6/30/2005

For "Rick Barnes", "Andy" and the rest of the "Moonbats"

From Macleans via NealeNews (copied verbatum because I didn't want to loose the substance):

"Un-Happy Birthday, Canada

Fox News has its share of Canada critics, none more outspoken than host John Gibson. This year, he's marking our national anniversary with a bash.

JOHN GIBSON

Happy Canada Day. We down here notice that you've managed to put the muzzle on Carolyn ("Americans . . . I hate the bastards!") Parrish. And the functionary who decided it was okay to call President George W. Bush a moron is locked in some closet somewhere. But despite your efforts at hiding your most egregious embarrassments, the view here is that Canada is still a vast ice-crusted wasteland dedicated to beer and America-bashing.

No serious person on either side of the border bothers arguing that Canadian anti-American hysteria is a mirage, or simple hypersensitivity on the part of Americans. It is clearer than Molson ale that Canadians have a serious anti-American problem.

Think tanks in both countries say it is true. So do newspaper columnists. The Canadian ambassador to the United States has chastised his own people for their smug sense of superiority over America (and got whacked around for it by Canadians in letters to the editor). A respected Canadian historian, Jack Granatstein, calls anti-Americanism Canada's "state religion," while at least one of your newspaper columnists called the mindset "as Canadian as ginger and rye." Teenagers answering pollsters' questions express anti-Americanism (America is "evil") without any guile or effort to conceal.

And we in the U.S. know Canadians quite well. Millions of your expats live and work among us. They blend in, take the big American bucks, pass for Americans and say they are our friends. But we are also quite accustomed to glancing up at the television and seeing a clip of some famous pop star we only barely knew is Canadian, telling a cheering Canadian audience how great it is to be back home among really civilized people after so long in that hellhole down south.


Canada claims to be America's friend, but sneers at us and bashes us, and welcomes admitted jihadist terrorists onto the continent like they were nothing more than dispossessed refugees. The Khadr family, for instance, should be a Canadian national disgrace. For years, its members have treated Canada as a free medical care pit stop and massive ATM while advancing the cause of al-Qaeda -- in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And yet the Khadrs have been welcomed home over and over, while Americans thinking they might go to Canada after John Kerry lost the 2004 U.S. election have been told to expect to wait months, even years.

American Nora Jacobson went north shortly after George W. Bush was elected in November 2000 and later wrote about life up yonder for the Washington Post. Despite being a Kerry voter simpatico with the average Canadian's political outlook, her advice to Americans thinking of moving to Canada: "Don't." She says the embedded anti-Americanism is really too much to take -- even for someone who disliked Bush and opposed the war in Iraq.

If things are so good in the multicultural, egalitarian quasi-socialist Canada, why do so many leave to come to the fearsome jungles of America? Was there a potato famine up north that we missed? Or is it just the news and entertainment industry exploiting Canadians for a few funny guys (Mike Myers, John Candy, Dan Aykroyd) whose senses of humor have been sharpened over generations of long winters indoors, yukking it up around a fireplace, a bar, or a hole in the ice?

If Canada has a problem, America is to blame. There's smog in Windsor? It's those damn Americans in Detroit, of course. Mad cow in Alberta? Oh, it turns out the disease was in America first, but they shipped it to Canada, kept it secret, and blamed Canada later. Softwood? Who cares if American lumber mills are closing left and right? We have a right to undersell them all and if they go out of business, tough. Seriously, Canada: nearly three-quarters of your trade is done with the United States, and you think it's okay to kick around the people who provide your standard of living?

By the way, despite your huffing about "national sovereignty," if the North Koreans fling a missile toward New York and the U.S. air force can shoot it down over Canada, no American authority is going to call to ask for permission if there is even a chance you would say no. We'll just shoot it down and you should watch out for falling pieces. That's just reality.

When I wrote Hating America, the New World Sport in 2003, the chapter that included Canada (sorry, you shared space with Belgium and South Korea) was called "The Axis of Envy." The Iraq war was fresh. Canadians were sure they only had to yell loud enough to be heard across the border and even the thick-headed Americans would get it. Then came the U.S. election and we notice you haven't had much to say lately.

But as you celebrate your national holiday, I suspect the truth about your innermost sentiment still applies: that precious and delicious pleasure called anti-Americanism is as strong as ever, isn't it?

I thought so."

6/29/2005

Last night two politicians stood before their respective nations.

This one stood to forward the cause of democracy and freedom. This one stood as a leader with vision and principle.



From Fox News:
"...The terrorists who attacked us — and the terrorists we face — murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression — by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror,.."

"...Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home,.."

"...The terrorists — both foreign and Iraqi — failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq’s diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy,.."

This one stood to forward the cause of socialism and oppression. This one is not a leader as his vision is clouded and he has no principle.

From Canada.com:

"...(This) is about the Charter of Rights," Prime Minister Paul Martin said earlier Tuesday.

"We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights. "

"A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about..."



WELCOME TO CANNUCKISTAN!


6/28/2005

OOPSIE!

Promised a week ago to put this link up...

have to support local content after all. (unless it's gay or liberal or moonbatty)

http://www.cowtwngrl.blogspot.com

Sorry for the delay.

Here's Me

Wow, It seems like just a couple of weeks ago...

...that Mr. Brison and Mr. Layton were repeatedly talking about "the unholy alliance" between the conservatives and the bloc. Talking about how it would destroy our country.

Now they're trying to justify their own "unholy alliance" with those same seperatists...

My, my, my, what a difference a couple of weeks makes:

"...New Democrat Leader Jack Layton said the remarks are further proof of why Harper and the Conservatives are turning off Canadians.

"Mr. Harper is essentially saying that Quebecers' votes don't matter - aren't on an equal par with the rest of Canadians. So he wants to deny equality to same-sex partners, and he wants to deny equality to Quebec voters.

"Maybe Mr. Harper should think about why people aren't listening to him by just simply looking at what he says..."

and

"...Public Works Minister Scott Brison said Harper's stance is the latest example of his polarizing effect on voters.

"This is another case of Stephen Harper trying to divide Canadians and pit one group against another. For him to imply that federalists are not as supportive of human rights and equality as separatists is truly offensive..."

Thank you Mr. Harper for once again providing documented proof of the HYPOCRACY in Ottawa. It's time to come home Steven. It's time to come home and sever the ties with Ottawa.

From the Mailbag


Thanks Dino

6/27/2005

New Flag



This flag will remain in the upper righ-thand corner until July 2. Thanks to WLM for the idea...
The NEW Cannuckistan flag (thanks to Shaken) will go up once this one is removed.

The TRUTH Behind The SSM Debate

Last week I was listening to a local talk-radio show where a caller tried to explain why we're having so much trouble with the SSM debate. The caller didn't explain it very well so I'm going to take a shot at it.

The essence of the callers remarks were that unless we looked at the "truth" behind the SSM issue we would not be able to defeat the proponents. Fair enough. Here's an analogy to put that in perspective:

We've placed our hand into a fire and are feeling the burning as a result. In this case the burning is:


  • an erosion of civil and religious rights - forced acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

  • having the door opened for polygamy

  • having the door opened for pedophilia

  • an erosion of the family as the cornerstone of our society.

The truth or root cause of those issues though, is that we have made the decision to hold our hand to the flames in the first place. The fire is homosexuality and the act of holding our hand to it is equated with our acceptance and embrace of their lifestyle.

