Anxiously awaiting the arrival of my mail-order tomahawk, I note that over at macleans.ca there is some speculating going on as to who Scott Feschuk would rather hit over the head with a shovel, Michael Ignatieff or Stephen Harper:

Dear Scott:

If you had to hit either Stephen Harper or Michael Ignatieff with a shovel whom would you choose and why? – Anon Liberal

Anon Liberal

I think I speak for most people when I say the most important part of hitting someone with a shovel is the element of surprise. That’s one of the two things that make hitting someone with a shovel so satisfying. (The other thing: the hitting-him-with-a-shovel part.)

This leads to the question: If Stephen Harper got hit with a shovel, would anybody be surprised? Maybe for a moment. For a moment, they’d be surprised. But then they’d sit around and say things like, “It was bound to happen eventually” or “You know, I was thinking just the other day that Stephen Harper hadn’t been hit with a shovel lately.” That would ruin the whole experience for me.

While I, for one, consider a tomahawk (or even an Iroquois War Club) a much more versatile tool than a shovel for this sort of task, still I am glad to see that Feschuk has brought the question of Stephen Harper being struck with a blunt instrument into the realm of public discussion.


Anonymous said...

What are you going to do with a tomahawk?

PALGOLAK said...

Well, anonymous, I feel a tomahawk (or Iroquois war club)would be an incredibly useful tool to have around, especially with the G20 summit coming to Toronto in less than 2 months.

This will give me time to practise throwing it!