent NDP caucus results.
It is clear that the NDP has choices to make. Generally, sending more NDPers to the house means sending less Liberals, because that is where the electorate on the centre-left intersects. The story is a bit different in BC, where you have three-way horse races, and in Quebec, where the NDP and Conservatives barely register, but in Ontario, the 900lb gorilla in the Canadian electorate, NDP fortunes will live or die depending on how many 905ers get spooked back to the Grits.
Knowing this in his heart, can Layton make common cause with the Tories and convince people to not fear a non-Liberal Government in the second half of the campaign in order to steal some Liberal seats? I'm not sure. I imagine he recoils in disgust at having to do so. But both the NDP and the Tories have stated their desire to see the Liberals punished --what better way to do so than being bounced from Government? --and it is useful to look at areas of possible collaboration in a house with a decimated grit caucus, a strong NDP, and a fragile Conservative minority looking to get things done.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Horserace
The winds of change are beginning to blow as the campaign rolls into 2006. The two main parties are now in a statistical dead heat in the polls. There is an undeniable sense of a momentum shift in the air, and the pungent stench of fear is beginning to emanate from the Liberals.
Throughout the election campaign I have been relying on three fantastic online sources to feed my hunger for info, and each of them have been buzzing over the past few days, as a new picture of the 2006 election begins to coalesce.
Bourque, who has been watching the Income Trust Scandal closely, and following its impact in the polls, reports seismic shifts in the upper echelons of the Liberal Party, as pretenders to Martin's throne await the results of the plebiscite that will determine PM's future. A failure to gain a majority may mean Martin's days as Liberal Party leader are numbered. A loss of power will seal his fate.
Kinsella, no friend of the Martin regime, reports with glee on the new Conservative spot--one he believes will effectively hamstring the Liberal's plan to "go negative"-- and proclaims that the bottom has fallen out of their campaign. He has been predicting with a certainty bordering on cockiness that this election will be a repudiation of Paul Martin's Ministry.
Not so fast... a cornered dog still has teeth, and the Liberals have been ramping up their efforts to uncover skeletons in Conservative closets --a tactic that has served them well in previous elections. Macleans Back-page guy Wells, who aired some ugly stuff about Peter Goldring's campaign manager this week, remarks upon the way the Conservatives moved quickly and decisively to neutralize the story before it got legs by summarily sacking Gord Stamp. One cannot fail to note the contrast between this deft stickhandling and the continuing inability of Martin to take any decisive action on, well, anything.
Happy New Year, people --the first month of ought-six promises to be very interesting.
The winds of change are beginning to blow as the campaign rolls into 2006. The two main parties are now in a statistical dead heat in the polls. There is an undeniable sense of a momentum shift in the air, and the pungent stench of fear is beginning to emanate from the Liberals.
Throughout the election campaign I have been relying on three fantastic online sources to feed my hunger for info, and each of them have been buzzing over the past few days, as a new picture of the 2006 election begins to coalesce.
Bourque, who has been watching the Income Trust Scandal closely, and following its impact in the polls, reports seismic shifts in the upper echelons of the Liberal Party, as pretenders to Martin's throne await the results of the plebiscite that will determine PM's future. A failure to gain a majority may mean Martin's days as Liberal Party leader are numbered. A loss of power will seal his fate.
Kinsella, no friend of the Martin regime, reports with glee on the new Conservative spot--one he believes will effectively hamstring the Liberal's plan to "go negative"-- and proclaims that the bottom has fallen out of their campaign. He has been predicting with a certainty bordering on cockiness that this election will be a repudiation of Paul Martin's Ministry.
Not so fast... a cornered dog still has teeth, and the Liberals have been ramping up their efforts to uncover skeletons in Conservative closets --a tactic that has served them well in previous elections. Macleans Back-page guy Wells, who aired some ugly stuff about Peter Goldring's campaign manager this week, remarks upon the way the Conservatives moved quickly and decisively to neutralize the story before it got legs by summarily sacking Gord Stamp. One cannot fail to note the contrast between this deft stickhandling and the continuing inability of Martin to take any decisive action on, well, anything.
Happy New Year, people --the first month of ought-six promises to be very interesting.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
LINK-O-RAMA
More shenanigans!
God bless the troops and their families
Dangerous mix of religion and politics?
Who knew that Brian Trottier was Aboriginal?... and who knew that such racist pigs still existed?
20/12/2005
All right, let's go to toronto now and ndp leader jack layton is at a subway
station in the city:
be warned: Voting for paul martin's liberals because of issues like the war in
Iraq or Kyoto or equal marriage is risky because you never know which paul
martin you are going to get. After all, when Paul martin does not know what he
believes, how can you? The fact is that mr. Martin is wrapping himself in the
courage of his predecessor when he dodged and waffled on every question. If you
think jean chretien made the right call on Iraq vote ndp because we supported
him. Not Paul martin who undermined him as prime minister and liberal leader.
Voting liberal in toronto does not stop a conservative, it elects a liberal and rewards a party that's taken toronto's votes and then taken it for granted. Taken Toronto's tax dollars and spent them on its friends... Voting for paul martin's liberals because of issues like the war in Iraq or Kyoto or equal marriage is risky because you never know which paul martin you are going to get. After all, when Paul martin does not know what he believes, how can you? The fact is that mr. Martin is wrapping himself in the courage of his predecessor when he dodged and waffled on every question. If you think jean chretien made the right call on Iraq vote ndp because we supported him. Not Paul martin who undermined him as prime minister and liberal leader.
If Layton states, for the record, that he could work with a Harper Government a
few more times, my prediction for last election, may turn out to be eerily
prescient of this election:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ellard.James
> Sent: June 28, 2004 12:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Guess results
>
> My prediction:
>
> Martin will try to form a minority Liberal Government (will lean left for NDP)
>
> Will fall by October
>
> Odds 50-50 that Martin survives leadership review.
>
> Conservatives 114
> Liberals 110
> Bloc Québécois 57
> NDP 26
> Independent 1
>
> You heard it here first!
Oh, the year was 1778, HOW I WISH I WAS IN SHERBROOKE NOW!
A letter of marque come from the king,
To the scummiest vessel I'd ever seen,
CHORUS:
God damn them all!
I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold
We'd fire no guns-shed no tears
Now I'm a broken man on a Halifax pier
The last of Barrett's Privateers.
Oh, Elcid Barrett cried the town, HOW I WISH I WAS . . .
For twenty brave men all fishermen who
would make for him the Antelope's crew
(chorus)
The Antelope sloop was a sickening sight,
She'd a list to the port and and her sails in rags
And the cook in scuppers with the staggers and the jags
(chorus)
On the King's birthday we put to sea,
We were 91 days to Montego Bay
Pumping like madmen all the way
(chorus)
On the 96th day we sailed again,
When a bloody great Yankee hove in sight
With our cracked four pounders we made to fight
(chorus)
The Yankee lay low down with gold,
She was broad and fat and loose in the stays
But to catch her took the Antelope two whole days
(chorus)
Then at length we stood two cables away,
Our cracked four pounders made an awful din
But with one fat ball the Yank stove us in
(chorus)
The Antelope shook and pitched on her side,
Barrett was smashed like a bowl of eggs
And the Maintruck carried off both me legs
(chorus)
So here I lay in my 23rd year,
It's been 6 years since we sailed away
And I just made Halifax yesterday
Ah, General Tso, you were a formidable opponent, but your chicken is delectable! C. Montgomery Burns
More shenanigans!
God bless the troops and their families
Dangerous mix of religion and politics?
Who knew that Brian Trottier was Aboriginal?... and who knew that such racist pigs still existed?
20/12/2005
All right, let's go to toronto now and ndp leader jack layton is at a subway
station in the city:
be warned: Voting for paul martin's liberals because of issues like the war in
Iraq or Kyoto or equal marriage is risky because you never know which paul
martin you are going to get. After all, when Paul martin does not know what he
believes, how can you? The fact is that mr. Martin is wrapping himself in the
courage of his predecessor when he dodged and waffled on every question. If you
think jean chretien made the right call on Iraq vote ndp because we supported
him. Not Paul martin who undermined him as prime minister and liberal leader.
Voting liberal in toronto does not stop a conservative, it elects a liberal and rewards a party that's taken toronto's votes and then taken it for granted. Taken Toronto's tax dollars and spent them on its friends... Voting for paul martin's liberals because of issues like the war in Iraq or Kyoto or equal marriage is risky because you never know which paul martin you are going to get. After all, when Paul martin does not know what he believes, how can you? The fact is that mr. Martin is wrapping himself in the courage of his predecessor when he dodged and waffled on every question. If you think jean chretien made the right call on Iraq vote ndp because we supported him. Not Paul martin who undermined him as prime minister and liberal leader.
If Layton states, for the record, that he could work with a Harper Government a
few more times, my prediction for last election, may turn out to be eerily
prescient of this election:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ellard.James
> Sent: June 28, 2004 12:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Guess results
>
> My prediction:
>
> Martin will try to form a minority Liberal Government (will lean left for NDP)
>
> Will fall by October
>
> Odds 50-50 that Martin survives leadership review.
>
> Conservatives 114
> Liberals 110
> Bloc Québécois 57
> NDP 26
> Independent 1
>
> You heard it here first!
Oh, the year was 1778, HOW I WISH I WAS IN SHERBROOKE NOW!
A letter of marque come from the king,
To the scummiest vessel I'd ever seen,
CHORUS:
God damn them all!
I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold
We'd fire no guns-shed no tears
Now I'm a broken man on a Halifax pier
The last of Barrett's Privateers.
Oh, Elcid Barrett cried the town, HOW I WISH I WAS . . .
For twenty brave men all fishermen who
would make for him the Antelope's crew
(chorus)
The Antelope sloop was a sickening sight,
She'd a list to the port and and her sails in rags
And the cook in scuppers with the staggers and the jags
(chorus)
On the King's birthday we put to sea,
We were 91 days to Montego Bay
Pumping like madmen all the way
(chorus)
On the 96th day we sailed again,
When a bloody great Yankee hove in sight
With our cracked four pounders we made to fight
(chorus)
The Yankee lay low down with gold,
She was broad and fat and loose in the stays
But to catch her took the Antelope two whole days
(chorus)
Then at length we stood two cables away,
Our cracked four pounders made an awful din
But with one fat ball the Yank stove us in
(chorus)
The Antelope shook and pitched on her side,
Barrett was smashed like a bowl of eggs
And the Maintruck carried off both me legs
(chorus)
So here I lay in my 23rd year,
It's been 6 years since we sailed away
And I just made Halifax yesterday
Ah, General Tso, you were a formidable opponent, but your chicken is delectable! C. Montgomery Burns
Lazy Sunday
Funniest bit I've seen on SNL for ages
[Samberg] Lazy Sunday, wake up in the late afternoon, call Parnell just to see
how he's doin'.
[Parnell] Hello?
[Samberg] What up, Parns?
[Parnell] Yo Samberg, what's rockin'?
[Samberg] You thinkin' what I'm thinkin'?
[both] NARNIA!
[Samberg] Then it's happenin'.
[Parnell] But first my hunger pangs, I stick it like duct tape.
[Samberg] Let's hit up Magnolia and mack on some cupcakes.
[Parnell] No doubt the bakery's got all the bomb frostings.
[Samberg] I love those cupcakes like McAdams loves Gosling...
[Parnell] Two!
[Samberg] No, six!
[Parnell] No, twelve!
[both] BAKER'S DOZEN!
[Samberg] I told you that I'm crazy for these cupcakes, cousin!
[Parnell] Yo, where's the movie playin'?
[Samberg] Upper West Side, dude.
[Parnell] Well let's hit up Yahoo Maps to find the dopest route.
[Samberg] I prefer MapQuest...
[Parnell] That's a good one, too...
[Samberg] Google Maps is the best...
[Parnell] True dat!
[both] DOUBLE TRUE!
[Samberg] 68th and Broadway,
[Parnell] Step on it, suckah!
[Samberg] Whatchoo wanna do, Chris?
[Parnell] SNACK ATTACK, MOTHER-F*****!
[both] The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Yes, The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
We love The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Pass the The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
[Samberg] Yo, stop at the deli, the theater's overpriced.
[Parnell] You got the backpack?
[Samberg] Gonna pack it up nice!
[Parnell] Don't want security to get suspicious.
[Samberg] Mr. Pibb and Red Vines equals Crazy Delicious!
[Parnell] I reach in my pocket, pull out some dough,
[Samberg] Girl acted like she never seen a ten befo'.
[both] It's all about the Hamiltons, baby!
[Samberg] Throw the snacks in the bag,
[Parnell] And I'm Ghost like Swayze...
[Parnell] Roll up to the theater,
[Samberg] Ticket-buyin', well, we're handlin',
[Parnell] You can call us Aaron Burr
[Samberg] From the way we're droppin' Hamiltons.
[Parnell] We're parked in our seats, movie trivia's the illest.
[Samberg] What Friends alum starred in films with Bruce Willis?
[Parnell] We answer so fast that we're scary.
[Samberg] Everyone stand in awe when we scream
[both] MATTHEW PERRY!
[Samberg] Now, quiet in the theater or it's gonna get tragic!
[Parnell] We're 'bout to get taken to a dreamworld of magic!
[both] It's The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Yes, The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
We love The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Pass the The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Funniest bit I've seen on SNL for ages
[Samberg] Lazy Sunday, wake up in the late afternoon, call Parnell just to see
how he's doin'.
[Parnell] Hello?
[Samberg] What up, Parns?
[Parnell] Yo Samberg, what's rockin'?
[Samberg] You thinkin' what I'm thinkin'?
[both] NARNIA!
[Samberg] Then it's happenin'.
[Parnell] But first my hunger pangs, I stick it like duct tape.
[Samberg] Let's hit up Magnolia and mack on some cupcakes.
[Parnell] No doubt the bakery's got all the bomb frostings.
[Samberg] I love those cupcakes like McAdams loves Gosling...
[Parnell] Two!
[Samberg] No, six!
[Parnell] No, twelve!
[both] BAKER'S DOZEN!
[Samberg] I told you that I'm crazy for these cupcakes, cousin!
[Parnell] Yo, where's the movie playin'?
[Samberg] Upper West Side, dude.
[Parnell] Well let's hit up Yahoo Maps to find the dopest route.
[Samberg] I prefer MapQuest...
[Parnell] That's a good one, too...
[Samberg] Google Maps is the best...
[Parnell] True dat!
[both] DOUBLE TRUE!
[Samberg] 68th and Broadway,
[Parnell] Step on it, suckah!
[Samberg] Whatchoo wanna do, Chris?
[Parnell] SNACK ATTACK, MOTHER-F*****!
[both] The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Yes, The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
We love The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Pass the The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
[Samberg] Yo, stop at the deli, the theater's overpriced.
[Parnell] You got the backpack?
[Samberg] Gonna pack it up nice!