We complain about the burning (symptoms) yet do nothing about the source. This is the point the caller was trying to make. We need to speak out against homosexuality itself.

We need to either a) extinguish the flame or b) pull our hand away. Only then will the burning stop.

I know that there'll be moonbats who want to debate the symptoms and you're welcome to it. In order to mock you in a proper manner, there will be seperate posts on each of them over the next day or so. Please be patient.

6/26/2005

Wanna Crash A Party?

From the mail bag:

"--- begin forwarded text Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:50:57 -0600 From: Julie Hrdlicka <canesica@telus.net> Organization: CANDIL- Canada Democracy and International Law I will be on cbc (AM1010) Wild Rose Forum on Monday June 27th 1-2pm discussing my recent trip to Iraq. Please feel free to call in and voice your opinion and thoughts on this important issue. ...

UPCOMING PRESENTATION: "BACK FROM BAGHDAD" Julie Hrdlicka, Executive Director of CANDIL (Canada, Democracy and International Law), a human rights organization based in Calgary, has just returned from a two-week trip to Iraq. Julie witnesses much destruction, violence, and fear under the government, occupation and the insurgency, which exists in Iraq today. Julie will be discussing how the war and occupation continues to affect the lives of Iraqi citizens. Julie and the delegation were among very few westerners who stayed outside the US protected Greenzone. Because of this, Julie has brought back insight that is unique as she was able to talk directly to Iraqi's about some of the difficulties they face under the current violent environment.

Tuesday June 28, 2005 At the Scarboro United Church (134 Scarboro Avenue SW) Starting at 7:30 PM

No charge for the event but we will be accepting donations at the door For more info call 270-9669. http://www.candil.ca/ --- end forwarded text"

Like I said: Anyone want to crash the party and ask some of the real tough questions?

"Polygamy Is Not On The Agenda!"

I called Bullshit.

The ACLU verifies my views:


"(AgapePress) - In comments at an Ivy League school, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships -- and that the ACLU has defended and will continue to defend that right.

In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."

The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to changed current legal definitions of child-adult relationships."




6/25/2005

Public Notice...

Thank you for allowing me to take part in the preceeding "drunkeninterlude". Normal posting will resume first thing tomorrow am... Check back often because the moonbats are going to be taken down a notch or two with what I've dug up...

6/24/2005

Too Furious To Post...

Here's an open thread. This pic should start some comments...

Going to drink about this for a while... Normal posting will resume once temperature stabalizes...

6/23/2005

People for the Edible Treatment of Animals

Mmmmmmmm... Whaaaaaaaale...

"TOKYO (AP) — A fast food chain in northern Japan began offering a whale burger on Thursday, even as anti-whaling nations urged Japan to cut back on its catch at an international conference on whaling..."






"...Restaurant chain Lucky Pierrot is serving a deep fried minke whale meat burger with lettuce and mayonnaise for $3.50 at its 10 restaurants in Hakodate on Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido, once a whaling hub in the nation..."

Would you like some lib-left whine with your meal?

"Commercial whaling was banned by the IWC in 1986 when whale populations the world over crashed and public sentiment turned against whale hunts. Since then, Japan has killed more than 8,000 whales for "scientific research" and sold the meat. However, as sales have declined, the Japanese government has started promoting whale meat through product giveaways and whale cookbooks in hopes of renewing consumer interest.




With whale meat demand dropping, it seems like a strange time for Japan to be doubling its catch. Of course, Japan insists that its interest in whaling is scientific, not economic. However, according to an analysis by a group of researchers from Australia, Japan and the United States recently published in the journal Nature, Japan's whaling program is also of dubious scientific value."

If it gets David Suzuki all Pissed-off, I'm all for it!


What Are The Odds?

What are the odds that anything of substance will come of the ethics comissioner's investigation into Grewal-gate?

From Yahoo News
"Shapiro said his inquiry will focus on Tory MP Gurmant Grewal, Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and the prime minister.

He said the rules under which he operates mean Murphy can't be a primary focus of his investigation, even though Murphy was involved in taped conversations over Grewal switching parties."

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the issue quietly disappears...

6/22/2005

Site Meter Sez...

The site meter sez that we'll have our 10,000th visitor today! WOOHOO! Keep an eye on it and if it's you please let me know. (There may be a bottle of whiskey with your name on it) To do that though, I need to see a screen shot for verification.

I've got to get some real work done this am so there'll be no new posts until after lunch some time.

6/21/2005

Tuesday AM Humor

"...Ex-President Bill Clinton, meanwhile, told the Financial Times that Guantanamo "either needs to be closed down or cleaned up."

"If we get a reputation for abusing people it puts our own soldiers much more at risk and second, if you rough up somebody bad enough, they'll eventually tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it," Clinton said..."

Those sage words of wisdom brought to us by an individual that was responsible for completely disgracing the presidency while he was in office.

Thank you Mr. Clinton but you're not someone who should be giving moral advice.

Read the full story here.

Could We Really Expect Anything Else?

I like this headline from the National Post:

'If this was Ontario, the PM would have been here'

Some clips from the story:

''...The real question is: where are the feds?'' said Tory MP Lee Richardson, whose Calgary riding includes the overflowing Bow and Elbow rivers and is among the worst-hit areas.

''If this was happening in central Canada, the Prime Minister would have been there 20 minutes later.''

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said it's up to Alberta -- not Ottawa -- to decide whether federal flood assistance dollars will start flowing toward the waterlogged province.

So far, she said, the federal government has heard no calls for help..."

"...Ms. McLellan, an Edmonton MP who is the lone Alberta Liberal, is also the federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

''She offered federal assistance, in whatever form the provinces or cities thought necessary,'' said Alex Swann, a spokesman for Ms. McLellan's office. Federal officials are now discussing a tour of the flood-affected areas..."

Shame on you Anne! You could have at least come to check out the damage. But then, why on earth would we expect you, as the province's only representive in the current Liberal government and also as the "Federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness", to trouble yourself to come all the way out here to look firsthand at the flood damage?

A snub by the PM I can understand but why haven't you come Anne?

Teen Rapes Dog Which Subsequently Dies

"SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA (FOX Carolina News) - A Campobello teen is accused of raping one neighbor's dog and another neighbor's two little girls. Now the dog has died and charges against the teen have been upgraded.

After receiving word that the dog died possibly because of the rape. Fox Carolina called the Solicitor's office to see if now new charges would be filed against the teen. An hour later Solicitor Trey Gowdy called to say that the charges will be upgraded to the "most serious animal cruelty charges they have on the books."
The dog's owner Sylvia Jones says, "At first when it happened, I couldn't eat or sleep every morning I'm waking up thinking Princess is there but she's not.

Princess's little dog house is empty now. Sylvia Jones says she died of internal bleeding this past Sunday because of the rape. "The vet told me she had a little blood in her urine and that she was bleeding inside."
Sylvia says she and her husband would not have believed Cory Williamson raped Princess exactly two weeks to the day she died had they not seen it with their own eyes.

"When I got here we were laying on the deck looking at him and he had his pants down and he was doing sexual activity with the dog like a man would do to a woman."
The Jones family says Princess wouldn't eat or play anymore after the attack. "She (Princess) couldn't even sit down, her bottom was swollen sore."

Sylvia says she knows Princess was just a dog, but she wants people to know that Princess was also a part of her family. A family that now has been forever changed. "She looked so pitiful. It's sad, there was nothing I could do for her."

Neighbors worry that if Williamson is accused of raping a dog and molesting two girls in the same neighborhood, who knows what might happen next.

