THE CONSERVATIVE HIPSTERS

What's up with Toronto Sun columnist Eric Margolis?

We have a huge triumph for democracy--Iraqis voing for the first time in 50 years, even in the face of suicide bombings, war and death--and Eric is crapping on the Bush administration and the "guided" election in yesterday's Sun.

I recognize Margolis is no fan of Dubya. Fair enough. But I'm not quite sure what Margolis would rather see--Saddam in power? More gassing of citizens?

I like his "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" theory:

"Many Iraqis will vote for anyone promising to end violence and social misery. But just as many nationalists and Islamists, excluded from the election process, are voting their own way -- with bullets and bombs. Washington calls them "terrorists," but the UN Charter enshrines people's right to resist foreign occupation."

Really Eric? You think the people who were blowing up election stations (and Iraqis) were doing so to rebel against "foreign occupation"? Or when terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi denounces democracy and voting as "evil"? Or when he threatened those who chose to vote with death?

You might not like the premise of this war, but surely this is one positive outcome--a free election.

I particularly like his optimistic, blue-sky closing paragraph:

"We'll know for sure real freedom has dawned in Iraq when Baghdad orders U.S. troops out, raises oil prices, rebuilds its armed forces, and renews support for the Palestinian cause."

Well, just think of it this way, Eric--having the ability to write a column like that in a publication like the one that employs you shows freedom and democracy at its finest.

You saw it right here on January 12th (its weird quoting myself):

"If I was the Chretien team, I would make sure I undermine all aspects of the inquiry, Gomery and anything to do with the proceedings as much as possible. That way, if/when the inquiry finds that Chretien, Gagliano, et al. definitely had their hands elbow-deep in the cookie jar, the "accused" can always say 'C'mon, this was rigged from the beginning'."

Today, the plan was revealed (from the Toronto Star):

"Step down or risk undermining the credibility of the sponsorship inquiry.

That was the message Jean Chrétien's lawyers delivered today to Justice John Gomery."

Damn, I'm good.

Deer in the headlights....

Wow, what a bloodbath. But highly entertaining. In fact, I think this season is a ton better than the last one. Better tasks, better candidates, and the format is much tigher and it clips along and doesn't get boring.

However, I still think my friends and colleagues could kick BOTH team's asses. These guys are sometimes just clueless.

My thoughts:

• I'm glad Brian got fired, but for personal reasons. He reminds me of my cousin's good-for-nothing bum of a husband. They're both dougheads. And they both have the same calibre of leadership skills.
• Verna (the deserter) should be fired. You'd think from her complaining that she just finished a tour of duty in Kabul. Saying up all night with little to eat? Big friggin' deal. Try going to Thailand--that's some seriously rough circumstances. This is a TV show, for god sakes.
• I have never seen a team turn on the PM as quickly as they did on Brian. Man--it was a slaughter.
• How stupid are you to not take off the plastic from the mattress? Boneheads.
• What's up with the music when Forbes took off on the 'copter? I thought I was watching Titanic. "I'll always remember you, Jack!"
• Chicks are deadly. Did you see Erin act all lovely to Verna ans then knifing her in the neck during the interviews? Man. And Angie? "How about I tell you to #$%@ off!! How's that??" Damn, she's tough. And a personal trainer--she'd work you to death.
• What was up with Chris in the Boardroom? Brian's getting kicked in the head and all of a sudden he goes off the deep end. Where's his Magic 8-Ball?

I'm really looking forward to the next episode. Its pretty good right now.

Same sex marriage?

Gomery Inquiry?

Tax cuts?

Hell no!

Famous Players cut their prices!

For all of those who feel that the War in Iraq(tm) :

• Just an effort to protect US oil interests;
• Pointless because Iraqis can help themselves;
• Not needed because it was a real Utopia before Saddam was ousted;

Or that:

• The US should stay out of other country's business;
• That freedom and democracy will flourish with or without US/UK involvement;
• Democracy is a right that should be given to all people in all countries;
• That the US are the "bad guys" and the insurgents are somehow the "good guys";

Then you REALLY need to read this article.