[Parnell] Don't want security to get suspicious.
[Samberg] Mr. Pibb and Red Vines equals Crazy Delicious!
[Parnell] I reach in my pocket, pull out some dough,
[Samberg] Girl acted like she never seen a ten befo'.
[both] It's all about the Hamiltons, baby!
[Samberg] Throw the snacks in the bag,
[Parnell] And I'm Ghost like Swayze...
[Parnell] Roll up to the theater,
[Samberg] Ticket-buyin', well, we're handlin',
[Parnell] You can call us Aaron Burr
[Samberg] From the way we're droppin' Hamiltons.
[Parnell] We're parked in our seats, movie trivia's the illest.
[Samberg] What Friends alum starred in films with Bruce Willis?
[Parnell] We answer so fast that we're scary.
[Samberg] Everyone stand in awe when we scream
[both] MATTHEW PERRY!
[Samberg] Now, quiet in the theater or it's gonna get tragic!
[Parnell] We're 'bout to get taken to a dreamworld of magic!
[both] It's The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Yes, The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
We love The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
Pass the The Chronic--WHAT?--cles of Narnia!
e-mail I got today from a reliable source:
> This guy is a paid consultant who got all but one seat called correctly in the
last election.
> Memorandum
> 20 December 2005
>
>
>
> Subject: Election 2006 Midway Update
>
> As the political leaders take a break for Christmas, I thought that it would
be useful to consider the state of the campaign and provide some insight into
possible outcomes.
>
> To begin, we should look briefly at the current standing in the House of
Commons:
>
> Liberal Conservative NDP Bloc Quebecois Other Total
> Newfoundland/Labrador 5 2 0 0 0 7
> Nova Scotia 6 3 2 0 0 11
> New Brunswick 7 2 1 0 0 10
> PEI 4 0 0 0 0 4
> Quebec 21 0 0 54 0 75
> Ontario 74 23 7 0 2 106
> Manitoba 3 7 3 0 1 14
> Saskatchewan 1 13 0 0 0 14
> Alberta 1 26 0 0 1 28
> British Columbia 8 22 0 0 1 36
> Northern Territories 3 0 0 0 0 3
> Total 133 98 18 54 5 308
>
> Canadian elections are rarely homogenous single issue campaigns. In reality,
Canada will have five distinct regional campaigns (plus the North), each with
its own inter-party dynamic and regional issues. Thus, Election 2006 will be
fought in six distinct battlegrounds: the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the West,
British Columbia and the North.
>
>
>
>
> Since the campaign began on November 29th, the Liberals have never been behind
in a National opinion poll. Only Ipsos-Reid has shown the Liberals and
Conservatives tied at 31% each > -> and that was on day one of the campaign.
Subsequent Ipsos-Reid polls (3) all have the Liberals ahead by several points.
Other pollsters have given the lead to the Liberals by as much as 10%. The true
dynamic of the National campaign will not become evident until the final push
post-Christmas when both the party advertising and Leaders> '> rhetoric are
expected to go negative.
>
> Two firms (SES and Strategic Counsel) are doing daily updates to Tracking
polls > -> these are smaller sample sizes than National surveys that are
aggregated over several days to provide a good read of the trend-lines for
voting intentions. Interestingly, the two Tracking polls seem to contradict each
other. SES has consistently given the Liberals a significant lead > -> as wide
as 15% at the end of week one, but narrowed to only 8% in the most recent
samples. The Strategic Counsel, on the other hand, has shown a much tighter
race, with the two parties in a virtually dead heat for the first several weeks.
In its most recent samples, the Liberals have been ahead by roughly 5%. You
should note that the SES numbers are closer to the results from other larger
National polls than are those of the Strategic Counsel. The Tracking polls may
provide the most interesting data as the election unfolds and should be watched
as the campaign shifts to the pro-active phase after Christmas.
>
> So what does the current Regional picture look like? Regional political
strength at dissolution of the House of Commons is shown below, i.e. total seats
in Parliament.
>
> Liberal Conservative NDP Bloc Quebecois Independent
> BC 36 8 22 5 0 1
> West 56 4 46 3 0 2
> Ontario 106 74 23 7 0 2
> Quebec 75 21 0 0 54 0
> Atlantic 32 22 7 3 0 0
> North 3 3 0 0 0 0
> Total 308 133 98 18 54 5
>
> British Columbia: The BC campaign appears to be the tightest race in the
country. In most polls since the Election was called, Liberal, Conservative and
NDP numbers have been virtually tied > -> within the margin of polling error.
The most recent SES Tracking poll, however, shows the Liberals with a slim lead,
and the NDP losing s> upport to the Conservatives. Liberal and NDP strength lies
in the Lower Mainland; and the Conservatives remain strong in the rest of the
province. I would expect that as the race turns negative, the vote will polarize
between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the NDP vote will be reduced. In
a close National race, BC could be the King-maker in 2006.
>
> The West: Alberta and Saskatchewan remain Conservative strong-holds. The only
non-Conservative seats in the two provinces are Anne McLellan in Edmonton and
Ralph Goodale in Regina. (Independent David Kilgour> '> s seat in Edmonton is
expected to return to the Conservative fold.)
>
>
> Both have gone against the stream to win in the past and they could survive
again. Anne McLellan appears to be vulnerable this time. Manitoba, with some
interesting three way local races, could bring a few surprises for all parties.
Manitoba is the only Western province where parties other than the Conservatives
have a reasonable chance of winning or keeping seats.
>
> Ontario: The Liberals started strong and appear to be holding a substantial
lead over the Conservatives. It is expected that Stephen Harper will target key
ridings in South West and Rural Ontario, and selected ridings elsewhere. Recent
polls (SES particularly) have noted an increase in Conservative support in these
areas. There is also some encouragement for them in Toronto itself. So far,
National polls give the edge to the Liberals in Ontario. In the final three
weeks of the campaign, the NDP could be squeezed as in BC if the electorate
becomes polarized around the stark choice between the Conservatives and the
Liberals. In Ontario, so far, the Liberals strongest card appears to be Stephen
Harper. As long as Harper does not > "> break through> "> in Ontario, the last
Liberal bastion will hold.
>
> Quebec: In Quebec, the race is between the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals,
with the BQ anticipating additional seats in Montreal> '> s > "> red zone> "> .
Liberal Ministers Pierre Pettigrew, Liza Frulla, Jacques Saada and Jean Lapierre
are all in tight races to retain their seats. Two other races to watch are
Pontiac (where Conservative candidate, Lawrence Cannon, is running a strong race
against Liberal incumbent, David Smith) and Vaudreuil-Solanges (where former
Astronaut Marc Garneau is trying to win the seat back for the Liberals from BQ
incumbent Meilli Faille). The BQ currently hold 54 of the 75 seats in Quebec,
and have a substantial lead (> 20%) in all polls. It is expected that the BQ
will add seats to their total, but how many will depend on the dynamic of the
final three weeks. While recent Tracking polls show slight movement to the
Liberals, the advantage remains with the Bloc.
>
> Atlantic: Given current polls in this region, it is doubtful that there will
be much change from the last Election. Liberal support appears to be growing at
the expense of the Conservatives. However, the results in the Atlantic region
often run contrary to National trends. In 1997, when the Liberals won a thin
Majority government, the Atlantic region voted massively for the Conservative
party, displacing numerous incumbents, including high profile Liberal Ministers
David Dingwall and Doug Young.
>
> The North: The North cannot be counted as a separate region, per se, given
that there are only three seats. That said, the status quo is likely to prevail
with the Liberals retaining all three seats.
>
> Conclusions: The Bloc Quebecois are expected to dominate in Quebec,
effectively removing up to 60 of the 308 seats from the calculations of the
other two National parties > -> all but guaranteeing that the next Parliament
will be another Minority government. As of today, this is still a Liberal
Minority Parliament. With the exception of the Strategic Counsel Tracking poll,
the consensus among pollsters (Ipsos-Reid, SES, Leger, Ekos, Decima) is that the
Liberals have a growing lead of 6 - 8% and currently sit at 36 - 38%. Most
troubling for the Conservatives is that they have been unable to post consistent
numbers above 30% nationally > -> despite the multitude of issues confronting
the Liberal Party (Gomery, HRDC, Gun Registry, and more). Pollara has just
released a poll showing the Conservatives at 34% nationally. The Liberals are at
37% in the same poll.
>
>
>
>
> It appears that the first series of Debates changed the voting intentions of
very few Canadians. There will be a second series of Debates on January 9 -10,
and it is expected that the attacks will become more personal and negative. The
serious phase of the campaign begins on January 3rd.
>
> I will offer no firm predictions yet. However, you may want to consider that
in 1997, when the Liberals received 39% of the popular vote, they were rewarded
with 155 of the 301 seats > -> a Majority. In 2000, with 41% of the vote, they
received 172 of the 301 available > -> a bigger Majority. In the last Election
(June 28th, 2004), the Conservatives were ahead in most polls going into the
final three weeks. However, negative ads and sharp attacks by the Liberals
raised sufficient doubt in the public> '> s mind about the agenda of Stephen
Harper. In the final count, with just over 36% of the vote, the Liberals managed
to win a Minority government of 135 seats. So, while the gap of one or two
percent in the polls may seem insignificant to those tracking national polling
results, in reality it could well be the determinant of Minority or Majority
status.
>
> Based on the current state of the campaign, I would offer the following as the
most likely outcomes of the January 23rd election.
>
> Liberal Minority: As of today, this appears to be the most likely outcome. In
such an eventuality, it would be business as usual, although there is likely to
be a major reshuffling of Ministers and senior officials. Also, depending on the
margin of victory, it could well spell the beginning of the end for Paul Martin
as Liberal leader. No doubt, the knives will be out if the Liberals come close
to losing the government. However, Martin> '> s team has a firm grip on Liberal
Party infrastructure and it may be difficult to remove him as Leader if he
chooses to fight for his job. Conservative Leader Harper, on the other hand,
will likely be replaced shortly after any Liberal victory > -> even a Minority.
Harper> '> s demise may, in turn, increase pressure on the Liberals to rethink
Martin> '> s leadership of the Party. He will be 69.
>
> Conservative Minority: A major gaffe by the Liberals or a major upsurge in
Conservative support in key markets in Ontario and BC will be required to
engineer a Conservative victory. However, given the volatility of the electorate
and the fact that many Canadians have not yet tuned into the Election, anything
is possible. Should Stephen Harper win, there would be wholesale change in the
government agenda and massive change in the federal bureaucracy, particularly at
the Deputy Minister and PCO level. Liberal leader Martin will come under intense
pressure to resign.
>
> Liberal Majority: While it may look like a long-shot today, the electorate
appears to be quite volatile. As pointed out, even a modest change in the
popular vote can have dramatic results in terms of seats in the House of
Commons. At this point, the Liberals appear to be the only party with a chance
of forming a Majority government. Liberal support has edged at or near 40%
several times during this campaign.
>
> The pace of the campaign will enliven on January 3rd. Canadians will be
deluged with advertising and heightened rhetoric. The results on Election Day
will reflect the regional dynamic of the Canadian federation. However, with the
separatist Bloc Quebecois holding the > "> balance of power> "> in any Minority
Parliament, the dynamic for continued instability is considerable. Canada could
well be into another election within 18 months.
> This guy is a paid consultant who got all but one seat called correctly in the
last election.
> Memorandum
> 20 December 2005
>
>
>
> Subject: Election 2006 Midway Update
>
> As the political leaders take a break for Christmas, I thought that it would
be useful to consider the state of the campaign and provide some insight into
possible outcomes.
>
> To begin, we should look briefly at the current standing in the House of
Commons:
>
> Liberal Conservative NDP Bloc Quebecois Other Total
> Newfoundland/Labrador 5 2 0 0 0 7
> Nova Scotia 6 3 2 0 0 11
> New Brunswick 7 2 1 0 0 10
> PEI 4 0 0 0 0 4
> Quebec 21 0 0 54 0 75
> Ontario 74 23 7 0 2 106
> Manitoba 3 7 3 0 1 14
> Saskatchewan 1 13 0 0 0 14
> Alberta 1 26 0 0 1 28
> British Columbia 8 22 0 0 1 36
> Northern Territories 3 0 0 0 0 3
> Total 133 98 18 54 5 308
>
> Canadian elections are rarely homogenous single issue campaigns. In reality,
Canada will have five distinct regional campaigns (plus the North), each with
its own inter-party dynamic and regional issues. Thus, Election 2006 will be
fought in six distinct battlegrounds: the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the West,
British Columbia and the North.
>
>
>
>
> Since the campaign began on November 29th, the Liberals have never been behind
in a National opinion poll. Only Ipsos-Reid has shown the Liberals and
Conservatives tied at 31% each > -> and that was on day one of the campaign.
Subsequent Ipsos-Reid polls (3) all have the Liberals ahead by several points.
Other pollsters have given the lead to the Liberals by as much as 10%. The true
dynamic of the National campaign will not become evident until the final push
post-Christmas when both the party advertising and Leaders> '> rhetoric are
expected to go negative.
>
> Two firms (SES and Strategic Counsel) are doing daily updates to Tracking
polls > -> these are smaller sample sizes than National surveys that are
aggregated over several days to provide a good read of the trend-lines for
voting intentions. Interestingly, the two Tracking polls seem to contradict each
other. SES has consistently given the Liberals a significant lead > -> as wide
as 15% at the end of week one, but narrowed to only 8% in the most recent
samples. The Strategic Counsel, on the other hand, has shown a much tighter
race, with the two parties in a virtually dead heat for the first several weeks.
In its most recent samples, the Liberals have been ahead by roughly 5%. You
should note that the SES numbers are closer to the results from other larger
National polls than are those of the Strategic Counsel. The Tracking polls may
provide the most interesting data as the election unfolds and should be watched
as the campaign shifts to the pro-active phase after Christmas.
>
> So what does the current Regional picture look like? Regional political
strength at dissolution of the House of Commons is shown below, i.e. total seats
in Parliament.
>
> Liberal Conservative NDP Bloc Quebecois Independent
> BC 36 8 22 5 0 1
> West 56 4 46 3 0 2
> Ontario 106 74 23 7 0 2
> Quebec 75 21 0 0 54 0
> Atlantic 32 22 7 3 0 0
> North 3 3 0 0 0 0
> Total 308 133 98 18 54 5
>
> British Columbia: The BC campaign appears to be the tightest race in the
country. In most polls since the Election was called, Liberal, Conservative and
NDP numbers have been virtually tied > -> within the margin of polling error.
The most recent SES Tracking poll, however, shows the Liberals with a slim lead,
and the NDP losing s> upport to the Conservatives. Liberal and NDP strength lies
in the Lower Mainland; and the Conservatives remain strong in the rest of the
province. I would expect that as the race turns negative, the vote will polarize
between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the NDP vote will be reduced. In
a close National race, BC could be the King-maker in 2006.