Neighbor Bill Johnson says, "As a community we shouldn't have to watch our kids every second they're playing. We want him out of this neighborhood."

The Solicitor's office says it wants to make sure Williamson is out of this neighborhood while he's awaiting trial on the molestation and dog rape charges so they are requesting that his bond be revoked. Williamson's bond hearing will be held next Friday."


Oh yeah, he also molested two little girls but FOX doesn't seem to find that important enough to focus on...

Does anyone know, is FOX taking journalism tips from CNN now?

6/20/2005

Bin-Laden

If you know where he is, then go and get him... You have the tools to get it done.

Hey MoonBats!

Is It Really A Question Of Image?

The pundocracy says that Steven Harper needs a new image in order to get across to Ontario voters.

That tells me that Ontario voters are shallow. Extremely shallow. Or are they?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not the Ontario electorate that's pushing for the image change. I think it's the Liberals and their MSM puppets.

I think it's a liberal tactic with the sole intention of making Harper look foolish. I base those thoughts on the following:

  • Stockwell Day - MSM/pundents demanded an image change and then made him look like a fool when he did as they requested.
  • Preston Manning - MSM/pundents demanded an image change and then made him look like a fool when he did as they requested.

Look at a recent example involving Harper himself: The MSM and pundents claimed that Harper was a robot because he rarely showed emotion. Harper started to show emotion and gained the name "Mr. Angry" for his efforts. Catch 22.

Mr. Harper, I can't presume that you'd read my little blog but if you do I would highly recommend that you NOT fall into their trap. Don't change to suit the talking heads. They'll screw you if you do.

6/19/2005

A Note:

This is the first post of the day and I'm doing it at 10:30pm. Today is father's day and I promised myself that I'd spend it reminding myself why I'm a father. More importantly, I wanted to spend it being a dad...

I did that. I took my boy fishing... got frustrated, raised my voice, fell in the water, laughed, showed him what dams do to prevent the flood water from cresting (way too "up-close" in mom's opinion - I got some cool pics though), drank beer, built a "thingy" from scratch...

I hope all of the dads out there took the time to remember why it is that you do what you do.

Tomorrow is dedicated to kicking lib-left tail. Today it was all about bieng a dad.

Note to moonbats: Being a dad is different than being a father. Spending time with your kids should not be something you tolerate every other weekend.

6/18/2005

Some interesting quotes...

It's petty I know but there isin't much news and it is after all, "Mock the MoonBats Day"

Mike from Rational Reasons typed:

"Well, Richard, you are correct, that is the law. Hmm it seems silly that the law says straight teenagers are allowed to engage consentual sexual relations at 14 but gays can't do it 'til they are 18. "

When I snuck back onto her blog, Gretchen from The Green Lantern Wrote:

"Nice to see you rotating your IP address to work around your ban here, Richard. How old are you again?Nevermind, it's not important. Feel free to continue spending your summer Friday nights trolling my blog, looking for attention. I'll just read the trail of shit you smear, shake my head in pity, and mop up the mess.Hope you work out whatevers wrong with your life someday.all my best,-gretchen"

- Note: I was surfin' on my blackberry. Didn't even know that I was sneakin'... Have no intention of figuring out how to change ip's just to question Ms. Gretchen on her batty posts...

When I "snuck" back onto the wonderpuppy's site he said:

".............................."

- Note: That means that he deleted my question regarding his current post without any sort of a response.

Edward T Bear said: (paraphrased, my own words)

"Waah, waah! The liberal blogs aren't high enough in the TTLB ranking system! Someone needs to look into this"

Speaking of Unions...

Union uses the idea that someone gets paid more than someone else in an unrelated field as ammunition against TELUS:

"Telus offer 'insult' to female workers, union saysLast Updated Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:32:02 EDT
CBC News

The Telecommunication Workers Union says Telus is trying to create a rift between male and female workers with its latest contract offer.

Wow, this sounds serious...

Union president Bruce Bell says the company is offering increased signing bonuses and wages to craft employees in Alberta and British Columbia who are mostly male.

Mostly male? You mean that telus isin't an affirmative action monkey?

But he says there are no comparable increases for workers in predominantly female classifications.

So these people have different jobs?

"The fact is that under the Telus offer, wage parity for clerical and operator service employees would not become a reality until the final months of their offer," Bell said.

FROM JUNE 17, 2005:
Telus pushes settlement of lengthy labour dispute

"Telus is trying to drive a wedge between different groups of our members by offering bribes to some of them," he said.

He called the changes an an "insult to all members," especially those in predominately female job classifications. "


So if I understand it correctly, if computer nerds get a 10% increase then secretary's should get a 10% increase as well? Have the secretaries thought about becomming computer nerds in order to gain some wage paridy?

Does the idea that different jobs require different pay and have different labour demands ever cross the minds of these union idiots?

Hmmmmm....

GWB SEZ:


"TAKE THAT HIPPY! 4 MORE YEARS!"

Mocking The MoonBat Position On Wal-Mart

I've had occasion within the past couple of months to stumble on posts/sites that were against Wal-Mart. The main site appears to be here.

Here's what I've gathered from their arguments so far:

How dare they require their employees to work when required by customer demand!

  • Really, we need the company and the customers, to schedule around the workers. It's only fair.

How dare they purchase their goods from foreign countries!

  • Wal-Mart's the only organization on the entire planet that buys foreign goods and it has to stop right now!

How dare they reject unions!

  • Unions are the only way that workers are treated fairly and Wal-Mart needs to unionize now!

How dare they claim to be a patriotic organization and fly flags at their stores!

  • Only good folks from the left are allowed to be patriotic. Death to the capitalist who don't agree!

How dare they make those greeters smile all day!

  • Smiling is not allowed until Wal-Mart becomes an operational arm of the socialist state. When that happens, only union reps are allowed to smile.

How dare they pay "part time wages" for workers who work only part time!

  • Workers who work part-time deserve full time pay.

How dare they make a profit!

  • Profits should be illegal. Sure shareholders have all of the financial risk but that just doesn't matter damnit!

How dare they offer anything but 100% free healthcare for their employees!

  • Having employees pay a portion of their healthcare insurance implies that they have some responsibility for their own lives. That is just wrong!

How dare they set up a profit-sharing plan and manage the investments themselves!

  • Wal-Mart has no right to manage an investment program that they set up and contribute to themselves. The workers should be able to do as they please with their free money.

How dare they promote based on merit instead of the more appropriate "affirmative action" plans!

  • Companies should not be able to promote and reward based on merit. How hard an individual works is not relevant. Color and gender are what really matter.

How dare they provide competition to smaller retailers!

  • Competition is bad. Wal-Mart should NOT be allowed to make their competition work smarter and harder.

How dare they INDEED!




Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to Wal-Mart to pick up a birthday present for my Wife and the mother of my children. Note to MoonBats: Though it may be hard for you to understand, "my wife and the mother of my children" are one and the same and no, "life-partner" does not properly describe her.

It's Time...

...For some MoonBat mocking...

...All MoonBats...

...All Mocking...

...All Day...


WOOHOO!

6/17/2005

Alberta Needs A Leader

I know it's not entirely appropriate to post someone else's work but I couldn't find a good way to trim it down without loosing the substance (not enough coffee yet this am perhaps). Here's a great article by Link Byfield from this morning's Calgary Sun:

"I got more reaction to last week's column about Alberta separatism than I have on anything else in years.