People are theatening those who choose to vote on January 30th with DEATH.

DEATH, PEOPLE!

I've said it before and I'll say it again--if the shoe were on the other foot, Canadians would be stark raving mad. I believe that people of my generation and even my parents, have no real concept of what its like to have no freedom or ability to speak out.

We enjoy such freedom and liberty here in Canada--and I think we take it for granted. Big time. If one country isn't free then we in the global community should be ashamed of ourselves. And yes, that goes for Saudi Arabia and all the other US allies who are just as oppresive and need a swift kick in the behind to get them thinking straight.

I wasn't a huge fan of the war, to be honest. And I shook my head when they called off the search for WMDs. But if there is a good reason to be in this war, this is it: to fight for the rights for Iraqis to do what only 35-odd percent of Canadians can't be bothered to do.

Vote.

I've been watching "Good Will Hunting" too many times.

So, you might have doubted the ol' CH, but it has been confirmed by INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS that Canada is irrelevant. Or, at least its well on its way.

A study by the Canadian Institute for International Affairs surveyed over 40 senior politicians, diplomats and such to quantify Canada's position in the world.

Guess what? We don't mean much on the world stage.

I find it ironic that the same people who are the first to claim "peacekeeping" as something that makes them Canadian, are the same ones who draft alternative budgets that call for cuts to the military.

Here's the money quote: "For all intents and purposes, you are no longer here."

That's something to be proud of. You know, I've mentioned this before--we have a "comittment capability gap". We overpromise and underdeliver. Often. Whether its NATO, the UN or Afganistan, we just ain't pulling our weight.

And its affecting our role in the world. At the very least, we should do what many defense and foreign policy experts have suggested--train and fully equip at least a mobile brigade.

As the author, Robert Greenhill, states:

"Everybody from the Africans, to the Americans to the Europeans said Canada having an autonomous mobile brigade that could actually get into tough regions quickly and be there for a couple of months at a time, would make a huge difference," he said.

"First, is that few people can do it today. Secondly, those who can, like the Americans and British, are often seen as compromised politically. Whereas Canada coming in with the Maple Leaf, with civility, is seen as very useful."

When people think you're useful, they want to keep you around. When they want to keep you around, they will likely want to keep you happy. When they want to keep you happy, they will be open to your suggestions on lot of things.

See the payoff here, folks?

I know we bloggers spend a lot of time reading each others posts, commenting, etc.

But this is one site no Conservative blogger (especially in Ontario) should do without:

http://brokenandkeptpromises.ca/index.htm

ENJOY!

Couldn't of Said it Better Myself


My faith in mankind has been redeemed.

The Oscar awards are out and Fahrenheit 9/11 got ZERO nominations.

NADA.

ZIP.

ZILTCH.

Poor Michael. Guess that'll teach him for trying to box the academy into giving his the "Best Picture" nod.

This is what they call in rap terminology a "shoutout".

I recently became aware of another common sense blog, Angry In The Great White North.

He makes a lot of good points and he obviously knows real talent when he sees it, as he references the ol' CH from time to time.

Good to see some solid folks joining the fight.

I strongly advise you to become a regular visitor to his site. I know I will.

Shout at the Congressional Devil!

Is First Lady Laura Bush rockin' the Inaugural?

Party!

I guess nice DO guys finish first

So, we're off and running on Season III. And I'd say I was pleasantly suprised. The show clipped along at a much tighter pace and it was far more interesting to watch. I'm hoping they keep it up.