>
> The West: Alberta and Saskatchewan remain Conservative strong-holds. The only
non-Conservative seats in the two provinces are Anne McLellan in Edmonton and
Ralph Goodale in Regina. (Independent David Kilgour> '> s seat in Edmonton is
expected to return to the Conservative fold.)
>
>
> Both have gone against the stream to win in the past and they could survive
again. Anne McLellan appears to be vulnerable this time. Manitoba, with some
interesting three way local races, could bring a few surprises for all parties.
Manitoba is the only Western province where parties other than the Conservatives
have a reasonable chance of winning or keeping seats.
>
> Ontario: The Liberals started strong and appear to be holding a substantial
lead over the Conservatives. It is expected that Stephen Harper will target key
ridings in South West and Rural Ontario, and selected ridings elsewhere. Recent
polls (SES particularly) have noted an increase in Conservative support in these
areas. There is also some encouragement for them in Toronto itself. So far,
National polls give the edge to the Liberals in Ontario. In the final three
weeks of the campaign, the NDP could be squeezed as in BC if the electorate
becomes polarized around the stark choice between the Conservatives and the
Liberals. In Ontario, so far, the Liberals strongest card appears to be Stephen
Harper. As long as Harper does not > "> break through> "> in Ontario, the last
Liberal bastion will hold.
>
> Quebec: In Quebec, the race is between the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals,
with the BQ anticipating additional seats in Montreal> '> s > "> red zone> "> .
Liberal Ministers Pierre Pettigrew, Liza Frulla, Jacques Saada and Jean Lapierre
are all in tight races to retain their seats. Two other races to watch are
Pontiac (where Conservative candidate, Lawrence Cannon, is running a strong race
against Liberal incumbent, David Smith) and Vaudreuil-Solanges (where former
Astronaut Marc Garneau is trying to win the seat back for the Liberals from BQ
incumbent Meilli Faille). The BQ currently hold 54 of the 75 seats in Quebec,
and have a substantial lead (> 20%) in all polls. It is expected that the BQ
will add seats to their total, but how many will depend on the dynamic of the
final three weeks. While recent Tracking polls show slight movement to the
Liberals, the advantage remains with the Bloc.
>
> Atlantic: Given current polls in this region, it is doubtful that there will
be much change from the last Election. Liberal support appears to be growing at
the expense of the Conservatives. However, the results in the Atlantic region
often run contrary to National trends. In 1997, when the Liberals won a thin
Majority government, the Atlantic region voted massively for the Conservative
party, displacing numerous incumbents, including high profile Liberal Ministers
David Dingwall and Doug Young.
>
> The North: The North cannot be counted as a separate region, per se, given
that there are only three seats. That said, the status quo is likely to prevail
with the Liberals retaining all three seats.
>
> Conclusions: The Bloc Quebecois are expected to dominate in Quebec,
effectively removing up to 60 of the 308 seats from the calculations of the
other two National parties > -> all but guaranteeing that the next Parliament
will be another Minority government. As of today, this is still a Liberal
Minority Parliament. With the exception of the Strategic Counsel Tracking poll,
the consensus among pollsters (Ipsos-Reid, SES, Leger, Ekos, Decima) is that the
Liberals have a growing lead of 6 - 8% and currently sit at 36 - 38%. Most
troubling for the Conservatives is that they have been unable to post consistent
numbers above 30% nationally > -> despite the multitude of issues confronting
the Liberal Party (Gomery, HRDC, Gun Registry, and more). Pollara has just
released a poll showing the Conservatives at 34% nationally. The Liberals are at
37% in the same poll.
>
>
>
>
> It appears that the first series of Debates changed the voting intentions of
very few Canadians. There will be a second series of Debates on January 9 -10,
and it is expected that the attacks will become more personal and negative. The
serious phase of the campaign begins on January 3rd.
>
> I will offer no firm predictions yet. However, you may want to consider that
in 1997, when the Liberals received 39% of the popular vote, they were rewarded
with 155 of the 301 seats > -> a Majority. In 2000, with 41% of the vote, they
received 172 of the 301 available > -> a bigger Majority. In the last Election
(June 28th, 2004), the Conservatives were ahead in most polls going into the
final three weeks. However, negative ads and sharp attacks by the Liberals
raised sufficient doubt in the public> '> s mind about the agenda of Stephen
Harper. In the final count, with just over 36% of the vote, the Liberals managed
to win a Minority government of 135 seats. So, while the gap of one or two
percent in the polls may seem insignificant to those tracking national polling
results, in reality it could well be the determinant of Minority or Majority
status.
>
> Based on the current state of the campaign, I would offer the following as the
most likely outcomes of the January 23rd election.
>
> Liberal Minority: As of today, this appears to be the most likely outcome. In
such an eventuality, it would be business as usual, although there is likely to
be a major reshuffling of Ministers and senior officials. Also, depending on the
margin of victory, it could well spell the beginning of the end for Paul Martin
as Liberal leader. No doubt, the knives will be out if the Liberals come close
to losing the government. However, Martin> '> s team has a firm grip on Liberal
Party infrastructure and it may be difficult to remove him as Leader if he
chooses to fight for his job. Conservative Leader Harper, on the other hand,
will likely be replaced shortly after any Liberal victory > -> even a Minority.
Harper> '> s demise may, in turn, increase pressure on the Liberals to rethink
Martin> '> s leadership of the Party. He will be 69.
>
> Conservative Minority: A major gaffe by the Liberals or a major upsurge in
Conservative support in key markets in Ontario and BC will be required to
engineer a Conservative victory. However, given the volatility of the electorate
and the fact that many Canadians have not yet tuned into the Election, anything
is possible. Should Stephen Harper win, there would be wholesale change in the
government agenda and massive change in the federal bureaucracy, particularly at
the Deputy Minister and PCO level. Liberal leader Martin will come under intense
pressure to resign.
>
> Liberal Majority: While it may look like a long-shot today, the electorate
appears to be quite volatile. As pointed out, even a modest change in the
popular vote can have dramatic results in terms of seats in the House of
Commons. At this point, the Liberals appear to be the only party with a chance
of forming a Majority government. Liberal support has edged at or near 40%
several times during this campaign.
>
> The pace of the campaign will enliven on January 3rd. Canadians will be
deluged with advertising and heightened rhetoric. The results on Election Day
will reflect the regional dynamic of the Canadian federation. However, with the
separatist Bloc Quebecois holding the > "> balance of power> "> in any Minority
Parliament, the dynamic for continued instability is considerable. Canada could
well be into another election within 18 months.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Some improvement: From mediocre to marginal
Lets not kid ourselves. Choosing between these four is a bit like deciding which skin disease you find least objectionable. Still, last night's debate was an improvement over Thursday's snoozefest.
Paul Martin did his usual upbeat peppy routine, which I think actually appeals to some people. Stephen Harper continued to work on his smile, which no longer seems so much like a grimace. Layton did his used-car salesman schtick, reverting to the persona we all find so grating. Duceppe, as usual, was eloquent, even in his second language --what a pity his vision is so at odds with most Canadians'.
Policy? Short on details, the lot of them. The gloves really came off when the subject turned to the US, and Martin came out swinging. He's starting to ease into this tough guy persona he has adopted, and seems increasingly comfortable wrapping himself in the Canadian flag. That's what he did when he launched a blistering attack on Duceppe and his "plans" for another sovereignty referendum.
He also attacked Harper on same-sex, which is definitely the achilles' heel in what has so far been a pretty solid Conservative Campaign. Martin seems to be solidifying his campaign around three themes that are widely seen as being his strengths, in spite of his very pronounced waffling on every one of them in the past:
He will defend the Charter (as opposed to Stephen Harper, who won't apparently, because he has a hidden agenda )
He will defend National Unity in this "referendum election" (presumably with the help of such staunch Federalists as Jean Lapierre)
He will stand up to the US and "call 'em like he sees 'em" (notwithstanding his Government's apparent impotence on BSE and soft wood)
Each of these wedge issues will likely pay dividends for Martin at the ballot box. At least two of the three could have very troubling implications for Canada once the dust settles and Martin is called to account by both Quebecers and our friends to the south.
Pretty short-sighted way to get back into power, if you ask me. But this is PM we are talking about, and we know that, in essence, it is power for power's sake that drives the man.
Lets not kid ourselves. Choosing between these four is a bit like deciding which skin disease you find least objectionable. Still, last night's debate was an improvement over Thursday's snoozefest.
Paul Martin did his usual upbeat peppy routine, which I think actually appeals to some people. Stephen Harper continued to work on his smile, which no longer seems so much like a grimace. Layton did his used-car salesman schtick, reverting to the persona we all find so grating. Duceppe, as usual, was eloquent, even in his second language --what a pity his vision is so at odds with most Canadians'.
Policy? Short on details, the lot of them. The gloves really came off when the subject turned to the US, and Martin came out swinging. He's starting to ease into this tough guy persona he has adopted, and seems increasingly comfortable wrapping himself in the Canadian flag. That's what he did when he launched a blistering attack on Duceppe and his "plans" for another sovereignty referendum.
He also attacked Harper on same-sex, which is definitely the achilles' heel in what has so far been a pretty solid Conservative Campaign. Martin seems to be solidifying his campaign around three themes that are widely seen as being his strengths, in spite of his very pronounced waffling on every one of them in the past:
He will defend the Charter (as opposed to Stephen Harper, who won't apparently, because he has a hidden agenda )
He will defend National Unity in this "referendum election" (presumably with the help of such staunch Federalists as Jean Lapierre)
He will stand up to the US and "call 'em like he sees 'em" (notwithstanding his Government's apparent impotence on BSE and soft wood)
Each of these wedge issues will likely pay dividends for Martin at the ballot box. At least two of the three could have very troubling implications for Canada once the dust settles and Martin is called to account by both Quebecers and our friends to the south.
Pretty short-sighted way to get back into power, if you ask me. But this is PM we are talking about, and we know that, in essence, it is power for power's sake that drives the man.
Friday, December 16, 2005
The tao of Moe
Man, you go through life, you try to be nice to people, you struggle to resist the urge to punch 'em in the face, and for what? For some pimply little puke to treat you like dirt unless you're on a team. Well, I'm better than dirt -- well, most kinds of dirt. I mean, not that fancy store-bought dirt. That stuff's loaded with nutrients. I -- I can't compete with that stuff.
Moe Syzlak
Man, you go through life, you try to be nice to people, you struggle to resist the urge to punch 'em in the face, and for what? For some pimply little puke to treat you like dirt unless you're on a team. Well, I'm better than dirt -- well, most kinds of dirt. I mean, not that fancy store-bought dirt. That stuff's loaded with nutrients. I -- I can't compete with that stuff.
Moe Syzlak
YAWN
In a well-intentioned attempt to bring a little civility to the debates after the 2004 debacle, the parties and networks ended up putting us to sleep with this first French debate under the new format.
Still, there were a couple of worthwhile tidbits in there... Martin's little hysterical fit about the Bloc gumming up the works in Ottawa; Harper pinning the PM with BMD; Layton flogging democratic reform and addressing Martin more than once.
The results? I suppose Duceppe won, but this debate won't change any minds. Layton set himself up as the most compassionate of the four --and well he should-- but did no more than perform adequately in his second language. Harper got off to a rough start, looking into the wrong camera for his opening statement, and struggling in French on several occasions --but it won't probably won't matter since the NDP and the Tories are not even on the radar in Quebec. This debate was Martin's to lose to Duceppe, but although Duceppe was by far the strongest presence on that set, Martin held his own. No knockout punch in this first round.
In a well-intentioned attempt to bring a little civility to the debates after the 2004 debacle, the parties and networks ended up putting us to sleep with this first French debate under the new format.
Still, there were a couple of worthwhile tidbits in there... Martin's little hysterical fit about the Bloc gumming up the works in Ottawa; Harper pinning the PM with BMD; Layton flogging democratic reform and addressing Martin more than once.
The results? I suppose Duceppe won, but this debate won't change any minds. Layton set himself up as the most compassionate of the four --and well he should-- but did no more than perform adequately in his second language. Harper got off to a rough start, looking into the wrong camera for his opening statement, and struggling in French on several occasions --but it won't probably won't matter since the NDP and the Tories are not even on the radar in Quebec. This debate was Martin's to lose to Duceppe, but although Duceppe was by far the strongest presence on that set, Martin held his own. No knockout punch in this first round.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
This just in: PM still a douchebag
As THIS old entry shows, I have longstanding antipathy towards our current Prime Minister. Although I honestly believe that Martin is a decent guy, I'm convinced that he is lacking in certain essential leadership qualities that allow him to truly succeed in the job he has wanted for so long. I also believe that
people he has surrounded himself with, a gang known as "The Board", are a real liability to him.
I'm starting to think that voters are catching on to this. Maybe the "Beer and Popcorn" fiasco has opened some eyes....
Many pundits are saying that in the end, we will end up with another Liberal Minority, just because the minute the Conservatives take the lead, "frightened" NDP voters will bolt to the Liberals. Well, if I could reach even one of those voters I would say:
Go ahead, Fear Harper. That's your god-given right as democratic socialists... but fear the Liberals more.... Martin has been speaking your language of late, but do Martin's promises really mean anything? Recall that this is the millionaire who supported the Iraq War and BMD, the guy you were all afraid was going to take the country to the right... Then, just when Jack Layton began holding his feet to the fire in the last parliament and he suddenly reversed course and became a born-again lefty who now chums around with Buzz Hargrove. Do you really think this conversion is genuine?
A Martin majority is still possible if les Rouges can stem the Bloc onslaught in Quebec, make gains in BC (already likely) and make enough Ontario ridings defect from the Tories and NDP. Several Liberal politicians have openly stated their goal of winning a majority.
On the other hand, a Conservative majority is a fantasy. Big bad scary Stephen, if he gets into 24 Sussex at all, will scrape in with a skin-of-his-teeth minority government. Therefore, if the Tories get in, the NDP will continue to call the tune - and the Tories will either dance, flirt with the separatists, or fall. That won't happen if Martin gets his majority, believe you me. watch for the shipping magnate's true colours to re-emerge if that happens... Corporate tax cuts, welcome back! Pull up a chair and sit a spell.
If you are an NDPer, vote for YOUR candidate. Voting against someone is a loser's strategy, because you are effectively penalizing your candidate to block another.
You only get to really exert some influence in a minority parliament. A Liberal majority is a remote possibility. A Conservative majority is not.
As THIS old entry shows, I have longstanding antipathy towards our current Prime Minister. Although I honestly believe that Martin is a decent guy, I'm convinced that he is lacking in certain essential leadership qualities that allow him to truly succeed in the job he has wanted for so long. I also believe that
people he has surrounded himself with, a gang known as "The Board", are a real liability to him.
I'm starting to think that voters are catching on to this. Maybe the "Beer and Popcorn" fiasco has opened some eyes....