Dozens of people sent e-mails, expressing every shade of opinion, mostly favourable.

A few attacked me for being a separatist (which I'm not), and more challenged me for not being separatist enough (guilty as charged).

I had written that separatism is a fantasy unless Alberta's provincial legislature first draws up a formal list of grievances with Canada, and a list of specific demands for redress.

Only if those go unmet could the Alberta legislature legitimately look to its options, ranging from partial autonomy to complete political independence.

That's how the English Parliament did it in 1641. They wrote the Grand Remonstrance, listing over 100 specific abuses by royal authority.

When King Charles I ignored it, Parliament felt both entitled and obliged to take up arms and cut off his head.

Likewise, only after long and fruitless political protest did the colonial legislatures in North America feel both entitled and obliged in 1776 to declare independence from England. They held a congress and published the Declaration of Independence, probably the most forceful expression of political liberty ever written.

Most of it consists of specific grievances against the British government.

Alberta could draft a pretty compelling list of grievances, too, and probably should.

I doubt they'd impress the good folks of eastern Canada, most of whom seem to think Albertans have so much oil they have nothing to complain about.

Easterners neither know nor care that Ottawa has vacuumed far more money out of Alberta than the provincial government has ever earned in resource revenues.

Besides, money is not the main point to Albertans, whatever eastern Canadians may cynically assume.

The real issue is the coarse colonial contempt of central Canadian media, politicians, judges and interest groups towards the province and its people -- who they are, what they have built, what they believe, and what they want for their future.

Albertans have never bought into the absurd Canadian delusion of the last two generations that patriotism is about getting more from the country than you put in.

Where did Canadians get the attitude that nations are built on benefits rather than sacrifice, entitlements rather than hard work, politics rather than principle, self-deception rather than self-defence, privilege rather than achievement, dictatorship rather than democracy?

There's a growing sense -- growing for the last half-century -- that Albertans just don't fit.

However, the question that keeps coming up is what can be done about it?

A few years ago the options were put quite simply by Ted Morton, who then taught political science at the University of Calgary, and is now an MLA eying the Conservative leadership after Ralph Klein retires.

Morton calls the Reform party movement of the 1990s Plan A -- reforming federalism from Ottawa. It was a noble and necessary effort, but it failed dismally.

Outright independence -- separatism -- he calls Plan C.

Like me, he advocates a middle course, which he calls Plan B -- making full use of existing provincial powers, something no province except Quebec has ever done.

For example, Alberta could establish its own provincial alternatives to the Canada Pension Plan, RCMP local policing, and federal collection of provincial income tax. Any other province could do the same if it chose, but Alberta would probably be better off.

Many separatists reject Plan B, because it isn't separation. It's baby steps where they demand giant strides.

What the separatists never explain, however, is how they plan to get independence without walking through the necessary democratic steps.

Separatism is essentially a negative. What's needed is a positive proposal to the rest of the country from the government of Alberta on how to change federalism and why.

Strange to say, Alberta has never really done this. But it should.

If the proposal is turned down, then -- and only then -- will Plan C begin to look legitimate, even to most Albertans."

It's time for you to go Ralph. You've done some great things for us in the past but you seem to have run out of steam. We need someone who's willing to elevate Alberta to it's rightful position. Within or without confederation.

6/16/2005

Corrupt Canadians say "Piss On The U.S. Constitution"!

Here's one for the American Readers...

This story came up yesterday, I think, over at SDA and has since been echoed on other blogs (namely my favorite girl on the right)...

Representatives working with the Canadian government apparently are trying to muzzle American Citizens when they speak out against the corruption of said Canadian government. Do you understand that? The banana republic to the north of you is attempting to silence your opinions. Here's an excerpt by David Frum as reported by "conservativelife":

"Mel Brooks once offered these succinct definitions of tragedy and comedy: "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhole."

By that definition, Canadian politics these days might seem very comical indeed. But I am counting on Americans to be less callous than the mordant Brooks--and to recognize that the events now occurring in Canada are serious, even sinister. There is though one warning I'd better immediately deliver to readers: Along with at least four other public commentators, I have recently been served with libel papers by a leading figure in this story. Because National Review is distributed in Canada, and therefore can potentially be reached by Canada's more restrictive libel law, I have to be a little circumspect in what I say here.

Two years ago, Canada's auditor-general discovered that the Liberal government in power since 1993 engaged in a massive scheme of diversion of taxpayer funds in the province of Quebec. Last year, an independent inquiry headed by Judge John Gomery began to investigate the diversion. At least $250 million (Canadian) and perhaps as much as $350 million passed through the particular government program at the center of the scandal. Some of that money ended up in the pockets of influential Liberals, allegedly including the brother of former prime minister Jean Chretien. Some was kicked back to the Liberal party and its campaign workers. The Gomery inquiry has also revealed a disturbing nexus--that's a word to which no lawyer can object--between senior figures in the Liberal party and organized crime. "

I think you folks need to be seriously outraged that these liars and thieves are trying to stifle YOUR right to free speech within YOUR own boarders.

From The Headlines...

All stories have been sourced via NealeNews

1,000 Chineese Spies Operating On Canadian Soil?

Well, they should feel right at home in our socialist country. Perhaps we could allow them amnstey once their work is done. I'm willing to wager that the liberal government already has plans for just that.

Folks in Montreal don't want to be associated with the Canadian Flag...

It would seem that they no longer have to. Based on the above "spy" story, this flag is more appropriate (via SOS):



Canadian Child Shot in Hostage Taking

What? Terorists don't kill Canadians! We're peace keepers and friendly to everyone. Note to dumbass MoonBats: Terrorists kill because they're savages and a little canadian flag on a backpack will not stop them.

Story Rights Sold for $500K

So, you can leave the groom standing at the alter (for all intents and purposes), run away without giving any indication as to where you're going (kind of implied with the term "run-away" I guess), lie to police stating that you were kidnapped, make the groom look even more foolish when he says he'll take you back on national TV and then get paid $500K for the adventure? Sounds kind of like some of the scams run by the liberal government...

For the folks in Ontario that don't get it, Parliament is the "police" and you are the "Groom".

6/15/2005

Public Notice

Date of Birth: November 14, 1954 Marital Status: Single
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the first African American female Secretary of State on January 26, 2005. Prior to this, she was the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, since January, 2001.

In June 1999, Dr. Condoleeza Rice completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

As professor of political science, Dr. Condoleezza Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). Condoleeza also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.

From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

Condoleezza Rice was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, Condoleezza Rice aka Condi Rice earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. Condoleeza resides in Washington, D.C.
bio courtesy of donyell.com
NealeNews has linked to this article that speculates on whether or not Ms. Rice will be running for president in 2008.

June 15, 2005 — During her recent whirlwind trip across Europe, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made headlines at each stop. Wrapped in stylish suits and flashing a carefree grin, the trip was, in many ways, a coming-out party for Rice. To her supporters — "Condistas" — it marked the arrival on the international stage of the next president of the United States.

"She has the charisma and the background to carry the banner for the party," said Paul Deland, who runs the Web site condiforpresident2008.blogspot.com with his son.
I hope she does run. Can you imagine all of those whiney libs having to shut up because an educated, black, conservative woman is running the country? What a hoot that would be! Add the fact that she's not the product of some affirmative action program and her victory would be even more sweet.

6/14/2005

HolyCrap

Just bought a Blackberry... Sitting in the pub putting a post together and wondering if the libs are going down tonight... Think I'll surf over to sda and see what's going on. WOOHOO!