Observations:

• Damian Penny and I agree with another blogger that Danny seems contrived--like the corporate "fun officer". He's the guy that gives "morale seminars" and organizes "funny hat days". I don't like him very much, and as someone who is supposed to be the creative one, he sure did flame out on the promotional side of the task. You know you're a marked man when DT calls you "a disaster".
• Stephanie--the chick who worked with Danny and then sold him out--should get smoked. As I said, I don't really like Danny, but that was just wrong. No character. She shoul dbe punted for that reason alone.
• I'm glad Carolyn (is she getting hotter or is just me?) noticed that Danny was "conveniently being made a scapegoat". He was--a la Stacie J. And she rightly gave kudos to Kendra for going against the group and saying Todd should be fired.
• They should re-jig the criteria for posting a loss. The Magna promotion was the most horrible one I've ever seen and they only lost by about 30 bones. I've always felt that the dollar figure is rather arbitrary and should only be one factor in the larger picture.
• Alex clearly isn't a CH reader. Lesson one--shut your mouth! He was almost on the chopping block because he volunteered that he put one less person on the cash.
• I really like the set up. I'm rooting for the "street smarts" group the whole way. I love their style. Case in point: Fatty Brian responding that the DT "kind stranger" story was true--"$%&ing awesome!". Classic. DT looked impressed by the vernacular.

I think I've figured out the winning formula. For the first 5 weeks or so, be competent, but not noticable. Just say little, don't volunteer to be PM and just make a solid but unremarkable contribution to the team.

Once the weaker ones are picked off, start to define yourself and showcase your talents. Build allies alog the way, and don't fall into the trap if you're in the Boardroom of selling out your colleagues--you'll pay for it later. In the final phases, work your ass off and box in and contain those that threaten you. Then win the whole thing!

Where's my application?

Archbishop of Toronto Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic has an interesting open letter to PM Martin in the Globe and Mail today. Since we are all live in a subscription-laden world, I have posted some of it here:


"So far, the debate has been among lawyers. It is time for there to be a debate in Canadian society as a whole. It is time for ordinary Canadians to be given sufficient opportunity to discuss the issues and to reflect on the deeper implications before a debate occurs in Parliament and a decision is made that could irrevocably change the nature of marriage and the family in Canada.

My purpose in writing this open letter to you is to urge caution in taking this step toward the redefinition of marriage. We all would do well to pause reflectively before we alter social structures like marriage and the family that lie at the core of our society, and that represent the accumulated wisdom and experience of the ages.

The conjugal partnership of a man and a woman is the beginning and basis of human society, and the family is the first and vital cell of society. Tampering with marriage and the family poses significant social risks.

Can we say with certainty what the social outcome of a redefinition of marriage would be? In all humility, none of us can do so. Human sexuality is a powerful force, which society has acknowledged through many of our laws and social customs."

I have to first say that I am hardly a social conservative. I'm not really religious and I feel people should be entitled to do what they please in the privacy of their own homes. As (ugh) Pierre Trudeau said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation".

But I have to say that I'm really thinking that we are heading down the wrong path on Same Sex Marriage. But so I am not easily dismissed as a homophobe, I will now speak to a imaginary piece of legislation that paves the way for "clown marriage" (the rights of those carnies are always being underminded).

Here's why I'm against the marriage of two clowns:

Firstly, I do believe that marriage and family are the building blocks of society. For thousands of years, the world has been shaped by these two pillars. To suggest that two clowns marrying are on par with a societial foundation is questionable. No one could suggest that our society would be the same if a two-clown structure replaced that of man and woman. It would be vastly different from what we see now. And frankly, while perfect, I think we've done okay for ourselves here in Canada.

To me this isn't about morality, its about society. I don't doubt that a union of two clowns has the ability to be just as stable, strong and supportive as a married couple. But its not the same. ANY other union should not be regarded in the same manner as one that has roots as a pivital piece throughout in thousands of years of history.

Secondly, I don't think the FIBerals have done their homework. What protections has this legislation put into place to ensure the rights of religious institutions are upheld? What happens if clown couples insist on being married in a church that does not beleive in or recognize clown marriage? What are they doing to strenghten the institution of marriage and helping out working families? Have they worked closely with provinces to ensure those rights are protected?

I think until those questions are answered and a full public debate is held on the issue, this is definitely something that should NOT be rammed down Canadians throats.

"Let them eat seared tuna maki in a light lemon demiglaze!"

This is crap.

Longtime readers of CH know that I am no fan of our Governor General (GG) Adrienne Clarkson. But the revelations outline in Sun columnist Greg Weston's piece today takes the cake.