Many pundits are saying that in the end, we will end up with another Liberal Minority, just because the minute the Conservatives take the lead, "frightened" NDP voters will bolt to the Liberals. Well, if I could reach even one of those voters I would say:
Go ahead, Fear Harper. That's your god-given right as democratic socialists... but fear the Liberals more.... Martin has been speaking your language of late, but do Martin's promises really mean anything? Recall that this is the millionaire who supported the Iraq War and BMD, the guy you were all afraid was going to take the country to the right... Then, just when Jack Layton began holding his feet to the fire in the last parliament and he suddenly reversed course and became a born-again lefty who now chums around with Buzz Hargrove. Do you really think this conversion is genuine?
A Martin majority is still possible if les Rouges can stem the Bloc onslaught in Quebec, make gains in BC (already likely) and make enough Ontario ridings defect from the Tories and NDP. Several Liberal politicians have openly stated their goal of winning a majority.
On the other hand, a Conservative majority is a fantasy. Big bad scary Stephen, if he gets into 24 Sussex at all, will scrape in with a skin-of-his-teeth minority government. Therefore, if the Tories get in, the NDP will continue to call the tune - and the Tories will either dance, flirt with the separatists, or fall. That won't happen if Martin gets his majority, believe you me. watch for the shipping magnate's true colours to re-emerge if that happens... Corporate tax cuts, welcome back! Pull up a chair and sit a spell.
If you are an NDPer, vote for YOUR candidate. Voting against someone is a loser's strategy, because you are effectively penalizing your candidate to block another.
You only get to really exert some influence in a minority parliament. A Liberal majority is a remote possibility. A Conservative majority is not.
Monday, December 12, 2005
A Little Perspective
" I offically hate Bret Ratner now worse than Hitler" This was an AICN posting December 5th, 2005 of reaction to new X-men movie teaser trailer.
While Brian Singer, originally slated to direct, is adored by fans of the superhero genre, largely because of his two successful X-men adaptations, his replacement is considered a talentless hack by many AICN fanboys. Bret Ratner, who directed Red Dragon (which I like) and the Rush Hour flicks (which are mildly amusing)was brought on board when Singer left the third X-men movie because he was offered the job of directing Superman II.
What really made my day is this follow up post, a few minutes later, by Uncooked_Meat (that's some handle, Poindexter):
08:17:21 PM CST And thus, fellow talkbackers, we have seen the day when AICN
hyperbole reached truly epic proportions. A level which has not been seen
before, and will not see again. Let us sit and comtemplate it.
" I offically hate Bret Ratner now worse than Hitler" This was an AICN posting December 5th, 2005 of reaction to new X-men movie teaser trailer.
While Brian Singer, originally slated to direct, is adored by fans of the superhero genre, largely because of his two successful X-men adaptations, his replacement is considered a talentless hack by many AICN fanboys. Bret Ratner, who directed Red Dragon (which I like) and the Rush Hour flicks (which are mildly amusing)was brought on board when Singer left the third X-men movie because he was offered the job of directing Superman II.
What really made my day is this follow up post, a few minutes later, by Uncooked_Meat (that's some handle, Poindexter):
08:17:21 PM CST And thus, fellow talkbackers, we have seen the day when AICN
hyperbole reached truly epic proportions. A level which has not been seen
before, and will not see again. Let us sit and comtemplate it.
Canadian Unity Update
Back in the day, I wrote an angry rant about Edith Gebndron, real piece of work who somehow managed to ignore the absurd contradictions of her life and reconcile her high-paying Federal Public Service job at Canadian Heritage, a department dedicated to promoting a cohesive country, with her sovereigntist political ideology and activism in a group pursuing the breakup of Canada.
I am pleased to report that subsequently, Ms. Gendron's untenable career paradox ended when she was unceremoniously fired ass-over-tea-kettle out the door by Patrimoine Canadien. How did I discover this? I read this article, which tells us that Edith's husband, Richard Nadeau, is running for the Bloc in an Outaouais riding.
A belated congratulations to Edith on her firing (and her inevitable enshrinement in the pantheon of middle class martyrs of the sovereigniste cause) and best of luck to her as she embarks on the next stage of her life as the wife of a Bloc MP, a duty which will hopefully be free of the ethical dilemmas she seems so singularly ill-equipped to handle.
Back in the day, I wrote an angry rant about Edith Gebndron, real piece of work who somehow managed to ignore the absurd contradictions of her life and reconcile her high-paying Federal Public Service job at Canadian Heritage, a department dedicated to promoting a cohesive country, with her sovereigntist political ideology and activism in a group pursuing the breakup of Canada.
I am pleased to report that subsequently, Ms. Gendron's untenable career paradox ended when she was unceremoniously fired ass-over-tea-kettle out the door by Patrimoine Canadien. How did I discover this? I read this article, which tells us that Edith's husband, Richard Nadeau, is running for the Bloc in an Outaouais riding.
A belated congratulations to Edith on her firing (and her inevitable enshrinement in the pantheon of middle class martyrs of the sovereigniste cause) and best of luck to her as she embarks on the next stage of her life as the wife of a Bloc MP, a duty which will hopefully be free of the ethical dilemmas she seems so singularly ill-equipped to handle.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Election Insanity
Ya gotta love the campaign, folks. I mean, there is some genuinely hilarious stuff going on right now, as Politicians twist themselves into pretzels attempting to explain to us why "the other guys" will be soooo bad for Canada.
Belinda Stronach just blasted Stephen Harper for being willing to putting the country at risk for "Selfish political gain". Ms. Stronach, who can barely put two words together in French, unless it is to order the Terrine de confit de canard aux noix at Cafe Henry Burger, has seen fit to work La Belle Province into her speeches, claiming that bringing down the Liberal minority was "an ill-conceived assault" by Harper on federalism in Quebec.
Meanwhile, sources tell me that, in a vain attempt to appear more virile, our pension-eligible PM has been secretly studying the ancient secret techniques of Rum-Fu and will unleash his new skills with devastating effect on the leaders of the rival parties at the first televised debate.
Watch for that, people... it's gonna be awesome!
Ya gotta love the campaign, folks. I mean, there is some genuinely hilarious stuff going on right now, as Politicians twist themselves into pretzels attempting to explain to us why "the other guys" will be soooo bad for Canada.
Belinda Stronach just blasted Stephen Harper for being willing to putting the country at risk for "Selfish political gain". Ms. Stronach, who can barely put two words together in French, unless it is to order the Terrine de confit de canard aux noix at Cafe Henry Burger, has seen fit to work La Belle Province into her speeches, claiming that bringing down the Liberal minority was "an ill-conceived assault" by Harper on federalism in Quebec.
Meanwhile, sources tell me that, in a vain attempt to appear more virile, our pension-eligible PM has been secretly studying the ancient secret techniques of Rum-Fu and will unleash his new skills with devastating effect on the leaders of the rival parties at the first televised debate.
Watch for that, people... it's gonna be awesome!
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Rick Mercer works blue
And it's funny! Check out his blog, which features letters from the desks of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper as well as a Photo Challenge. My personal fave is "Drop the Writ Like it's Hot" With the Snoop D-O-double-G in the background. Priceless.
And it's funny! Check out his blog, which features letters from the desks of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper as well as a Photo Challenge. My personal fave is "Drop the Writ Like it's Hot" With the Snoop D-O-double-G in the background. Priceless.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Win by Losing
Toronto author, former Liberal advisor and Martin-hater Warren Kinsela expounds upon a theme that some wobbly Liberals may start to subscribe to if the campaign goes to shit:
Can a political party win by losing?
In the election campaign that effectively begins today, that is the question many Liberals are asking themselves. And, in quiet moments, many of them are concluding that losing power - not for a long time, but long enough - would be a good thing.
As a former senior Liberal cabinet minister told me just last week: "We need renewal. We need new people, we need new ideas, and we need the kind of things that can only come with some time in the penalty box. I can't believe I'm saying this, but we need to lose."
It is not an exaggeration to say that the Liberal Party of Canada is broken. Beset by a paucity of ideas and energy, struggling with mounting debt and scandals, riven by infighting and division, despairing of an ineffective cabinet and a dithering leader, the formerly great party of Pearson and Trudeau and Chrétien is great no more. Its soul is lost.
No better recent example of this can be found than in the sad drama that unfolded in the past few days in the Toronto riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. For more than a decade, the riding had been ably represented by Jean Augustine - an honest, respected woman of colour who would have easily won re-election in 2006. But last week, as Ms. Augustine cried in the national Liberal caucus, disbelieving Members of Parliament learned that she was "stepping aside." Having endured nearly two years of bullying by Paul Martin's aides, few believed that Ms. Augustine was doing so willingly.
This week, Liberals in Etobicoke-Lakeshore witnessed the astonishing spectacle of hard-working local Grits being excluded from the process - literally denied entry to party headquarters, whilst Mr. Martin's minions inside ignored their pleas to open the doors. And, shortly thereafter, the locked-out Liberals learned in the media that Ms. Augustine's successor had already been decided - a white man and foreign resident named Michael Ignatieff.
The Globe and Mail and a few members of Toronto's brie-and-chardonnay chattering classes have been championing Mr. Ignatieff for many months, now, talking him up as a successor to Mr. Martin. Despite the fact that Mr. Ignatieff has not lived in Canada for more than two decades - despite the fact he supports George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, opposition to which remains one of Jean Chrétien's most popular legacies - Mr. Martin and his bunkered circle of advisors were undeterred.
Mr. Ignatieff, a Harvard University professor and author, arguably possesses an impressive curriculum vitae, as do many of the other rumoured aspirants to the Liberal Party crown - among them former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, former Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon, or former Ontario Premier (and former NDP member) Bob Rae. All of these impressive men (no women among them so far, another telling indicator of the Liberal Party's state of disrepair) would be laudable candidates for leadership.
But - and I say this as one who possesses no enthusiasm whatsoever for Mr. Martin's leadership nor the insular group around him - what the Liberal Party needs is much more than a leadership race. A leadership race will not attract the sorts of things the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs: new ideas, new approaches, new people and a new generation of leadership. What Liberals need is not just a new leader -what Liberals need is a new Liberal Party.
Power, which Liberals have been privileged to wield since 1993, tends to have a corrosive effect on political parties. Cabinet ministers and Parliamentary secretaries start spending more time in Ottawa than in their ridings; senior staff and Parliamentarians socialize with deputy ministers instead of local mayors and community leaders; the opinions of national media columnists take on a greater significance than the voices raised in town hall meetings and church basements.
In time, Liberals (and, before that, Conservatives) find that they have lost touch with the people they were hired to represent. They start to make mistakes, as they did again in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. They become, in effect, what they were sent to Ottawa to change.
Thus the Liberal Party of Canada, circa 2005 A.D. Dispirited, disliked and divided in much of the country - and spared the loss of power only by the fact that their principal adversaries are (for now) distrusted by many female voters. Too many Liberals confuse the Conservatives' continuing inability to win an election with enthusiasm for the alternative. One day - and one day soon, I believe - the Conservative Party will attract the support of enough Canadians, and Liberals will bitterly rue the day they forsook renewal.
Some Liberals, and all of Paul Martin's sect, will dismiss all of this as the carping of an exiled Chrétien-era Liberal, naturally. That is their way. Their cloistered arrogance - their near-total inability to make out the country that lies beyond the Parliamentary precinct - led to the loss of Mr. Chrétien's majority and, a few weeks hence, will further reduce the dimensions their listing, listless minority government. Their opinion, at long last, counts for nothing.
For the rest of us, however - for a majority of Canadians and, I believe, for a silent number of traditional Liberals - we know that an election loss would be a good thing. For the country, and for a once-great political party, too.
Toronto author, former Liberal advisor and Martin-hater Warren Kinsela expounds upon a theme that some wobbly Liberals may start to subscribe to if the campaign goes to shit:
Can a political party win by losing?
In the election campaign that effectively begins today, that is the question many Liberals are asking themselves. And, in quiet moments, many of them are concluding that losing power - not for a long time, but long enough - would be a good thing.
As a former senior Liberal cabinet minister told me just last week: "We need renewal. We need new people, we need new ideas, and we need the kind of things that can only come with some time in the penalty box. I can't believe I'm saying this, but we need to lose."
It is not an exaggeration to say that the Liberal Party of Canada is broken. Beset by a paucity of ideas and energy, struggling with mounting debt and scandals, riven by infighting and division, despairing of an ineffective cabinet and a dithering leader, the formerly great party of Pearson and Trudeau and Chrétien is great no more. Its soul is lost.
No better recent example of this can be found than in the sad drama that unfolded in the past few days in the Toronto riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. For more than a decade, the riding had been ably represented by Jean Augustine - an honest, respected woman of colour who would have easily won re-election in 2006. But last week, as Ms. Augustine cried in the national Liberal caucus, disbelieving Members of Parliament learned that she was "stepping aside." Having endured nearly two years of bullying by Paul Martin's aides, few believed that Ms. Augustine was doing so willingly.
This week, Liberals in Etobicoke-Lakeshore witnessed the astonishing spectacle of hard-working local Grits being excluded from the process - literally denied entry to party headquarters, whilst Mr. Martin's minions inside ignored their pleas to open the doors. And, shortly thereafter, the locked-out Liberals learned in the media that Ms. Augustine's successor had already been decided - a white man and foreign resident named Michael Ignatieff.
The Globe and Mail and a few members of Toronto's brie-and-chardonnay chattering classes have been championing Mr. Ignatieff for many months, now, talking him up as a successor to Mr. Martin. Despite the fact that Mr. Ignatieff has not lived in Canada for more than two decades - despite the fact he supports George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, opposition to which remains one of Jean Chrétien's most popular legacies - Mr. Martin and his bunkered circle of advisors were undeterred.
Mr. Ignatieff, a Harvard University professor and author, arguably possesses an impressive curriculum vitae, as do many of the other rumoured aspirants to the Liberal Party crown - among them former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, former Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon, or former Ontario Premier (and former NDP member) Bob Rae. All of these impressive men (no women among them so far, another telling indicator of the Liberal Party's state of disrepair) would be laudable candidates for leadership.
But - and I say this as one who possesses no enthusiasm whatsoever for Mr. Martin's leadership nor the insular group around him - what the Liberal Party needs is much more than a leadership race. A leadership race will not attract the sorts of things the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs: new ideas, new approaches, new people and a new generation of leadership. What Liberals need is not just a new leader -what Liberals need is a new Liberal Party.
Power, which Liberals have been privileged to wield since 1993, tends to have a corrosive effect on political parties. Cabinet ministers and Parliamentary secretaries start spending more time in Ottawa than in their ridings; senior staff and Parliamentarians socialize with deputy ministers instead of local mayors and community leaders; the opinions of national media columnists take on a greater significance than the voices raised in town hall meetings and church basements.