More Gay Ranting

A while ago I put this post up which made the following request in the comments section:

Here are some simple facts that you can't dispute. Homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle. Allowing SSM opens the door to polymagy and sanctioned pedophilia. Don't think it'll happen? Look at the history: gays pushed to have their lifestyle decriminalized all the while saying "we don't wan't equality". Then they pushed for equality while stating, "don't worry, we don't want to get married". Now their pushing for marriage all the while chirping that "we don't like young boys". Do you see a trend there? Can you really trust them when they say that they don't have a agenda?

Now to your inevetable arguments:

Yes, you can call me a bigot or discriminatory but it won't boost your argument. Unlike those from the left, I'm not scared of a label. Especially when it's applied by those from the left. (ie MOONBATS)

Yes, you can accuse me of hate speech but that won't help you either. If you're a homosexual that has "hurt feelings" because of what I've typed, you'll just have to suck it up and accept it "princess". People have opinions other than yours.

If you're going to present research by the gay shrink with the APA, dont. The fact that the researcher is gay renders his work null and void because of his personal bias. His lifestyle is at stake depending on the outcome of his work.

Further to the above point, you will also need to bear in mind that the APA is also the organization that put out a report stating that "pedophilia is not harmfull to children". The APA itself has been discredited for this major error.

If you're going to present other articles or research in support of homosexuality or gay marriage, dont. Every single work you produce will, in one way or another, be traced back to the gay researcher with the APA.

Lastly you need to understand that I understand how homosexuals are being used by the socialists in an effort complete the breakdown of the family as the cornerstone of society. Said cornerstone is to be replaced by the "nanny state".

Finally, there was a comment in the (blogscanada) post that got my attention. It read as follows: "So I have to ask: if the Conservatives are willing to offer homosexual couples the rights to marriage in all but name, what’s in the name?" Using that logic, we could rename the holiday on Oct 31 (currently haloween)to "Christmas". In fact we could call every holiday "Christmas". Think about it. Marriage is something unique unto itself just as Christmas, Haunaka and (sic) Kwanza are unique.

If there are any of you moonbats that think you're smart enough to provide a proper argument against any of my points you'll be able to find me here: http://nomoresocialism.blogspot.com/

My favorite homosexual finally responded and I've provided his text below. My own response to his comments are contained in brackets.

Well, my favourite troll has thrown down the gauntlet regarding same sex marriage. How can I possibly resist so ridiculous a rant? Therefore, let's take this piece by piece:

(those who read me regularly know that I prefer to doit piece by piece)

"Homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle."

Well, I won't bother asking what 'high risk' means in this context; I'll assume that, like the rest of the world, Rich is talking about AIDS, once known as GRID or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, before straight people started getting it too, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

(Lets look at that for a second. Did VN just state that AIDS was a gay disease before the rest of us got exposed to it? Did he just say that the Gay community was responsible for the plague of the 20th century? Wow, that's a loaded statement and I'm going to have to put a seperate post together to cover it. Back to the business at hand. As a matter of fact, I was refering to STD's but also included violence and suicide.)

Now I'll grant you that some pretty large segments of the gay community are at high risk to contract AIDS or other STDs. Well? So are heterosexual swingers who bang 15 heterosexual partners a night.

(Another admission as to the current state of homosexual affairs. Notice that VN doesn't argue the point that homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle. Instead he compares it to "Swinging". I'm sorry VN but swinging isin't condoned either and you can't use it to justify homosexuality. I've done some research on swinging and did you know that a very large number of the people involved are bi-sexual?)

See where I'm going here? The major reason gays are at 'higher risk' for AIDS than straights is because straight culture is inculcated heavily with the ideals of monogamous relationships and ** --}} MARRIAGE {{-- **, whereas gay culture is heavily inculcated with a swinging, polyamourous sexual culture due primarily to the historic lack of social and legal recognition of their monogamous relationships and ** --}} MARRIAGES {{--**. No, it's not just about gay vs. straight, it's about monogamy vs. promiscuity in this context.

(Monogamy is not something that comes with a marriage certificate and if you think it does, you're in for a rude awakening. It's something that comes from a comittment between two parties. I know several individuals who are not monogamous in their marriages and conversely, know numerous couples who are not married yet remain faithful to each other. MONOGAMY IS A PERSONAL CHOICE!)

Monogamous married couples, especially those who are lauded and sanctioned by society and the law rather than castigated and denied equal rights, are less at risk to contracy AIDS. Therefore, granting gay marriages legal recognition will decrease the risk factor of STDs in the gay community.

(Monagmous couples, regardless of their social position are at a lower risk for disease because they are, by deffinition, NOT SLEEPING AROUND. Issuing a marriage certificate will not stop AIDS as VN is asserting in that sentence.)

That being said, what the hell difference does it make to this debate? Is being at 'high risk' of contracting or spreading diseases a factor to consider when deciding if people should be allowed to marry? We don't even do this for genetic diseases and defects like Tay-Sachs or Downs Syndrome, let alone mere communicable diseases. What the hell kind of game are you playing?

(My biggest point is that by granting SSM we consequently legitimize a high-risk and dangerous lifestyle. VN's own admission that AIDS was the result of homosexuality should put that in perspective as they not only endangered themselves, they've put the rest of us at risk as well. Homosexuals do not procreate. They have to bolster their numbers somehow. Legitimizing the lifestyle will make their recruiting easier.

As a side note: Notice how VN tries to minimize the impact of STD's by putting them next to "genetic diseases" and uses the term "mere communicable diseases". I don't know about anyone else but I think it's the "mere communicable diseases" that we have to be worried about. That's why they're used in biological weapons dumbass!)

I'll ignore the other possible interperetation of this comment, at least for now, as being too degrading and moronic a thought to be worth my attention.

"Allowing SSM opens the door to polymagy and sanctioned pedophilia."

I don't personally see a major problem with polyamourous marriages, but I find it unlikely that they will be legalized until I'm either very old, or very dead.

(Support for polymagy. Check!)

As to pedophilia, it is my personal intuition that no democratic society is ever going to tolerate legalized child-rape.

(Rape and pedophilia are different things. Consent is the key factor there. Keep it in mind because it'll come up again in a few minutes.)

See, that's the great thing about slippery slopes: they can lead anywhere you want them to. Exactly what evidence is Mr. Evans offering to back up these claims? None, because there is never concrete eveidence for any such claim.

(Here's a quote from Eagle Canada as a part of some survey/petition they were circulating:

"12. Age of Consent - The Criminal Code provides different ages of consent for different types of sexual activity. The age of consent for vaginal intercourse (14) is four years younger than the age of consent for anal intercourse (18). Canadian Courts have ruled that unequal age of consent laws are unconstitutional and actually undermine education efforts about the spread of HIV by driving behaviour underground and impeding young people”s access to information which could save their lives.
Q. 12: Do you support reducing the age of consent for anal intercourse to ensure an equal age of consent for all sexual activity?"

Having read that, one has to ask exactly why these individuals want to make it legal for a 40 year old man to have anal sex with a 14 year old boy? Why exactly is that? Is it really because they wan't to do more to promote the HIV issue? Would education really be any different if the age of consent were changed? For further information on the age of consent issue click here. Here's a quick question: What's it sound like when a gay bubble bursts?)