Long-serving and extremely popular (yet unfortunately named) Lt. Governor of Alberta Lois Hole recently passed away after a bout with cancer. The "Queen of Hugs" was to be remembered in a large memorial in Calgary. The GG couldn't make it.

Now, initially, it was reported that she was in Kiev attending the swearing in of the new Yushchenko government. Fair enough. Real important, a symbol of democracy, etc. That I could understand.

Now Weston is reporting that it was not Ukranian democracy that kept her away from the Hole memorial--it was a personal vacation in Paris. Yes, once again the ol' GG was off on a taxpayer-funded junket.

Here are my problems with this situation:

1. She and her press flack lied to the Canadian public about why she was unavailable. First it was "personal reasons". Then Kiev. Now its a "long standing meeting with the Queen". That conduct alone is disgraceful.
2. To miss the memorial service for one of your provincial counterparts--one you have publicly claimed as a "close friend"--is beneath her office.
3. Hypocrisy reigns in Vice-Regal land--she spends years and millions of dollars in the name of "outreach"travel and photo-ops, but when a typically ignored province like Alberta is burying a beloved public figure, she's on vacation.
4. She'll get away with it, all the while spending OUR money on tours, parties and other uselessness.

Look, I think the Governor General is an important part of our national identity. While mostly symbolic now, it is a link to our past and to England. I don't blame the position, I blame the current occupant.

Let's get Ms. Adrienne and her "philosopher" husband off the public public teet. I think they have had more that their fair share.

And lets get someone in there who won't be an embarassment to the government, themselves and most importantly the public.

Reason #34689921 to NOT re-elect a FIBeral government comes from the good folks at TD Bank:

"Many commonly referenced economic figures leave an impression that Canadians are well off and that their economic status is steadily improving. And yet, real after-tax incomes per worker have been virtually flat since 1989," said Don Drummond, TD's chief economist, who spent 23 years at the federal Finance Department before joining the bank."

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

Does anyone get the impresison that Canadians have just accepted mediocrity, have decided that our best years are behind us and are just content to be average?

Aren't Canadians tired of having the crap taxed out of them?

I'm sad now.

Just in time for the inauguration....

The new "Second Term" spot is up at Jib Jab.

See it HERE.

This is just bizarre:

GAY 'SEX BOMB' PLAN
The Pentagon was considering developing a 'homosexual sex bomb' designed to make enemy troops gay, it has been revealed.
The bomb would release a chemical aphrodisiac that would get the soldiers frisky and make them irresistible to each other.

It was hoped their "distasteful but completely non-lethal" homosexual behaviour would hit moral in the barracks, the New Scientist reports.
The plan was just one of many ideas put forward by scientists looking at new kinds of fighting.
Another proposal suggested spraying enemy troops with a chemical that would make their breath smell.
The "severe and lasting halitosis" would allow American troops to work out who was a foreign fighter and who was a civilian once combat was over.

Our stamp of approval?

So, I'm no CEO, but I think I could figure a few things out.

IF e-commerce and technology is pistol whipping my business;

IF I'm losing more and more customers each year because of said technology;

IF my business is widely viewed internally and externally as inefficient, unresponsive and generally slow;

IF my business is to be exactly the opposite;

I SHOULDN'T RAISE THE PRICE OF MY PRODUCT.

But Canada Post did.

This:

"It's a middle ground between a public system that is all things to all people all the time, and that so-called evil American-style system," [Klein] said during his speech.

Or this:

"Ontario hospitals have been ordered to make administrative cuts that will eliminate up to 2,000 support staff and some nursing jobs as part of the Liberal government's plan to impose balanced-budget discipline upon the province's 159 institutions."

With all the hand-wringing going on about Ralph Klein's speech on Health Care reform, you'd think he was advocating euthanizing sick people.

Where the real attention should be placed is with government like the McGuinty FIBerals who on the one hand talk about how proud they are that they enshrined the principles of the Canadian Health Act into Ontario law at the same time as they cut funding to hospitals.

That's a system that's working!