In time, Liberals (and, before that, Conservatives) find that they have lost touch with the people they were hired to represent. They start to make mistakes, as they did again in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. They become, in effect, what they were sent to Ottawa to change.
Thus the Liberal Party of Canada, circa 2005 A.D. Dispirited, disliked and divided in much of the country - and spared the loss of power only by the fact that their principal adversaries are (for now) distrusted by many female voters. Too many Liberals confuse the Conservatives' continuing inability to win an election with enthusiasm for the alternative. One day - and one day soon, I believe - the Conservative Party will attract the support of enough Canadians, and Liberals will bitterly rue the day they forsook renewal.
Some Liberals, and all of Paul Martin's sect, will dismiss all of this as the carping of an exiled Chrétien-era Liberal, naturally. That is their way. Their cloistered arrogance - their near-total inability to make out the country that lies beyond the Parliamentary precinct - led to the loss of Mr. Chrétien's majority and, a few weeks hence, will further reduce the dimensions their listing, listless minority government. Their opinion, at long last, counts for nothing.
For the rest of us, however - for a majority of Canadians and, I believe, for a silent number of traditional Liberals - we know that an election loss would be a good thing. For the country, and for a once-great political party, too.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Lomins the lawyer-in-training sent me this, and I almost peed myself laughing. If you substitute "Aikido chop" for "roundhouse kick" you could probably apply most of these statements (substituting pony tail references for beard references, of course) to Stephen Seagal who, for my money, breaks bones and dislocates joints better than any tubby martial-arts star out there today.
Top Thirty Facts About Chuck Norris:
1.Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
3. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
4. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
5. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
6. Filming on location for Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris brought a stillborn baby lamb back to life by giving it a prolonged beard rub. Shortly after the farm animal sprang back to life and a crowd had gathered, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the animal, breaking its neck, to remind the crew once more that Chuck giveth, and the good Chuck, he taketh away.
7. Chuck Norris once ate three 72 oz. steaks in one hour. He spent the first 45 minutes having sex with his waitress.
8. Chuck Norris's girlfriend once asked him how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. He then shouted, "HOW DARE YOU RHYME IN THE PRESENCE OF CHUCK NORRIS!" and ripped out her throat. Holding his girlfriend's bloody throat in his hand he bellowed, "Don't fuck with Chuck!" Two years and five months later he realized the irony of this statement and laughed so hard that anyone within a hundred mile radius of the blast went deaf.
9. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
10. To prove it isn't that big of a deal to beat cancer. Chuck Norris smoked 15 cartons of cigarettes a day for 2 years and aquired 7 different kinds of cancer only to rid them from his body by flexing for 30 minutes. Beat that, Lance Armstrong.
11. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly after all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
12. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck
Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
13. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead
decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
14. There are no disabled people. Only people who have met Chuck Norris.
15. Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying
16. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
17. Chuck Norris is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Chuck
Norris
18. Chuck Norris can mathematically make two wrongs equal a right.
19. When Chuck Norris's wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said,
"Don't worry about it honey," and went into his backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce. When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
20. The quickest way to a man's heart is with Chuck Norris's fist.
21. Chuck Norris died ten years ago, but the Grim Reaper can't get up the
courage to tell him.
22. Chuck Norris appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Norris replied, "That's no glitch."
23. It was once believed that Chuck Norris actually lost a fight to a pirate, but that is a lie, created by Chuck Norris himself to lure more pirates to him. Pirates never were very smart.
24. Chuck Norris won 'Jumanji' without ever saying the word. He simply beat the living shit out of everything that was thrown at him, and the game forfeited.
25. Chuck Norris frequently signs up for beginner karate classes, just so he can "accidentally" beat the shit out of little kids.
26. When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
27. Similar to a Russian Nesting Doll, if you were to break Chuck Norris open you would find another Chuck Norris inside, only smaller and angrier.
28. After much debate, President Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima rather than the alternative of sending Chuck Norris. His reasoning? It was more "humane".
29. Chuck Norris once tried to sue Burger King after they refused to put razor wire in his Whopper Jr., insisting that that actually is "his" way.
30. Chuck Norris once bet NASA he could survive re-entry without a spacesuit. On July 19th, 1999, a naked Chuck Norris re-entered the earth's atmosphere, streaking over 14 states and reaching a temperature of 3000 degrees. An embarrassed NASA publically claimed it was a meteor, and still owes him a beer.
Top Thirty Facts About Chuck Norris:
1.Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
3. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
4. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
5. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
6. Filming on location for Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris brought a stillborn baby lamb back to life by giving it a prolonged beard rub. Shortly after the farm animal sprang back to life and a crowd had gathered, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the animal, breaking its neck, to remind the crew once more that Chuck giveth, and the good Chuck, he taketh away.
7. Chuck Norris once ate three 72 oz. steaks in one hour. He spent the first 45 minutes having sex with his waitress.
8. Chuck Norris's girlfriend once asked him how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. He then shouted, "HOW DARE YOU RHYME IN THE PRESENCE OF CHUCK NORRIS!" and ripped out her throat. Holding his girlfriend's bloody throat in his hand he bellowed, "Don't fuck with Chuck!" Two years and five months later he realized the irony of this statement and laughed so hard that anyone within a hundred mile radius of the blast went deaf.
9. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
10. To prove it isn't that big of a deal to beat cancer. Chuck Norris smoked 15 cartons of cigarettes a day for 2 years and aquired 7 different kinds of cancer only to rid them from his body by flexing for 30 minutes. Beat that, Lance Armstrong.
11. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly after all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
12. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck
Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
13. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead
decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
14. There are no disabled people. Only people who have met Chuck Norris.
15. Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying
16. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
17. Chuck Norris is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Chuck
Norris
18. Chuck Norris can mathematically make two wrongs equal a right.
19. When Chuck Norris's wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said,
"Don't worry about it honey," and went into his backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce. When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
20. The quickest way to a man's heart is with Chuck Norris's fist.
21. Chuck Norris died ten years ago, but the Grim Reaper can't get up the
courage to tell him.
22. Chuck Norris appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Norris replied, "That's no glitch."
23. It was once believed that Chuck Norris actually lost a fight to a pirate, but that is a lie, created by Chuck Norris himself to lure more pirates to him. Pirates never were very smart.
24. Chuck Norris won 'Jumanji' without ever saying the word. He simply beat the living shit out of everything that was thrown at him, and the game forfeited.
25. Chuck Norris frequently signs up for beginner karate classes, just so he can "accidentally" beat the shit out of little kids.
26. When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
27. Similar to a Russian Nesting Doll, if you were to break Chuck Norris open you would find another Chuck Norris inside, only smaller and angrier.
28. After much debate, President Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima rather than the alternative of sending Chuck Norris. His reasoning? It was more "humane".
29. Chuck Norris once tried to sue Burger King after they refused to put razor wire in his Whopper Jr., insisting that that actually is "his" way.
30. Chuck Norris once bet NASA he could survive re-entry without a spacesuit. On July 19th, 1999, a naked Chuck Norris re-entered the earth's atmosphere, streaking over 14 states and reaching a temperature of 3000 degrees. An embarrassed NASA publically claimed it was a meteor, and still owes him a beer.
Monday, November 28, 2005
When it all comes tumbling down...
So it would appear we have an election campaign on our hands. If Paul Martin is to be believed, this will be a battle between the forces of good vs. the evil "NEO-CONS" (watch for that nugget to surface time and time again in the coming campaign), and their nefarious allies, the separatiste Bloc (Formerly known as Sergeant Duceppe's Lonely Nationalist Hearts Club Band).
It was history-in-the-making. High drama, as MPs rose one by one to vote on a simple motion of non-confidence. When it was over, the ayes had it. The Gomery parliament, as Rex Murphy calls it, was toast.
Anyone else notice that Martin didn't even bother to stand up and announce that he would be visiting the GG in the morning to ask her to drop the writ? By God, Paul Martin will not be held hostage to parliamentary procedure! How dare ye suggest otherwise. Boy, with that big shit-eating grin he wore in the caucus meeting right after the non-confidence vote, you would almost think he had won the damn thing.
Shit-eating grins were not in short supply tonight. Stephen Harper, too, had one plastered to his pasty visage... of course, in his case, it came across like the pained grimace you usually see on a man suffering a particularly troublesome case of flatulence. Old Steve did a yeoman job rallying the troops. None of that "angry-scary boogeyman Harper" that Canadians have come to know and dislike. He was all about the bright and sunny future that will no doubt follow a Conservative victory in the next parliament. As for the other two: Duceppe was Duceppe --thoroughly unsympathetic and madeningly confident and competent. Damnit if I'm not starting to like the guy! Layton looked glum as he read his recipe cards-- I know his handlers have been telling him to try to look more serious and not so gratingly gleeful, but come on, Jack! You just handed Martin his cojones! Try to look like you enjoyed it a teeny-tiny bit, 'kay?
My verdict? Altogether unimpressive, as far as history-in-the-making goes.
...Hey at least the Eskies won the Cup last night. And who better to comment on their triumph than Edmonton's own, The Coshster?
But I digress... we are sure to hear the parties hold forth on a number of issues in the upcoming extenda-campaign (now with more wintery goodness), but one topic that is sure to be avoided like the plague is abortion. It's the one that just won't go away, though, as the Ottawa Citizen's Brigitte Pellerin tells us this week:
Last Thursday we learned that less than 24 hours before the start of the conference, religious (Roman Catholic) authorities at the Oratory had told the organizers to find a different venue. "In the past three days, we have been informed that protests on our grounds are being planned against the 2005 pro-life conference," said Rector Jean-Pierre Aumont. "We have come to the conclusion that we cannot guarantee the safety of people on the grounds of Saint-Joseph's Oratory during this event." Much scrambling ensued, but the conference began more or less as planned at the(Protestant) La Bible parle church in suburban Cartierville. Participants included a number of friends and acquaintances of mine, including longtime journalist Peter Stockland and Richard Bastien of the Quebec journal Égards. MPs Stockwell Day and Pat O'Brien, as well as former Bloc MP and unsuccessful Parti Québécois leadership candidate Ghislain Lebel, were also there. In the end, slightly fewer than 400 participants went about their business, and most deemed the conference a success despite the threats (I'm told a window was broken), graffiti on the church's steps - including a heartfelt "inquisitors to the stake" - and noisy street protests complete with banners that read, "If only Mary [yes, that Mary] had known about abortion" and "Take your rosary off my ovaries."
It's always nice to see such self-described tolerant and progressive folks in action. Quietly and peacefully protesting a conference is certainly legal, awful banners and all. For the record, though, I would like to state that anybody - whether clutching a rosary or, for that matter, a vacuum cleaner - who gets too close to my ovaries will experience a swift elbow to the chin. What's not OK, or legal, is trying to shut down other people's lawfully gathered conferences, no matter how distasteful you find them. Nobody has a right to use violence, or the threat of violence, to disrupt legal peaceful activities by private groups. As for the Catholic authorities at the Oratory who chickened out, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
...Disgraceful
So it would appear we have an election campaign on our hands. If Paul Martin is to be believed, this will be a battle between the forces of good vs. the evil "NEO-CONS" (watch for that nugget to surface time and time again in the coming campaign), and their nefarious allies, the separatiste Bloc (Formerly known as Sergeant Duceppe's Lonely Nationalist Hearts Club Band).
It was history-in-the-making. High drama, as MPs rose one by one to vote on a simple motion of non-confidence. When it was over, the ayes had it. The Gomery parliament, as Rex Murphy calls it, was toast.
Anyone else notice that Martin didn't even bother to stand up and announce that he would be visiting the GG in the morning to ask her to drop the writ? By God, Paul Martin will not be held hostage to parliamentary procedure! How dare ye suggest otherwise. Boy, with that big shit-eating grin he wore in the caucus meeting right after the non-confidence vote, you would almost think he had won the damn thing.
Shit-eating grins were not in short supply tonight. Stephen Harper, too, had one plastered to his pasty visage... of course, in his case, it came across like the pained grimace you usually see on a man suffering a particularly troublesome case of flatulence. Old Steve did a yeoman job rallying the troops. None of that "angry-scary boogeyman Harper" that Canadians have come to know and dislike. He was all about the bright and sunny future that will no doubt follow a Conservative victory in the next parliament. As for the other two: Duceppe was Duceppe --thoroughly unsympathetic and madeningly confident and competent. Damnit if I'm not starting to like the guy! Layton looked glum as he read his recipe cards-- I know his handlers have been telling him to try to look more serious and not so gratingly gleeful, but come on, Jack! You just handed Martin his cojones! Try to look like you enjoyed it a teeny-tiny bit, 'kay?
My verdict? Altogether unimpressive, as far as history-in-the-making goes.
...Hey at least the Eskies won the Cup last night. And who better to comment on their triumph than Edmonton's own, The Coshster?
But I digress... we are sure to hear the parties hold forth on a number of issues in the upcoming extenda-campaign (now with more wintery goodness), but one topic that is sure to be avoided like the plague is abortion. It's the one that just won't go away, though, as the Ottawa Citizen's Brigitte Pellerin tells us this week:
Last Thursday we learned that less than 24 hours before the start of the conference, religious (Roman Catholic) authorities at the Oratory had told the organizers to find a different venue. "In the past three days, we have been informed that protests on our grounds are being planned against the 2005 pro-life conference," said Rector Jean-Pierre Aumont. "We have come to the conclusion that we cannot guarantee the safety of people on the grounds of Saint-Joseph's Oratory during this event." Much scrambling ensued, but the conference began more or less as planned at the(Protestant) La Bible parle church in suburban Cartierville. Participants included a number of friends and acquaintances of mine, including longtime journalist Peter Stockland and Richard Bastien of the Quebec journal Égards. MPs Stockwell Day and Pat O'Brien, as well as former Bloc MP and unsuccessful Parti Québécois leadership candidate Ghislain Lebel, were also there. In the end, slightly fewer than 400 participants went about their business, and most deemed the conference a success despite the threats (I'm told a window was broken), graffiti on the church's steps - including a heartfelt "inquisitors to the stake" - and noisy street protests complete with banners that read, "If only Mary [yes, that Mary] had known about abortion" and "Take your rosary off my ovaries."
It's always nice to see such self-described tolerant and progressive folks in action. Quietly and peacefully protesting a conference is certainly legal, awful banners and all. For the record, though, I would like to state that anybody - whether clutching a rosary or, for that matter, a vacuum cleaner - who gets too close to my ovaries will experience a swift elbow to the chin. What's not OK, or legal, is trying to shut down other people's lawfully gathered conferences, no matter how distasteful you find them. Nobody has a right to use violence, or the threat of violence, to disrupt legal peaceful activities by private groups. As for the Catholic authorities at the Oratory who chickened out, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
...Disgraceful
Post-grey cup thoughts:
The CFL is to the NFL as a smash-up derby is to an Amtrack switchyard
The CFL did not "borrow" NHL fans during the strike. It earned every damn one of them. Today, those fans got their new customer bonus.