All you can do is look at the realities around you, and the reality is, we're not asking for any kind of drastic change to the way marital relations and contracts are defined. We're not asking to be allowed multiple marital partners. We're not asking to be legally allowed to rape children; nor would we, since child rape is just as repugnant to every kind of non-pedophile in the world, and the vast majority of the people in the gay community are not pedophiles (being that they're gay, and gays are not pedophiles, nor are pedopholes gay; gays are gay, and pedophiles are pedophiles. End of story.)

(Look at the realities around us? We are. Probably should have done it long ago. Anyway, moving on. VN says that they're not asking for multible partners even though he likes the idea. I'm of the opinion that changing the deffinition of marriage will give him and those like him the option to push the issue should they choose to do so. It should be noted that VN does envision a day when polymagy is mainstream as his earlier comments illustrated.

VN states that they are not asking to be allowed to legally rape children. Well, now, here's the thing. If a homosexual gets a 14 year old boy to consent to the sex, it's not rape. It is still sex with a child though which is, by all definitions, pedophilia.

Now, as for the "pedophiles aren't gay" comments: There is an organization of MEN who like to have and in fact promote, having sex with BOYS. The organization is called North American Man Boy Love Assn. (NAMBLA). Is VN asserting that these pedophiles are NOT gay?

Is VN asserting that homosexuality is not a factor whenever a man molests a male child?)

All we're asking for is the same right every straight person takes for granted: the right to legal recognition of our marriage to the person of our choice.

(Well, if you're dead set on getting married, go strait and get it done.)

"Don't think it'll happen? Look at the history: gays pushed to have their lifestyle decriminalized all the while saying "we don't wan't equality". Then they pushed for equality while stating, "don't worry, we don't want to get married". Now their pushing for marriage all the while chirping that "we don't like young boys". Do you see a trend there? Can you really trust them when they say that they don't have a agenda?"

Well that's a bloody glib way of summing up the entire gay rights movement. Not to mention a completely uneducated, moronic way. I'd be fascinated if you were to supply me with a quote from a gay rights activist who said they wanted their lifestyle decriminalized, but didn't want equality.

(What follows should be a start. I'll post more in the comments section as I dig them up again:

"...the gay movement in Canada never made legal recognition of same-sex marriages a primary concern. Many early liberationists found that cause far too "accomodationist" to warrant serious effort. (1971 We Demand, Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, http://www.clga.ca/)"

No, Rich, we've always wanted equality. We're not idiots; we know, and have always known, that our equality can only be achieved one step at a time. Decriminalization was the first step towards equality. Official protection from discrimination and homophobic violence was the next step towards equality. Marriage rights are just the most recent step we're taking toward equality. All we want, Richard, the only agenda we have, is the agenda of equality, the agenda of being treated like the human beings we are.

(Alrightythen, there is an agenda. VN uses the term equality, I use the term normalization. Said agenda has little to do with monogamy from what I can tell and is geared toward acceptance.)

Lastly you need to understand that I understand how homosexuals are being used by the socialists in an effort complete the breakdown of the family as the cornerstone of society. Said cornerstone is to be replaced by the "nanny state".

Oh? We're looking for the right to form stable, nuclear ** --}} FAMILIES {{-- ** just like you straights, and yet ultimately we are nothing but pawns in some sinister socialist scheme to destroy... what was that ... the ** --}} FAMILY? {{-- ** So now who's engaging in paranoid ranting?

(As I've posted previously, the gay community has little idea that they are being used by the socialist movement to destabilize the family unit. Here's a quote from "New Socialist Magazine":

"...So, how can such an institution possibly be part of the plan for queer liberation? Well, only in the limited, partial way that all bourgeois rights are. Think, for instance, of same-sex pension benefits. Integrally wound up with capitalist power relations and structures of legitimacy, they are simply an individualist solution to a social issue. Nonetheless, it’s important to fight for queer access to private pensions if only to expand rather than limit the options and rights of individuals in the here and now. It’s also critical to acknowledge that socialist-feminist and queer liberationist forces are too weak to influence the terms of public debate. We can only intervene, which in this case means intervening on a terrain shaped by a constitutional argument on the one hand and bigotry on the other. If the religious right prevails (or even makes significant inroads) today, it will be emboldened to pursue its agenda further, attacking abortions, daycare, teaching evolution in schools and more. And that-taking the wind out of the sails of the right-is one of the most important reasons to support Bill C-38...")

So in summation, Richard Evans' reasons for denying gays the right to marry? Irrelevant, undemonstrable, uneducated, and plain paranoid. Now come back when you have a real argument to make.

(Argument made. And, frankly, you make it too easy VN)

There. I didn't once use the word bigot, nor did I quote any unbiased studies, since the entire American Psychological Association is apparently infected with the sinister Gay Socialist Agenda Meme.

{phew}

Now I AM SO F*****G SICK AND GODDAMN TIRED OF GODDAMN HATEMONGERING BIGOTS TELLING ME I'M A F*****G PEDOPHILE just because I happen to like c**k as much as I like c**t. Well, let me tell you, I'm the one in a position to know, and I certainly don't want to rape children. Nor does anyone I personally know in the gay community. In fact, if I found out one of them was raping children, I wouldn't even bother calling the cops until I had personally CASTRATED the sick asshole. YOU STUPID F***S. HOW MANY F*****G TIMES DO WE HAVE TO F*****G SAY IT. WE'RE NOT PEDOPHILES. WE'RE GAY. GAYS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES, AND PEDOPHILES ARE NOT GAY. GAYS ARE GAY. PEDOPHILES ARE PEDOPHILES. END OF FUCKING STORY. So stop watching the 50's propaganda films and get your head into the 21st century, Richard. Believe me, I want all the pedophiles' nuts cut off just as much as you do.

Sry for the rant. This is just one particular piece of bigoted hatemongery that pisses me off to no end.BTW, Rich, my preferred pronoun is Zie (zer in the possessive), and I'd appreciate if you used it. After all you wouldn't want me referring to you as an 'it', now would you.


(That was special VN. Do you feel better now?)

6/13/2005

A story Behind The Story

NealeNews posted this article from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and I thought some analysis was warranted.

Canadians see Bush, bin Laden as national security threats
poll


Wow, that's some headline - generally refered to as "graffiti journalism". "Graffiti journalism" is where the author hopes the headline will get the attention instead of the content of the article.

Chris Wattie
CanWest News Service, June 13, 2005


Look, the reporter is with a real news service. The headline must be accurate.

TORONTO -- Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

"Graffiti Journalism" again... The first paragraph of the article has to support the headline. It's sad but that's all most people read.

The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed "International Organized Crime" as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate.

I would look at the above paragraph as actually being accurate. The UN is an international organization that's threatening our security. How about those Libranos? They operate internationally. Power Corp. and Maurice Strong? Yup, they're international as well. I don't think our intrepid reporter was considering those organizations though.

But tied for second in the poll were "U.S. Foreign Policy" and "Terrorism," with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came "Climate Change and Global Warming."

"U.S. Foreign Policy"??? I thought it was bush! It would seem that the reporter doesn't understand that it was 8 years of Clinton / Liberal policy that led up to the current mess that was left for Bush to clean up.

That's as far as I'm going to go. Keeping such biased and inaccurate news stories on my screen for too long makes the computer feel all "icky". SDA has some very short comments as well.

The Cannuckistan National Anthem

O Cannuckistan!

Our cold and niave land!

True socialist love, in all PM's commands.

With witless hearts we see thee fall,

The True North weak and frail!

From far and wide, Cannuckistan, we sleep on guard for thee.

Libs keep our land, socialist and bound!