TODAY'S WORD OF THE DAY: "FLOSS"

Verb

floss

1. Move in and out of something. "Floss the NSX" -- DJ Quick (Dollars and sense).
2. To show off.

"Order" me one of those!

Did anyone catch the last 5 minutes of Law and Order last night?

I got got home late and was catching the tail end of the latest episode. The good guys lost a case, as ADA Jack McCoy and DA Branch pursued a legal strategy ADA Serena objected to (as usual).

SHOCK #1: Serena gets called into the office and she is fired by the DA because she is too passionate and too much of an advocate. Holy crap.

SHOCK #2: Then she utters the most confusing (and thought provoking) line of the season: "Is it because I'm a lesbian?" WHAT??????????? She is???????????

Let's pursue that angle, people!!!!!!!!! I want to see background on her first relationship in college, maybe a flashback on her first kiss! C'mon, Dick, lets get creative!

Anyway, I'm not sure why it was brought into the storyline, but hey, I'm not complaining.

LCBO Store

The Ontario government has annouced that they plan to review the way liquor, wine and beer is sold here in Ontario. For our American CH friends, most (almost all) alcoholic products are sold by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, or LCBO. The LCBO is a wholly government owned and operated public institution.

It also holds a monopoly on booze in Ontario.

The FIBerals are looking for a panel to give them advice on what to do with the monopoly. It raises $3 Billion a year in revenues, making it quite the cash cow, but it also restricts consumer choice in the booze market (funny how a government owned monopoly can do that!).

I'm torn on this issue.

Believe it or not, many other small-and large-C Conservatives are too. On the won hand I abhor monopolies in almost industry (OK, I'm fine with the government cornering the market on healthcare). It restricts choice, raises prices and is basically bad for business and the economy. I've seen first hand how the LCBO can shaft the consumer. My sister, a wine fan, recently bought a box of wine from France. Because it didn't come through the LCBO, it was able to levy an "import tax" that was almost as much as the box of wine itself! That's just garbage.

And don't think the LCBO isn't predatorial on competitors. I've seen them use their position of strength to crush initiatives that were good for the consumer--all in the name of fortifying their monopoly.

But on the other hand, I worry about how booze will be handled without the LCBO. The good part about having booze sold and distributed by a goverment monopoly is that it is strictly regulated. Every try getting beer from them when you're underage? You'd need CSIS to produce your fake ID and mustache.

And frankly, I like that.

The LCBO, mostly under Chairman Andy Brandt, has renewed itself. In the late 80's, the stores were basically a box, with non-descript products like "Alcool" on the shelves. No choice. No flair. No fun. But under Brandt's watch, it has become the single largest purchaser or alcohol in North America. I, or anyone I've been with, have never gone into an LCBO store and not found what I was looking for. The stores offer wine tastings, seminars, cooking classes, you name it. AND they pull a tidy profit for the government.

Yeah, it could be more, but I saw growing up how unscrupulous store owners can be with regard to selling cigarettes. Don't sell to kids under 18? Give me a break. Most of them did. Hey, man, its business. And we all know the negative societal affect booze can have. Government can regulate an open market, you say? Maybe. But goverment can't seem to get its act together on anything right now, so consider me a sceptic. They don't have the resources to police the alcohol market.

Anyway, I welcome the debate and I hope a compromise can be found that provides more consumer choice but ensures the proper standards and regulations remain in place.

Have your opponent issue a completely DUMB statement.

Dumb.

Stupid.

Idiotic.

Brilliant.

I love to watch hackery at work.

Many of you Canadian CH readers might have read today's Toronto Star, in which former PM Chretien's lawyer stated that Justice John Gomery, who is heading up the federal sponsorship scandal, should be removed from the proceedings as he has been less than partial in his comments to the public.

Good tactic--destroy the credibility of the one who will ultimately judge your actions. I know, some of you might say that this is just a legal "genius" doing his job. And that might be true. I can see why a lawyer would call for a judge to be removed if there awas any hint that he/she was not completel impartial. But the telegraphing move, which would not be reported in any court document, is that our good friend (and Chretien mouthpiece) Warren Kinsella has been blabbing on about this for weeks on his blog. Not exactly a haven for legal strategery and case law.