It's been said before, but it is worth saying again: Players play in the CFL for love of the game, not for money.
... and that makes all the difference in the world.
The CFL is to the NFL as a smash-up derby is to an Amtrack switchyard
The CFL did not "borrow" NHL fans during the strike. It earned every damn one of them. Today, those fans got their new customer bonus.
It's been said before, but it is worth saying again: Players play in the CFL for love of the game, not for money.
... and that makes all the difference in the world.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
My free political advice to the PM as we enter the election campaign:
You can't have it both ways Paul.
Are you the Paul Martin who was Finance Minister in the Chretien government? You know, the guy who steered us to umpteen balanced budgets and who slew the deficit? Oh, yeah? Then you were also , a senior Cabinet Minister, the deputy chair of Treasury Board,and a member of the Quebec Caucus... you know, one of the guys who brought us Adscam, right?
NO?
You knew nothing of the actions of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party?
Well that's Gomery told us, at any rate?
You repudiate those actions?
Well then, damnit, perhaps you dissociate yourself completely from the filthy corrupt people responsible for that abomination! Maybe even leave the Liberal name behind! Yeah....With your connections and big bucks, you could certainly found your own party, a fiscally conservative, socially progressive party that panders to the provinces! Le Parti Paul Martin! sounds like a winner to me...Force your caucus to choose sides! Force your candidates the same! Come on, last election your people ran as L'equipe Martin, basically forsaking the Liberal brand, and when you did all those great things all those many years ago, it was as FINANCE MINISTER Paul Martin, not as "Liberal MP" Paul Martin, no?
I'm just jokin', Paulie. In for a penny, in for a pound, right? It may be a Paul Martin Government, but its a Liberal Government all the same, and like it or not, you people have been in power for over a decade. And we are getting tired, Paul, oh so tired of your shenanigans. Ultimately, you will be judged by the electorate as a Liberal, because like it or not, all your attempts to "re-brand" notwithstanding, that's what you are.
Question is.. are people sick enough of you guys to throw you out on your ear?
We'll find out in January.
You can't have it both ways Paul.
Are you the Paul Martin who was Finance Minister in the Chretien government? You know, the guy who steered us to umpteen balanced budgets and who slew the deficit? Oh, yeah? Then you were also , a senior Cabinet Minister, the deputy chair of Treasury Board,and a member of the Quebec Caucus... you know, one of the guys who brought us Adscam, right?
NO?
You knew nothing of the actions of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party?
Well that's Gomery told us, at any rate?
You repudiate those actions?
Well then, damnit, perhaps you dissociate yourself completely from the filthy corrupt people responsible for that abomination! Maybe even leave the Liberal name behind! Yeah....With your connections and big bucks, you could certainly found your own party, a fiscally conservative, socially progressive party that panders to the provinces! Le Parti Paul Martin! sounds like a winner to me...Force your caucus to choose sides! Force your candidates the same! Come on, last election your people ran as L'equipe Martin, basically forsaking the Liberal brand, and when you did all those great things all those many years ago, it was as FINANCE MINISTER Paul Martin, not as "Liberal MP" Paul Martin, no?
I'm just jokin', Paulie. In for a penny, in for a pound, right? It may be a Paul Martin Government, but its a Liberal Government all the same, and like it or not, you people have been in power for over a decade. And we are getting tired, Paul, oh so tired of your shenanigans. Ultimately, you will be judged by the electorate as a Liberal, because like it or not, all your attempts to "re-brand" notwithstanding, that's what you are.
Question is.. are people sick enough of you guys to throw you out on your ear?
We'll find out in January.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
In no particular order...
Looks like we will be having a Christmas election campaign. I'm not entirely sure why this is a big deal, but the pundits would have us believe that this rare occurence in Canadian politics will have far-reaching impacts. I remain skeptical on the supposed significance of a December campaign, and I expect that this election, like so many others in recent memory, will be characterized by voter apathy, low voter turnout, and a continuing decline in Canadians' statisfaction with their electoral system and the political class at large.
Oh, yeah, and crap like THIS doesn't help improve the public's perception of their leaders. How stupid do these guys take us for? This is really too rich.
~~~~~~
I read something eerily prophetic the other day:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."
Those words were spoken by a young attorney on January 27, 1838 in his "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois". It was his very prescient reminder that it is often within a society that the seeds of destruction take root.
~~~~~~
Another disturbing quote on the death of Europe, and Western society's inexhorable march towards demographic disaster (one of my favourite hobby horses). This one, from George Weigel, author of The Cube and the Cathedral -- Europe, America, and Politics Without God: "by 2050, 60 percent of Italians will not know from personal experience what a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin is." Quoted in Ed Thomas, "Theologian Suggests U.S. Learn from Europe's Shift Toward Secularism
June 15, 2005
Is Western civilization intent on committing suicide? Apparently some people are now actively campaigning for the wilful eradication of our species!
Looks like we will be having a Christmas election campaign. I'm not entirely sure why this is a big deal, but the pundits would have us believe that this rare occurence in Canadian politics will have far-reaching impacts. I remain skeptical on the supposed significance of a December campaign, and I expect that this election, like so many others in recent memory, will be characterized by voter apathy, low voter turnout, and a continuing decline in Canadians' statisfaction with their electoral system and the political class at large.
Oh, yeah, and crap like THIS doesn't help improve the public's perception of their leaders. How stupid do these guys take us for? This is really too rich.
~~~~~~
I read something eerily prophetic the other day:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."
Those words were spoken by a young attorney on January 27, 1838 in his "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois". It was his very prescient reminder that it is often within a society that the seeds of destruction take root.
~~~~~~
Another disturbing quote on the death of Europe, and Western society's inexhorable march towards demographic disaster (one of my favourite hobby horses). This one, from George Weigel, author of The Cube and the Cathedral -- Europe, America, and Politics Without God: "by 2050, 60 percent of Italians will not know from personal experience what a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin is." Quoted in Ed Thomas, "Theologian Suggests U.S. Learn from Europe's Shift Toward Secularism
June 15, 2005
Is Western civilization intent on committing suicide? Apparently some people are now actively campaigning for the wilful eradication of our species!
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Blog Revolution
Pajamas Media
founded by Charles Johnson and Roger Simon (the bloggers who broke and disseminated the fake National Guard memo story and brought Dan Rather's Career to an ugly end) is relaunching.
The National Review Online has more here.
Open Source Media will now be one stop-shopping for people who like to get their news from the guys sitting in their living rooms in their pajamas writing -- to paraphrase Jonathan Klein's now-famous description -- and not just from ideologically-driven politically-connected elitist twits from the Mainstream Media. One of the most trenchant satirical takes on the media elite is, of course, this guy.
Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over -"conquered", if you will - by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Pajamas Media
founded by Charles Johnson and Roger Simon (the bloggers who broke and disseminated the fake National Guard memo story and brought Dan Rather's Career to an ugly end) is relaunching.
The National Review Online has more here.
Open Source Media will now be one stop-shopping for people who like to get their news from the guys sitting in their living rooms in their pajamas writing -- to paraphrase Jonathan Klein's now-famous description -- and not just from ideologically-driven politically-connected elitist twits from the Mainstream Media. One of the most trenchant satirical takes on the media elite is, of course, this guy.
Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over -"conquered", if you will - by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Sleep deprivization
My main squeeze and I went to the Remembrance Day Ceremonies at the National War Memorial last Friday. I was quite pleased to see how many people had shown up. This year being the Year of the Veteran, I suppose people were more inclined to take a little time to honour the sacrifice of those who fought and died for Canada.
What started off as a spontaneous, completely unscripted show of respect in 2000, the year the tomb of the unknown soldier was unveiled, has now become something of a tradition: Again this year, at the conclusion of the ceremony, once the barriers came down and the VIPs had left the cenotaph, crowds of people paraded by the large bronze tomb to deposit their poppies on the bronze lid. In minutes, the tomb was completely carpeted with the bright red flowers. I found that strangely touching.
Later on, I bumped into one of my old militia buddies from my days with the
Lake Sups, now a Sergeant in an intelligence unit. The encounter made me a bit nostalgic and got me to thinking about the good times I had with that unit. They weren't all good times, of course. I remember times on summer course in Wainwright, Alberta or Gagetown, New Brunswick, when things got really tough.
One of my abiding memories is the torment of sleep deprivation. Every soldier who has experienced this misery could tell you stories of the games your mind can play on you when you are five days into a week-long exercise and you are trying to function on a hour's sleep a night. Field exercises on leadership courses, in particular, are deliberately structured so that it is impossible for candidates to get more than one or two hours of sleep in any twenty-four hour period. This is meant to simulate the reality of living under combat conditions and test your ability to cope with physical hardship in a high-pressure environment.
One exercise in Gagetown sticks out in my mind. My platoon was in a defensive position, and we had been attacked and gassed repeatedly over two days, so everyone was in Top-High, meaning we were wearing full Nuclear/Chemical/Biological Warfare (NBCW) gear and gas masks. It was the phantom hour of four-thirty in the a.m., the time when attacks usually occur, and I was in a bad way. My fireteam partner was grabbing some shut-eye in the bottom of the trench and aside from the sound of his shallow breathing through his gasmask, there was complete silence.
Suddenly, as I felt myself drifting into a dozy state, I heard a distinctive metallic thump, very close by. I tensed, cocking an ear a peering into the darkness to try to discern some movement in the killing zone to my front. There was nothing. I relaxed a tiny bit, and gripped my C-7 rifle. Then, a couple of seconds later, I heard the sound again. I was sure that I had heard something, but once again, I couldn't see anything moving to my front. I looked through the optical sight, scanning my surroundings. Nothing. In the minutes that followed, I heard this sound several more times, and each time, I got a little more nervous. I began thinking that maybe one of the psychotic directing staff was nearby, and had decided to fuck with my head.
There was a story, circulating around that time, that a few weeks back, one of the candidates from another platoon had spotted a pink bunny rabbit and a giant yellow duck frolicking in the field in front of his defensive position, and had reported this to his section commander over the radio. At first, this was written off as the twisted hallucinations of a sleep-deprived idiot, and the exhausted troops overhearing this situation report over the company frequency had shared a good laugh. An hour or two later, another candidate reported the same thing. By the time the third report came in of an identical phenomenon, there was no longer any laughter, and some candidates began speculating on the onset of some form of mass hysteria, a madness brought about by sleep deprivation. The story goes that the Regimental Sergeant Major and Commanding Officer of the Infantry school had rented some costumes and gone out into the field as a lark, just to throw a mind-fuck into the poor buggers who were on the exercise.
Now this story is probably apocryphal, and in subsequent years, I'm certain that I heard a couple of variations on that little tale, but at the time, it sounded plausible, and as I stood in my trench, listening for more metallic bangs, I began to convince myself that I too, might soon be visited by pink bunnies and yellow duckies. Finally, after several more minutes of anxiety, I discovered the answer to the mystery. As I rested my face against the coolness of the rifle propped on a sandbag at the lip of the trench, I heard an even louder bang, and immediately felt a sharp pain in my knees. Shaking my head to clear out the cobwebs, I noticed that I seemed to be hunkered in the trench a bit lower than I had been a few seconds before.
It turns out that I had been passing out from exhaustion every few minutes, and as I drifted off, my knees would crumple, and hit the front of the corrugated iron of my trench. This was the metallic banging sound I had been hearing. The sound would then jolt me out of my daze momentarily and I would spring up and scan the training area for a few minutes until I began to fade out again, at which point my knees would hit the front of the trench again, startling me awake. Did I feel stupid? What do you think?
A few days ago, I came across this exchange on some web board, and it made me laugh:
Want to practice sleep deprivation?
It's called college dude...
Do what I did- take a full course load at college(at least 16 units), juggle intramural sports (I did crew), and pledge a fraternity (preferably one that hazes) and you'll come closer to the FUN of sleep deprevation =)
-Bro
Been both places (college/work/fraternity/IM sports life versus BN) and can compare. They don't.
While I am sure you may feel sleep deprived with your collegiate/life pursuits, you "only know what you know". The next time you are going to crew practice or enroute to your next class and are so tired that you have to sprinkle Copenhagen speckles in your eyes to stay awake as you pause to borrow a couple quarters from a talking cheeseburger so you can stick them into the nearest tree to get an icy cold Coke to come out the bottom of it, come back here and tell us about it. We'll be able to relate.
Unless you have gone through sleep-deprivation, military-style, don't talk to me about how tough those grad-school all-nighters were!
Saturday, November 12, 2005
A meeting of the minds
Funny anecdote about British philosopher A. J. Ayer I stumbled across:
At a party in 1987 Ayer, then 77, encountered Mike Tyson harassing Naomi Campbell and demanded Tyson stop. Tyson said "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world." Ayer replied "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic! We are both pre-eminent in our field; I suggest that we talk about this like rational men."
Funny anecdote about British philosopher A. J. Ayer I stumbled across:
At a party in 1987 Ayer, then 77, encountered Mike Tyson harassing Naomi Campbell and demanded Tyson stop. Tyson said "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world." Ayer replied "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic! We are both pre-eminent in our field; I suggest that we talk about this like rational men."
A few remarks before we proceed
To those of you who may have noticed how sloppy my blog is getting, what with the idiosyncratic line spacing and odd paragraph structure: duly noted.
I only just realized that when I import text into blogger, I have to re-do the sentence and paragraph breaks, or it comes out looking all cock-eyed.
I promise to be more diligent in the future.
To those of you who may have noticed how sloppy my blog is getting, what with the idiosyncratic line spacing and odd paragraph structure: duly noted.
I only just realized that when I import text into blogger, I have to re-do the sentence and paragraph breaks, or it comes out looking all cock-eyed.
I promise to be more diligent in the future.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Quebec Dehors!
The veil has been lifted from my eyes and like the song says, was blind,
but now, I see...
Quebecers have it too damn good in Canada to ever willingly leave! A net benefitter of Federal Transfer payments, the province will continue to hold the sword of Damocles over Canada's head as long as it can. The minority, those hardcore sovereignists who favour outright independence --Parizeau comes to mind --can at least be admired for their willingness to cross the Rubicon. I think most soft-sovereignists, who are in the majority, secretly dread the prospect of going it alone. That doesn't stop them from leaving that tantalizing possibility on the table. And every once in a while they make the right noises and rattle the cages in what has become a particularly clever democratic con. Separatism is a chimera, a bluff that has somehow lasted 40 years.
As the only "viable Federalist alternative" the Liberals (both the provincial and federal varieties) also benefit from this shell-game, vowing to defend Quebec's interests in the Federation (read: allow Quebec to continue to take out more than they put into the Federation) even as they raise the specter of the unholy alliance of separatists and those scary Western Conservative-Reform-Alliance freaks who don't represent mainstream Canada. They are right about the Conservatives being freaks, but so what... At this point, I'd vote for the freaks over the crooks.