O Cannuckistan, we sleep on guard for thee.

O Cannuckistan, we sleep on guard for thee.


Verses subject to revision whenever I see fit.

6/12/2005

I Figured It Out (Maybe)

Yesterday I posted the following:

When I Grow Up
When I grow up I'm going to take over a poor country, borrow $40,000,000,000.00 and waste it all on palaces and a military. Then, the bleeding hearts responsible for giving me the loan will forgive it. I'll get all my nice things and the solders to protect them for free. Sounds like a good scam to me. Aparently, it sounds like a good scam to
these folks as well.

"LONDON (CP) - Finance ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations, including Canadian Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, agreed Saturday to a historic deal cancelling at least $40 billion US worth of debt owed by the world's poorest countries.British Treasury chief Gordon Brown said 18 countries, many in sub-Saharan Africa, will benefit immediately from the deal to scrap 100 per cent of the debt they owe to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank. "

Well, I think I clued into why they did it, and, thinking about it, I should have thought of it alot sooner.

There's this fella Named Bob Geldof who's putting this thing called "Live 8" together. It's supposed to be like "Live Aid" concerts from back in the 80's where all the money raised went to the dictators of African countries. Either that or go towards food that was left spoiling on the runway's of the countries run by said dictators. Live Aid was a complete flop. Live 8 is supposed to be different though.

The whole purpose behind Live 8 is to make the G-8 nations forgive their loans to the poorest countries around the world. In order to put some weight behing his new adventure, Mr. Bob G. called upon millions of people to protest in the streets and let their govt. reps know their will.

Well in order to avoid scenes like Seattle and other locations, the powers that be decided to pay the price. Instead of spending a few million on tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets they decided to spend 40 Billion. Instead of showing some spine and doing the right thing, they cratered like the french army... Whimps!

Media Regulation In Cannuckistan

In Cannuckistan all broadcast media is regulated through a body called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

This is the organization that allowed Al-Jazeera to be broadcast into Canada but refused Fox News Channel because of inflamitory content. For those of you who don't know the difference, and I know you're out there, Fox News is a seperate channel. It is not the little soundbyte that comes on after the Simpsons. They are different. (Fox News has since been allowed within a limited capacity.)

A while back, those little satellite thingies started beaming American TV signals directly at our homes and the CRTC lost physical control of what we were exposed to. All we needed was a dish and a receiver and the rest of the world was opened up to us. The CRTC didn't like that. Neither did the Canadian broadcasters. They didn't want us exposed to that nasty American media. They wailed and moaned and made laws and tried to maintain control through administrative means. They made it illegal for us to pick up those US signals. They got their own satellite systems in place so that we could pick up a feed with "Canadian Content". They knew that we're sheep and wouldn't notice.

Enter the Superbowl. More importantly, the "Bud-Bowl" at half-time. People became criminals by picking up bootleg US recievers and programming cards so they could watch the really cool stuff that wasn't allowed to be broadcast over the Canadian systems. The CRTC and Canadain broadcasters refered to these people as being part of a "grey market" and instituted media campagines calling them criminals. Understand that point clearly. Individuals who wish to watch "unfiltered" television from the US are considered "criminals". But wait, something cool happened last fall.

One of those "criminals" took his case to the Supreme Court of Quebec who ruled that it was unconstitutional for the CRTC to determine what we can and can not watch. The ruling was quite clear.

"Sun, October 31, 2004
CRTC beams down idiocy
By
Gary Dunford -- For the Toronto Sun

THE SKY IS FALLING! A Quebec court rules Canadians can watch any satellite TV signal in the sky they choose to buy? The same week the CRTC prepares to screw up satellite radio? How very special..."

"...The gods have a sense of humour. And far better Charter of Rights timing than the federal government.

The Quebec court judge rules the charter guarantees Canadians freedom of expression, specifically "freedom of the press and other media of communication." That right covers new technology and aces contrary CRTC or government regulations.

Whoops.


Canuck broadcasting's usual Chicken Littles are running in circles, quacking. The end of CanCon! The end of Canadian culture! The sky is falling! And with the government finally accepting a few economic realities -- open skies for airlines -- well it should.

Two years ago the Supreme Court of Canada gave an approving nod to the government's cheerful, broadcaster-lobbied ban on the importation of "foreign TV satellite signals." But it specifically declined back then to rule if the Radiocommunnication Act ban violated the Charter of Rights.

Only a cynic would suggest the Supreme Court dodged that silver bullet because it already knew the answer.

A simple question

As the Quebec court case petitioner argued: "Why is it all right for me to buy a copy of the Sunday New York Times but not DirecTV?" The court's judgment: You can.

It's a question up to one million Canadians have stopped asking.

Anybody who wants to watch Fox News, ESPN, HBO on DirecTV has owned a system to watch it on for a decade, ever since the CRTC badly bungled the satellite TV issue.

This substantial grey market pays to subscribe to the same specialty programming Americans see, using a U.S. mailing address. A shrinking Canadian black market pays through the nose for sophisticated hacker decoder cards, increasingly unable to crack or steal the DirecTV signal.

Industry scare ads would have you believe both are theft.

But it was the CRTC that created Canada's satellite TV schnozzle. The agency repeatedly refused to allow Canada's Power Corp. from a co-venture that would have put Canada's networks and services of the time on the DirecTV bird. PowerDirect eventually gave up.
The CRTC diddled through a goofy decade of delays and unsuccessful launches for a made-in-Canada TV satellite system. Against all laws of economics, a country of 30 million got two. The same number as the country of 250 million south of us. We will eventually have less.


CanCon. Would. Just. Vanish


Royalty arrangements could never work out if "foreign" signals got in was the claim. CanCon would vanish. The sky would fall.

Canadian broadcasters and cable giants have made fortunes in this cozy, closed market. Cable, Expressvu and Star Choice are the 407ETRs of the sky, gatekeepers to profitable American programming. You want to see original episodes of The Sopranos the same night as your cousin in Buffalo? Pay whatever we ask.

Or wait until we choose to buy it for you. Years later in some cases.

Canadians can judge for themselves whether this fight is about culture or economics. Viewers see each fall the broadcast industry's CanCon cultural initiatives: The fewest and cheapest possible..."

We now had freedom. Or did we? It would seem that the story has all but died with the MSM and the expected flooding of the Canadian market that we expected never came. It should be noted that the MSM was lobbying against opening up the market. Nothing changed. In fact, the CRTC is still trying to do it's thing. This time with Satellite Radio. The Sun article quoted above also mentions this new radio option as it continues.

"...Next week in Ottawa the CRTC gathers to do for satellite radio what it did for satellite TV. Two petitioners seek approval for a service piggybacked on existing US broadcasters, XM and Sirius.

Both feeds are up and running. Canadian subscribers would get Canadian music services and the CBC as part of the larger package. Receivers are original equipment in new cars, and walk-arounds are on their way. A grey market of Canuck early adapters -- 50,000? -- is already subscribed to one of the US systems. Deja vu.


There is an alternate "home-grown" system -- the first-ever satellite system that doesn't come from a satellite! Seventy ground transmitters (not built) will spread the signal. With half the channels of the established systems.

Will the CRTC give the nod to all and let the radio marketplace fight it out? And accept the premise that Canadians have a "right" to buy any TV entertainment-information service they choose?

Or will Ottawa spend the next year rejigging the law to clear the courts and line the pockets of its favourite players?

Golly gee. Has the CRTC ever done anything stupid before?"