If I was the Chretien team, I would make sure I undermine all aspects of the inquiry, Gomery and anything to do with the proceedings as much as possible. That way, if/when the inquiry finds that Chretien, Gagliano, et al. definitely had their hands elbow-deep in the cookie jar, the "accused" can always say "C'mon, this was rigged from the beginning".

We're dealing with people's legacy here, folks--not something former PM's take lightly.

Kudos to Team Chretien on a well executed kick to Justice Gomery's character.

Apparently, Canada (well, really the PM) dithered so much on the deployment of DART, Canada's disaster relief team, that they're aren't needed.

According to news station CTV, they are being told that the region they were assigned to is "oversupplied" with aid.

Canada.... showing up to the party when everyone else has already cleaned up, paid the bill and moved on.

I'm so proud. Especially considering that DART--highly trained, highly skilled outfit--could have actually contributed. About 2 weeks ago.

Four CBS hacks have been fired for the "National Guard" story.

Not a bad bloodletting. If I was NBC or ABC, I'd be all over this story. We will see....

I thought it was interesting that during last night's People's Choice Awards (not that I watched it), the Best Movie Award went to Fahrenheit 9/11, a "blue state" movie, and the best drama award went to Passion of the Christ, a "red state" movie.

Art imitates life indeed.

And check out Moore's new "image":


Moore money, Moore eating

Not quite the "everyman" anymore, I guess eh?

Go vote. I'm curious to see what boat I'm in.

Or if I'm just up the creek.

This is awesome. Good for them. You can check out this group at http://www.mlaw.org


Toilet Brush Warning Wins Consumer Award
By DAVID N. GOODMAN
Associated Press Writer
January 6, 2005, 7:31 AM EST

DETROIT -- The sign on the toilet brush says it best: "Do not use for personal hygiene."
That admonition was the winner of an anti-lawsuit group's contest for the wackiest consumer warning label of the year.

The sponsor, Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, says the goal is "to reveal how lawsuits, and concern about lawsuits, have created a need for common sense warnings on products."
The $500 first prize went to Ed Gyetvai, of Oldcastle, Ontario, who submitted the toilet-brush label. A $250 second prize went to Matt Johnson, of Naperville, Ill., for a label on a children's scooter that said, "This product moves when used."

A $100 third prize went to Ann Marie Taylor, of Camden, S.C., who submitted a warning from a digital thermometer that said, "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."
This year's contest coincides with a drive by President Bush and congressional Republicans to put caps and other limits on jury awards in liability cases.

"Warning labels are a sign of our lawsuit-plagued times," said group President Robert Dorigo Jones. "From the moment we raise our head in the morning off pillows that bear those famous Do Not Remove warnings, to when we drop back in bed at night, we are overwhelmed with warnings."

The leader of a group that opposes the campaign to limit lawsuits admits that while some warning labels may seem stupid, even dumb warnings can do good.
"There are many cases of warning labels saving lives," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy in New York. "It's much better to be very cautious ... than to be afraid of being made fun of by a tort reform group."

The Wacky Warning Label Contest is in its eighth year.

Rejected Campaign Poster No. 4

I very much enjoy political satire. I think Canadians in particular are very good at it. I also have an appreciation for politicians who don't take themselves too seriously and can poke fun at themselves through political satire.

Which brings me to Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland. I was watching This Hour Has 22 Minutes (for the first time in a long time) last night and they had a good piece on Danny Millions. They were doing a spoof interview with Williams, and every time the 22 Minutes dude would aks him a question about reserves, transfer payments, etc, Danny would get up, walk out of the interview and hold a press conference. He even went to his dry cleaners and when they didn't have his suit ready, he held a press conference saying "The people clearly told me my suit would be ready on Tuesday... they have lied to the people of Newfoundland"

Hardy har. Good stuff.

But I'm wondering--does this help or hurt Danny Boy? Sure, he looks a little bit more human by trying to poke fun at his flap with PM Martin. But my question is this: If you're serious about the issue at hand, and really want to show that your actions (like being an idiot and taking down the Canadian flag) aren't just a stunt, then why participate in bringing it down to that level?