I think the secret of the separatists' success is to just keep coming up with clever ways of making us believe their impotent little threat is real, while reassuring Quebecers that a vote for sovereignist candidate is really a vote for a voice for Quebec --seemingly contradictory messages.
Every 15 years or so they have taken to holding a referendum (preferably immediately adjacent to another constitutional humiliation), just to remind us they have us by the short-and-curlies. The referendum question is just ambiguous enough that people don't really understand what they are voting for.... Theirs is a policy of uncertaintly, and their domain is a land of bright futures, emotional appeals, and promises never realized.
Ultimately, the separatists devour their leaders as eagerly as they acclaim each successive saviour as they arrive on the scene. We've gone through two supposedly separatist premiers who were too milquetoast to bite the bullet and re-referendum since Parizeau went down in flames a decade ago.
Now, no matter how badly Federalists cock things up in the coming months and years, I predict that Quebecers will not go all in on a clear question in the next Referendum, tentatively scheduled for October 2010. When all the smoke clears, everything will be the same as it ever was, and the litany of grievances can continue.
The man that Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi cabinet minister, described as "the dismantler of sovereign nations and destabilizer of whole regions" wrote about the bizarre little polity right across the Ottawa river in a recent issue of The Western Standard.
You oughtta read it, there are some very juicy bits!
At this point, I'm starting to wonder how soon it will be before someone outside Quebec decides to start an expulsionist movement.
Andre Boisclair should be treated humanely by Quebecers -- as in put down like the Humane Society puts down stray dogs.
The veil has been lifted from my eyes and like the song says, was blind,
but now, I see...
Quebecers have it too damn good in Canada to ever willingly leave! A net benefitter of Federal Transfer payments, the province will continue to hold the sword of Damocles over Canada's head as long as it can. The minority, those hardcore sovereignists who favour outright independence --Parizeau comes to mind --can at least be admired for their willingness to cross the Rubicon. I think most soft-sovereignists, who are in the majority, secretly dread the prospect of going it alone. That doesn't stop them from leaving that tantalizing possibility on the table. And every once in a while they make the right noises and rattle the cages in what has become a particularly clever democratic con. Separatism is a chimera, a bluff that has somehow lasted 40 years.
As the only "viable Federalist alternative" the Liberals (both the provincial and federal varieties) also benefit from this shell-game, vowing to defend Quebec's interests in the Federation (read: allow Quebec to continue to take out more than they put into the Federation) even as they raise the specter of the unholy alliance of separatists and those scary Western Conservative-Reform-Alliance freaks who don't represent mainstream Canada. They are right about the Conservatives being freaks, but so what... At this point, I'd vote for the freaks over the crooks.
I think the secret of the separatists' success is to just keep coming up with clever ways of making us believe their impotent little threat is real, while reassuring Quebecers that a vote for sovereignist candidate is really a vote for a voice for Quebec --seemingly contradictory messages.
Every 15 years or so they have taken to holding a referendum (preferably immediately adjacent to another constitutional humiliation), just to remind us they have us by the short-and-curlies. The referendum question is just ambiguous enough that people don't really understand what they are voting for.... Theirs is a policy of uncertaintly, and their domain is a land of bright futures, emotional appeals, and promises never realized.
Ultimately, the separatists devour their leaders as eagerly as they acclaim each successive saviour as they arrive on the scene. We've gone through two supposedly separatist premiers who were too milquetoast to bite the bullet and re-referendum since Parizeau went down in flames a decade ago.
Now, no matter how badly Federalists cock things up in the coming months and years, I predict that Quebecers will not go all in on a clear question in the next Referendum, tentatively scheduled for October 2010. When all the smoke clears, everything will be the same as it ever was, and the litany of grievances can continue.
The man that Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi cabinet minister, described as "the dismantler of sovereign nations and destabilizer of whole regions" wrote about the bizarre little polity right across the Ottawa river in a recent issue of The Western Standard.
You oughtta read it, there are some very juicy bits!
At this point, I'm starting to wonder how soon it will be before someone outside Quebec decides to start an expulsionist movement.
Andre Boisclair should be treated humanely by Quebecers -- as in put down like the Humane Society puts down stray dogs.
Two Things:
ONE
John Ivison makes a good point in last Wednesday's column:
One suspects that Gomery's relatively measured language was in part dictated by
his desire not to give the sovereigntists too much ammunition. Regardless, in
the short term, his report should help the Bloc sweep away many of the remaining
Liberal seats outside the federalist salient of Montreal at the next election.
Martin may have escaped censure yesterday, but a near wipeout in Quebec could
leave his hopes of a majority government in tatters. He could still eke out a minority government but, in that event, his life
expectancy as leader would be similar to that of a fruit fly.
For the rest of the country, Gomery has presented a challenge: Are you prepared
to hold your politicians accountable when a judge finds members of the ruling
party were running an elaborate kickback scheme in order to fund that party?
If we are not, we can hardly blame Quebecers if they decide they want no part of
it.
TWO
Maybe we should not want any part of a Province that seems to so maliciously predisposed to take offence at
anything.
Memo to Quebecers outraged by the conduct of the GG: One of your two major political parties wants to elect a guy who, by his own admission, liked to snort the occasional line of coke into his head while he was a Minister of the crown,both commiting a crime and indirectly supporting the activities of Les Hells. The GG made some jokes about it. Deal with it.
The real joke here is a party that would actually consider having this piece of crap for a leader. Pathetic
ONE
John Ivison makes a good point in last Wednesday's column:
One suspects that Gomery's relatively measured language was in part dictated by
his desire not to give the sovereigntists too much ammunition. Regardless, in
the short term, his report should help the Bloc sweep away many of the remaining
Liberal seats outside the federalist salient of Montreal at the next election.
Martin may have escaped censure yesterday, but a near wipeout in Quebec could
leave his hopes of a majority government in tatters. He could still eke out a minority government but, in that event, his life
expectancy as leader would be similar to that of a fruit fly.
For the rest of the country, Gomery has presented a challenge: Are you prepared
to hold your politicians accountable when a judge finds members of the ruling
party were running an elaborate kickback scheme in order to fund that party?
If we are not, we can hardly blame Quebecers if they decide they want no part of
it.
TWO
Maybe we should not want any part of a Province that seems to so maliciously predisposed to take offence at
anything.
Memo to Quebecers outraged by the conduct of the GG: One of your two major political parties wants to elect a guy who, by his own admission, liked to snort the occasional line of coke into his head while he was a Minister of the crown,both commiting a crime and indirectly supporting the activities of Les Hells. The GG made some jokes about it. Deal with it.
The real joke here is a party that would actually consider having this piece of crap for a leader. Pathetic
Friday, November 04, 2005
PQ, please pick this guy as your leader!
November 2, 2005
Gov. Gen. blasted for coke joke
SAGUENAY, Que. (CP) - Andre Boisclair, the front-runner in the Parti Quebecois
leadership campaign, says he is upset by comments made about him by Gov. Gen.
Michaelle Jean.
Jean referred to Boisclair in a speech she gave at the annual Parliamentary
Press Gallery dinner on Oct. 22. In her speech, Jean cracked several jokes about
Boisclair, including one that played on the dual meaning of the word coke, and
saying that Boisclair always follows the party "line."
The event was broadcast on a cable television network.
In mid-September, Boisclair admitted to using cocaine in the 1990s while he was
a minister in the cabinet of the provincial government. But he has revealed few
details.
Speaking prior to a debate between PQ leadership hopefuls on Wednesday,
Boisclair said he was shocked at Jean's behaviour before the 600 invited guests,
including Prime Minister Paul Martin.
"The images speak for themselves and everyone who saw those images understand
that they're out of place," Boisclair said.
"Mrs. Jean was not participating in a private event. Mrs. Jean was participating
in a public event, televised, taped."
Jean's speech, in which she also joked the only reason she was appointed to her
vice-regal post is because she is "hot," has drawn the ire of other PQ members.
Interim party leader Louise Harel and the party's intergovernmental affair
critic Jonathan Valois both criticized Jean's comments as inappropriate earlier
this week.
Boisclair's past has been an issue in the leadership campaign and it was again
before and after Wednesday's debate.
Four of his rivals stated publicly before the debate that the former cabinet
minister should come clean about his past.
"I invite him to stop running away and to answer the questions. He answers or he
withdraws," Pierre Dubuc told reporters. "We can't continue like this."
Another candidate, Jean Ouimet, expressed concerns about what other revelations
about Boisclair's past might come out during an election campaign against the
Liberals.
Boisclair's main rivals, Pauline Marois and Richard Legendre, were not among the
group.
Following the debate Boisclair was confronted with the question yet again at a
news conference.
He told reporters he did cocaine "a few times."
When pressed for more details on the time frame of his use, he replied "seven or
eight years ago."
"Listen, I made a mistake and I regret it very much. But it's a mistake of the
past. A long time ago. I never had a dependence problem," he said.
Boisclair also declined to say who supplied him with the drug and became visibly
frustrated when a reporter asked him if that person had ties to organized crime.
"Honestly, do we ask Jean Charest where he bought his pot from? If the person
who sold him pot had links to criminals," Boisclair said before cutting the news
conference short.
Pure douchebaggery!
November 2, 2005
Gov. Gen. blasted for coke joke
SAGUENAY, Que. (CP) - Andre Boisclair, the front-runner in the Parti Quebecois
leadership campaign, says he is upset by comments made about him by Gov. Gen.
Michaelle Jean.
Jean referred to Boisclair in a speech she gave at the annual Parliamentary
Press Gallery dinner on Oct. 22. In her speech, Jean cracked several jokes about
Boisclair, including one that played on the dual meaning of the word coke, and
saying that Boisclair always follows the party "line."
The event was broadcast on a cable television network.
In mid-September, Boisclair admitted to using cocaine in the 1990s while he was
a minister in the cabinet of the provincial government. But he has revealed few
details.
Speaking prior to a debate between PQ leadership hopefuls on Wednesday,
Boisclair said he was shocked at Jean's behaviour before the 600 invited guests,
including Prime Minister Paul Martin.
"The images speak for themselves and everyone who saw those images understand
that they're out of place," Boisclair said.
"Mrs. Jean was not participating in a private event. Mrs. Jean was participating
in a public event, televised, taped."
Jean's speech, in which she also joked the only reason she was appointed to her
vice-regal post is because she is "hot," has drawn the ire of other PQ members.
Interim party leader Louise Harel and the party's intergovernmental affair
critic Jonathan Valois both criticized Jean's comments as inappropriate earlier
this week.
Boisclair's past has been an issue in the leadership campaign and it was again
before and after Wednesday's debate.
Four of his rivals stated publicly before the debate that the former cabinet
minister should come clean about his past.
"I invite him to stop running away and to answer the questions. He answers or he
withdraws," Pierre Dubuc told reporters. "We can't continue like this."
Another candidate, Jean Ouimet, expressed concerns about what other revelations
about Boisclair's past might come out during an election campaign against the
Liberals.
Boisclair's main rivals, Pauline Marois and Richard Legendre, were not among the
group.
Following the debate Boisclair was confronted with the question yet again at a
news conference.
He told reporters he did cocaine "a few times."
When pressed for more details on the time frame of his use, he replied "seven or
eight years ago."
"Listen, I made a mistake and I regret it very much. But it's a mistake of the
past. A long time ago. I never had a dependence problem," he said.
Boisclair also declined to say who supplied him with the drug and became visibly
frustrated when a reporter asked him if that person had ties to organized crime.
"Honestly, do we ask Jean Charest where he bought his pot from? If the person
who sold him pot had links to criminals," Boisclair said before cutting the news
conference short.
Pure douchebaggery!
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Gomery
Here is the comment I would have written on the Canada.com sound off board, if only I had not been at work....
Bravo Allan Cutler!
Remember folks, one honest man helped start the avalanche... More than ever,
Canadians should see the value of a strong public service, governed by ethics
and in the public interest, and politically neutral. The alternative is more
unethical scumbag bureaucrats like Chuck Guité. Guité facilitated the operation of a
parallel unaccountable bureaucracy run by PMO for the benefit of filthy bastards
like the sorry parade of Quebec operatives and politicos that we saw at the
Gomery inquiry.
Even after 13 years of uninterrupted Liberal Government, it is worth the effort
for public servants to remind themselves that they while may work for the
Government, but they don't work for the LIBERALS.
The Liberals are finished in Quebec for a while, I think.
Here is the comment I would have written on the Canada.com sound off board, if only I had not been at work....
Bravo Allan Cutler!
Remember folks, one honest man helped start the avalanche... More than ever,
Canadians should see the value of a strong public service, governed by ethics
and in the public interest, and politically neutral. The alternative is more
unethical scumbag bureaucrats like Chuck Guité. Guité facilitated the operation of a
parallel unaccountable bureaucracy run by PMO for the benefit of filthy bastards
like the sorry parade of Quebec operatives and politicos that we saw at the
Gomery inquiry.
Even after 13 years of uninterrupted Liberal Government, it is worth the effort
for public servants to remind themselves that they while may work for the
Government, but they don't work for the LIBERALS.
The Liberals are finished in Quebec for a while, I think.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
If people are looking for real reasons to fret about the Middle East, I submit for your consideration:
Exhibit A: The first stirrings of civil war in Iraq, and perhaps eventually, in the islamic world between Shia and Sunni
An increasingly Bellicose Iran
Iran has a long term strategic interest in supporting the Shia majority in Iraq, particularly once the yanks are gone, against the Sunni insurgency. However, just about every other neighbouring arab nation is Sunni. Will Iraq be the battleground for islam's version of the Thirty Years' War? With recent sectarian violence, are we witnessing a prelude to the start of a major war within islam?
Exhibit A: The first stirrings of civil war in Iraq, and perhaps eventually, in the islamic world between Shia and Sunni
An increasingly Bellicose Iran
Iran has a long term strategic interest in supporting the Shia majority in Iraq, particularly once the yanks are gone, against the Sunni insurgency. However, just about every other neighbouring arab nation is Sunni. Will Iraq be the battleground for islam's version of the Thirty Years' War? With recent sectarian violence, are we witnessing a prelude to the start of a major war within islam?
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Duceppe calls for the creation of an army for Quebec. OK, to do what, exactly? In the last two centuries, Quebec Nationalists never saw a conflict they weren't ready to denounce as British or American imperialist aggression... and we all know how things turned out for them the last couple of times Quebecers took up arms...
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
W's brother cynically uses his skillful handling of Hurricane to crap all over whiny incompetent douchbags from nearby state
From Saint Petersburg times, by way of Cox and Forkum:
Gov. Jeb Bush praised Florida emergency management officials on Monday while
blasting the efforts of Louisiana officials during Hurricane Katrina.
Bush said Florida responded successfully in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma
because the state relied on the expertise of local emergency managers. He said
relying on federal emergency officials can be a fatal blunder.