After 8 months, the CRTC is finally ready to make a decision.

"CRTC to rule on subscription radio next week
Canadian Press


TORONTO — A ruling from the CRTC that could have a major impact on radio broadcasting in Canada will be handed down next Thursday afternoon.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will announce its decision on three licence applications before it for subscription-based digital radio services.

Two satellite-delivered pay radio options have been operating in the U.S. for several years and both have entered into partnerships with domestic enterprises to apply for a similar service in Canada.

Canadian Satellite Radio (CSR) is a consortium involving former Toronto Raptors owner John Bitove Jr. and Washington-based XM Satellite Radio Holdings. The CBC and Standard Radio, meanwhile, partnered with XM's American rival Sirius Satellite Radio (to which shock jock Howard Stern is moving for its minimal regulatory oversight)..."

Here's an author's tip on how subtle media bias can be: Notice how the paragraph above references that nasty ol' Howard Stern right next to the names of the radio companies? End result is that your mind equates in the following manner: Howard Stern = Bad, Satellite Radio = Howard Stern, Satellite Radio = Bad.

"...A third option, from CHUM Ltd. and Montreal-based Astral Media, adds an interesting twist. It would forgo satellite delivery for the time being and proposes to deliver pay radio to consumers via a series of broadcast towers instead.

The services would offer between 60 and 100 commercial-free channels of music of various formats for a monthly fee, probably between $10 to $15.

Ian Morrison, spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, says the watchdog group supports the CHUM/Astral application because it is compliant with the Broadcasting Act requirement for a significant level of Canadian programming..."

"...Morrison suspects that whatever decision the CRTC makes -- and especially if it tries to squeeze more Canadian content out of the Canada-U.S. satellite services -- someone will be upset enough to launch an appeal to the federal cabinet.

"If the bar is too low, we're upset, if the bar is too high, they're upset.''

There is also the slippery slope aspect. If the CRTC approves a service that delivers only five per cent Canadian content, the next time a conventional radio applicant applies for a licence renewal, he will question why he is still required to play 35 per cent -- a typical level for commercial radio..."

My theory is that the CRTC and "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting" wanted enough time to pass so that folks would forget about the Quebec ruling. So that we would forget that they don't have a choice but to provide unrestricted access to the satellite feeds.

Perhaps they need to be reminded.

For the record, I'm completely biased. I own one of these. I get my satellite radio feed from here. I listen primarily to these two talk radio channels. I also listen, unrestricted, to the Fox News radio channel.

6/11/2005

WOOHOO!

This little site has been up since March 23, 2005. Since that time we've had 8356-ish visitors and 15484-ish page views. We've gone from an average of 10 visits/day to an average of 186 visits/day. That works out to just less than 4,000 visits/month. HolyCrap!

We got onto the TTLB Ecosystem and were at the bottom. I actually recall one of the moonbats commenting about how I was a lowly inscect and not worthy of attention. We've since been raised to the level of "Large Mammal" ranked #467th with 337-ish unique links to the site. To put that in perspective, out of the 25,000 blogs listed on the system, we are in the 98th percentile for links/traffic.

On Angry's Canadian listing we've made it all the way up to #23 as of today's date.

It's quite an accomplishment I think. I also think that it wouldn't happen without you, the reader. Thank you for making my little project the success it has been.

To show my appreciation I would request that each of you go to the pub this evening and have a beer on my tab. Really, when the bartender asks you to pay up tell 'em to put it on my tab.

When I Grow Up

When I grow up I'm going to take over a poor country, borrow $40,000,000,000.00 and waste it all on palaces and a military. Then, the bleeding hearts responsible for giving me the loan will forgive it. I'll get all my nice things and the solders to protect them for free. Sounds like a good scam to me. Aparently, it sounds like a good scam to these folks as well.

"LONDON (CP) - Finance ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations, including Canadian Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, agreed Saturday to a historic deal cancelling at least $40 billion US worth of debt owed by the world's poorest countries.
British Treasury chief Gordon Brown said 18 countries, many in sub-Saharan Africa, will benefit immediately from the deal to scrap 100 per cent of the debt they owe to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank. "

I'm A Thief...

I came across the following at http://www.blogigo.co.uk/majere where it was written from a lib-left perspective. Having said that though, once the liberalism is stripped away it gives a great overview of debate and how to look at the arguments put forth by an opponent.

In the name of balance (or personal bias), I've put a more conservative slant to the writing:

When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a moonbat who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypothesis that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that gay marriage will cause problems, therefore, it must be a good thing. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

appeal to faith: (e.g., There's no evidence that healing crystals work, but I have faith) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy) (e.g., astrology, homosexuality, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, or a practice has historical roots, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., The American Psych. Assn. believes that pedophilia doesn't harm children.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty.

argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't vote Liberal, medicare will be destroyed.)

argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance. (e.g., Kyoto will solve global warming)

argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. (e.g., Look at the cute little seals, they don't need to be hunted)

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., modern liberalism / soft socialism.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question: (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must impliment affirmative action programs to increase the standard of living for minorities.) But does affirmative action really improve the position of minorities?

circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.)

composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of affirmative action, the believer will notice the few successfull individuals while ignoring the majority of failures (which would indicate that affirmative action has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect at best).

confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning"

excluded middle: (or false dichotomy) considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

half truths: (suppressed evidence) An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."

misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?

observational selection: (similar to confirmation bias) pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur. If this argument is used, it must be accompanied by trend-data.

special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)

statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Conservatives are all religious whingnuts.) Most conservatives believe in the structure and order organized religion affords but not all attend church regularly and for that matter, not all consider themselves religious. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.


Now, those are well and good but they're a little too pretentious for my taste. I prefer plain spoken "dinner table english". As such, here are some of my favorites as written by Scott Adams:

1. AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY
Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.

2. FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT
Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat.

3. I AM THE WORLD
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.

4. IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN
Example: People choose to be obese/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle.

5. THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE
Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.

6. GENERALIZING FROM SELF
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.

7. ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION
Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.

8. TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

9. JUDGING THINGS WITHOUT COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES
Example: I don't invest in U.S. Treasury Bills. There's too much risk.

10. ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO
Example: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?

11. IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS
Example: I'm putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.

12. IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK
Example: I know that bugee jumping could kill me, but it's three seconds of great fun!

13. SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE
Example: Remember, "All things come to those who wait." So don't bother looking for a job.

14. IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS
Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferari.

15. CIRCULAR REASONING
Example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.

16. INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF DEFECT
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

17. IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON
Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldn't ride a bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.

18. FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS
Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me!

19. REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION
Example: The car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

20. FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION
Example: His six last wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.

21. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT'S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

22. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS
Example: We've spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can't stop investing now or it will all be wasted.

23. OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM'S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY RIGHT)
Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.

24. IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it's not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can't tell if they cause hives.

25. INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.

26. JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS
Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.

27. BLINDING FLASHED OF THE OBVIOUS
Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.

28. BLAMING THE TOOL
Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I'm still stupid. This encyclopedia must be defective.

29. HALLUCINATIONS OF REALITY
Example: I got my facts from a talking tree.

30. TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping off your limbs!

31. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON'T HAVE EXCEPTIONS
Example: It should be legal to shoplift, as long as you don't take enough to hurt the company's earnings.

32. PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE
Example: I've never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people

It should be noted that using this information to de-construct MoonBat arguments will generally result in said MoonBat calling you a bigot.