Is it a question of timing? It would be hilarious if he did that piece after the issue was resolved. Maybe its just me. I'm thinking if he was that pissed off to do it in the first place, he wouldn't feel like joking about it with the CBC. Not at least until after the dispute is resolved. So, it undermines his credibility on this issue, in my view.

My two cents.

Annie, Get Your Gun!

While it might seem that way, I have never professed to knowing everything. And I don't know a lot about conservative author Ann Coulter. I don't really read her material, although I have heard a lot of folks speak about her like she's the "voice of the GOP".

But I have one question--is she nuts???

Some of you might have read this article is the New York Observer. Ms. Coulter might be pulling out collective legs, I don't know. But either way, these are the kind of quotes (and I'm not making this up) that come back to haunt a person:

"That's right! But they'll be opening Christmas presents soon enough," she said. "And then they'll be happy."--in response to the better life that awaits the Iraqi people.

"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."--Ann's first draft of defence policy.

"Seriously, I think the rest of the countries in the Middle East, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they're pretty much George Bush's bitch"--Ann outreaching to the Arab world.

"During the gay-marriage debate, these black ministers would come on TV and say things no white conservative would say. 'Sodomy? You're going to burn in hell for that!' And I realized to my delight that if we can get blacks to be conservatives, we have an entire race of Ann Coulters. They do not care about politically correct. It would be so much fun. And they are conservative!... The brothers aren't big on queer theory."--Uhhh.. yeah....

Maybe this is business as usual for Ann--I'm not sure. Either way, at least I will say one thing: she sure doesn't adhere to a rule of being politically correct. Oh, and she's apparently crazy.

At least someone is raising a trophy on skates this year

Well, at least there is one bragging right Canada still has: hockey.

I know a lot of Americans visit this site, but I gotta say--we smoked everyone this year. Canada outscored their opponents 41-7.

And the 6-1 win against Mother Russia? That's a regular horse whippin'.

GO CANADA GO!

Helping those who need it most

Firstly, I'd like to wish everyone a healthy, happy 2005. Unfortunately, the New Year was marked by unspeakable tragedy, devastation and loss in Southern Asia. I had a few thoughts I wanted to share on the issue:

• THE PM'S RESPONSE: I'm all for criticising Paul Martin, but I think the current "flap" over his return from vacation is stupid. In the current age of technology, it doesn't matter whether he was on a beach on at 24 Sussex. He would be just as able to coordinate relief efforts and the official Canadian response from either location. Its just a political cheap shot to suggest the PM was "wrong" to not come back a day or so sooner.
• MONETARY AID: On that, you now see what happens when officials are pushed to quote a figure: you get 5 or 6 revised ones. First it was $4M, then $40M and so on. I think it would have made sense for Canadian officials to wait, get a real assessment, then release a number. But hey, I'm not in charge, and now soem in the media are claiming the PM is "dithering" because he's revising his numbers. Everyone is revising their numbers as they are now realizing the scope of the tragedy.
• CHARITY WORK: I find it ironic that there is so much criticism over how slow the government is moving. People--its government! I think the real action is where it belongs--the various charities that have experience and credibility responding to disasters such as this. Frankly, I'd rather voluntarily give money to a disaster-relief charity that have the Canadian government spend my tax dollars. At least then I know it will be used efficiently. And I get a tax credit to boot! I think we should all look at how these charities are responding as an example of how private interests can and should work hand-in-hand with government efforts. Bravo to those organizations and the individuals that support them.
• DART: We need to rent two planes to get our equipment over to affected areas because our Hercules transports can't do the job. Shameful.
• OUR MILITARY: Once again, Canada is on the sidelines becuase we have no military to speak of. A well-trained battalion could provide assistance with protecting convoys, crowd controland general relief efforts. Too bad we have nothing to give. Fund the military now!

Out of this tragedy comes remarkable example of strength, courage and hope. The global community and government alike cannot let them down now.