"Our system is a bottoms-up system," Bush said. "In the case of Louisiana it was
left to the federal government to fill a void and the consequences are there for
the rest of the world to see."
"This is the model for how to respond to hurricanes," Bush said of Florida.
"Compare this to what happened a month and a half ago in other parts of the
country."
From Saint Petersburg times, by way of Cox and Forkum:
Gov. Jeb Bush praised Florida emergency management officials on Monday while
blasting the efforts of Louisiana officials during Hurricane Katrina.
Bush said Florida responded successfully in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma
because the state relied on the expertise of local emergency managers. He said
relying on federal emergency officials can be a fatal blunder.
"Our system is a bottoms-up system," Bush said. "In the case of Louisiana it was
left to the federal government to fill a void and the consequences are there for
the rest of the world to see."
"This is the model for how to respond to hurricanes," Bush said of Florida.
"Compare this to what happened a month and a half ago in other parts of the
country."
Happy Saint Crispin's day
On Today's date, 590 years ago, King Harry's English whipped some French monkey ass at the battle of Agincourt:
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
William Shakespeare's Henry V
On Today's date, 590 years ago, King Harry's English whipped some French monkey ass at the battle of Agincourt:
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
William Shakespeare's Henry V
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Randomosity
I watched the first part of CBC's Trudeau II, which has gotta be the cheesiest and nonsensical title for a this TV movie they could come up with. It's actually a prequel to the Trudeau movie they did with Colm Fiore a while back. That one covered his years in public life. This one covers the years he spent going to university, and his time as a lawyer and left-wing intellectual. From what I can gather from this movie, Trudeau spent most of the war acting petulant and supercilious with authority figures, whining about conscription, and being cold and distant to his girlfriend while Canadian boys were fighting the krauts across France, Belgium and Holland. I note he also spent some time growing a really stupid looking amish beard, traveling the world so that he could hang out in chinese opium dens getting high and learn some yoga. His time bouncing from university to university studying whatever caught his fancy is also mentioned in passing. A disconcerting picture of this Liberal icon emerges: that of a thoroughly unsympathetic provocateur and dilettante --a term he actually uses in conversation with another character when talking about himself.
I'm not sure where the creators of this telepic were going... Are we meant to grind our teeth over the injustice of Trudeau being denied a Rhode Scholarship, knowing as we do what the future had in store for the man? Are we meant to laugh along with the ineffectual "silk stocking socialists" of the Quebec intelligentsia (another term used in the movie) as they mock the hidebound establishment and ossified clergy that propped each other up in the Duplessis years? The main character in this biopic is nervy, restless, unfocussed, moving from one incident to the next without any sense of who he is or what he wants to accomplish
By the end of the first part of the miniseries, I felt pretty ambivalent about the Trudeau character as rather unsympathetically portrayed -- by two different actors, mind you -- and yet, I'm not sure that was the intent of the producers. While the film is far from a hagiography, the several messianic references are too blatant to miss. Not knowing much about Trudeau's life before his meteoric ascent to the pinacle of Federal politics, I can only assume that things will pick up for the guy in the next instalment, which covers the late fifties and sixties, and that the writer and director will get to the point.
Earlier, I watched the Parliamentary Press Gallery Gala on CPAC. That's the annual dinner where the GG, PM, and leaders of the other party give speeches poking fun at themselves and each other. A dorky Canadian roast, I guess is the best way to describe it. I think this kind of thing should be required viewing for voters. At times entertaining, even gratifying, but most importantly, illuminating. A PM normally bereft of eloquence sheds his nervous manner and aggravating stammer to crack a few funny and surprisingly self-depracating and self-aware jokes at his own expense. A stiff cold-fish of a Leader of the Opposition emerges as a witty and genial guy with a knack for mimickry. Even the NDP boss came across as a funny guy, singing a clever little medley of songs about his party's lamentable recent tendencies towards whoredom.
If people could see more of the lighter side of these three blowhards, and if each of them were just a little more natural and frank about their opinions with the electorate... if they could only be themselves a bit more, speak a little more plainly, and pay a little less heed to their handlers and spinners, we might start to have decent voter turnouts in this country.
I watched the first part of CBC's Trudeau II, which has gotta be the cheesiest and nonsensical title for a this TV movie they could come up with. It's actually a prequel to the Trudeau movie they did with Colm Fiore a while back. That one covered his years in public life. This one covers the years he spent going to university, and his time as a lawyer and left-wing intellectual. From what I can gather from this movie, Trudeau spent most of the war acting petulant and supercilious with authority figures, whining about conscription, and being cold and distant to his girlfriend while Canadian boys were fighting the krauts across France, Belgium and Holland. I note he also spent some time growing a really stupid looking amish beard, traveling the world so that he could hang out in chinese opium dens getting high and learn some yoga. His time bouncing from university to university studying whatever caught his fancy is also mentioned in passing. A disconcerting picture of this Liberal icon emerges: that of a thoroughly unsympathetic provocateur and dilettante --a term he actually uses in conversation with another character when talking about himself.
I'm not sure where the creators of this telepic were going... Are we meant to grind our teeth over the injustice of Trudeau being denied a Rhode Scholarship, knowing as we do what the future had in store for the man? Are we meant to laugh along with the ineffectual "silk stocking socialists" of the Quebec intelligentsia (another term used in the movie) as they mock the hidebound establishment and ossified clergy that propped each other up in the Duplessis years? The main character in this biopic is nervy, restless, unfocussed, moving from one incident to the next without any sense of who he is or what he wants to accomplish
By the end of the first part of the miniseries, I felt pretty ambivalent about the Trudeau character as rather unsympathetically portrayed -- by two different actors, mind you -- and yet, I'm not sure that was the intent of the producers. While the film is far from a hagiography, the several messianic references are too blatant to miss. Not knowing much about Trudeau's life before his meteoric ascent to the pinacle of Federal politics, I can only assume that things will pick up for the guy in the next instalment, which covers the late fifties and sixties, and that the writer and director will get to the point.
Earlier, I watched the Parliamentary Press Gallery Gala on CPAC. That's the annual dinner where the GG, PM, and leaders of the other party give speeches poking fun at themselves and each other. A dorky Canadian roast, I guess is the best way to describe it. I think this kind of thing should be required viewing for voters. At times entertaining, even gratifying, but most importantly, illuminating. A PM normally bereft of eloquence sheds his nervous manner and aggravating stammer to crack a few funny and surprisingly self-depracating and self-aware jokes at his own expense. A stiff cold-fish of a Leader of the Opposition emerges as a witty and genial guy with a knack for mimickry. Even the NDP boss came across as a funny guy, singing a clever little medley of songs about his party's lamentable recent tendencies towards whoredom.
If people could see more of the lighter side of these three blowhards, and if each of them were just a little more natural and frank about their opinions with the electorate... if they could only be themselves a bit more, speak a little more plainly, and pay a little less heed to their handlers and spinners, we might start to have decent voter turnouts in this country.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Secret Past of Gil Grissom Uncovered
With Cronenberg's A History of Violence coming out in theatres, I found myself thinking about the idea of people re-inventing themselves.
Do many people realize that the bearded, somewhat heavyset, hard-of-hearing shift supervisor with the sardonic gaze on the CBS hit CSI is none other than the star of two of the coolest flicks of the 1980s?
A few years ago, a friend turned me onto Michael Mann's 1986 movie Manhunter, a stylish adaptation of Thomas Harris' novel "Red Dragon", later to be re-adapted in 1992 by Brett Ratner as a "prequel" to Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. William Petersen, who stars as Will Graham (a role played ably by Edward Norton in the Ratner version), blew me away with his intensity and the compact physicality he brought to the part of the deeply damaged FBI profiler investigating a series of grisly murders.
One year earlier, Petersen played the lead in William Friedkin's To Live And Die IN L.A., a gritty crime drama about a Secret Service agent's obsession with the counterfeiter who killed his partner. I just saw both movies again quite recently and, notwithstanding the dated 1980s soudtracks of each flick, I am amazed at how well both films have aged.
I'm equally amazed that after back-to-back star-making performances like that, Petersen simply disappeared. Here we had a charsmatic, athletic (Petersen went to Idaho State University on a football scholarship), and genuinely talented actor whose career seemed to have real "heat", as they say in the business. Indeed, a role that would have cemented his status as a Hollywood A-lister, a part in Oliver Stone's Platoon, was offered to him.... and he turned it down.
So what did Petersen take on instead? A part in that well known 1987 made-for-TV opus Long Gone. Never heard of it you say? Indeed. And from that point on, no one heard much about Petersen, either. At least until 2000, when he appeared in The Contender, and began playing Grissom on CSI. The rest, as they say, is history
This is an interesting case of someone forsaking stardom only to have it thrust upon him anyway - A man on the cusp of stardom gave it all up, it turns out, because he didn't want to spend too much time away from his family... and ended up getting a second shot.
Good for him!
With Cronenberg's A History of Violence coming out in theatres, I found myself thinking about the idea of people re-inventing themselves.
Do many people realize that the bearded, somewhat heavyset, hard-of-hearing shift supervisor with the sardonic gaze on the CBS hit CSI is none other than the star of two of the coolest flicks of the 1980s?
A few years ago, a friend turned me onto Michael Mann's 1986 movie Manhunter, a stylish adaptation of Thomas Harris' novel "Red Dragon", later to be re-adapted in 1992 by Brett Ratner as a "prequel" to Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. William Petersen, who stars as Will Graham (a role played ably by Edward Norton in the Ratner version), blew me away with his intensity and the compact physicality he brought to the part of the deeply damaged FBI profiler investigating a series of grisly murders.
One year earlier, Petersen played the lead in William Friedkin's To Live And Die IN L.A., a gritty crime drama about a Secret Service agent's obsession with the counterfeiter who killed his partner. I just saw both movies again quite recently and, notwithstanding the dated 1980s soudtracks of each flick, I am amazed at how well both films have aged.
I'm equally amazed that after back-to-back star-making performances like that, Petersen simply disappeared. Here we had a charsmatic, athletic (Petersen went to Idaho State University on a football scholarship), and genuinely talented actor whose career seemed to have real "heat", as they say in the business. Indeed, a role that would have cemented his status as a Hollywood A-lister, a part in Oliver Stone's Platoon, was offered to him.... and he turned it down.
So what did Petersen take on instead? A part in that well known 1987 made-for-TV opus Long Gone. Never heard of it you say? Indeed. And from that point on, no one heard much about Petersen, either. At least until 2000, when he appeared in The Contender, and began playing Grissom on CSI. The rest, as they say, is history
This is an interesting case of someone forsaking stardom only to have it thrust upon him anyway - A man on the cusp of stardom gave it all up, it turns out, because he didn't want to spend too much time away from his family... and ended up getting a second shot.
Good for him!
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Politique
My "priviledged" position as a someone "in the know" on certain policy trends currently making waves in the Government prevents me from commenting at length on what I have observed in the past couple of weeks.
But that don't mean I can't hop up on my soapbox to talk politics for a minute or two...
First off, the Dingwall thing. I gotta wonder why they can't just cut the guy loose sans severance. From what I gather, this guy is a second-rate Cape Breton political hack, grown fat through his abilities to exploit the patronage culture that pervades Atlantic Canada (yeah, I said it). A thoroughly unremarkable MP and mediocre cabinet minister under the Chretien regime, I doubt he is in tight with the Martinites. Why the kid glove treatment? Paul Martin didn't hesitate to sack several other Chretien appointees when it suited him, including another former bag-man, Alfonso Gagliano. Does this guy know where the bodies are buried?
Next, Pete McKay. I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if he made the right decision in staying with the Federal Conservatives instead of jumping to the Nova Scotia Tories. Full disclosure: we lived on the same floor of one of those awful downtown Ottawa apartment buildings a couple of years ago --the kind that Edward Norton referred to as a filing cabinet for young professionals and old ladies in The Fight Club. Back then, when I asked the then-deputy-leader of the PCs what he thought of the Alliance, he scoffed "Regional Protest Party! No vision for the whole country." If he pulled a Jean Charest, he could be premier of Nova Scotia within weeks, if not months. Instead, he will continue to be second-banana in a perenial second-place party that has stalled out in the polls and appears to desperately need a shot in the arm. It's looking bad on the right side of the political spectrum in Canada right now, folks. Don't believe me? Ask THIS GUY. Maybe Elmer's boy, with visions of a Mulroney-style renaissance (OK, maybe not quite Mulroney style!), is taking the long view and biding his time as his party languishes in the political wilderness.
Finally, pizza. What is the deal with Liberals and controversial pizza? First we had Judy Sgro's problems with the pizzaman, and now, it is outrage over a certain Minister's famous $136 pizza. If this trend continues, stay tuned for a kinky panzerotti sex-scandal to complete the italian-food-scandal trifecta...
My "priviledged" position as a someone "in the know" on certain policy trends currently making waves in the Government prevents me from commenting at length on what I have observed in the past couple of weeks.
But that don't mean I can't hop up on my soapbox to talk politics for a minute or two...
First off, the Dingwall thing. I gotta wonder why they can't just cut the guy loose sans severance. From what I gather, this guy is a second-rate Cape Breton political hack, grown fat through his abilities to exploit the patronage culture that pervades Atlantic Canada (yeah, I said it). A thoroughly unremarkable MP and mediocre cabinet minister under the Chretien regime, I doubt he is in tight with the Martinites. Why the kid glove treatment? Paul Martin didn't hesitate to sack several other Chretien appointees when it suited him, including another former bag-man, Alfonso Gagliano. Does this guy know where the bodies are buried?
Next, Pete McKay. I like the guy, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if he made the right decision in staying with the Federal Conservatives instead of jumping to the Nova Scotia Tories. Full disclosure: we lived on the same floor of one of those awful downtown Ottawa apartment buildings a couple of years ago --the kind that Edward Norton referred to as a filing cabinet for young professionals and old ladies in The Fight Club. Back then, when I asked the then-deputy-leader of the PCs what he thought of the Alliance, he scoffed "Regional Protest Party! No vision for the whole country." If he pulled a Jean Charest, he could be premier of Nova Scotia within weeks, if not months. Instead, he will continue to be second-banana in a perenial second-place party that has stalled out in the polls and appears to desperately need a shot in the arm. It's looking bad on the right side of the political spectrum in Canada right now, folks. Don't believe me? Ask THIS GUY. Maybe Elmer's boy, with visions of a Mulroney-style renaissance (OK, maybe not quite Mulroney style!), is taking the long view and biding his time as his party languishes in the political wilderness.
Finally, pizza. What is the deal with Liberals and controversial pizza? First we had Judy Sgro's problems with the pizzaman, and now, it is outrage over a certain Minister's famous $136 pizza. If this trend continues, stay tuned for a kinky panzerotti sex-scandal to complete the italian-food-scandal trifecta...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
