Ghosts

By the Jam.

When I first got on Napster, many years ago, one of the first songs I searched for was Ghosts (mp3, 5 MB), one of the Jam's un-noted classics, with no result.

"Jam" as a search term invariably turned up 1000+ hits for Pearl Jam, and "Ghosts" would generate hundreds of hits for that movie that was just out about Cube fighting aliens on Mars.

Don't even get me started on the 'opportunities' I was faced with when I tried to locate songs by "the the". Luckily, I was younger then, and stronger.

"Ghosts" is emblematic, for me, of my early university years. My room-mate was a musician, and this was one of the two songs (the other was drums for "Pretty Vacant") that I could play an acceptable accompaniment to (on bass).

Good times, good times.

The inestimable James Walcott

Another person who's scribblings I one day hope to approach in terms of "word stylishness":

In or out of mating season, John Bolton in full swollen umbrage is never an edifying spectacle... We Americans are now accustomed to the likes of Bolton in full coconut-heaving mode but the Brits have been less exposed to neoconservatism in the malignant raw, and Matthew Carr's review of Bolton's recent perf[ormance] on the Today show read like a report filed from behind a one-way mirror at a psychiatric clinic:

He almost approaches the literary level of a Russell Brand!

Aside from the quotes James ('James' is how I prefer to refer to him, in my own mind. It sounds classy!) provides, here is an exemplary zinger from the article he was writing about:

Only last week Bolton was interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme.
Listening to that conversation was a grim experience that was not unlike being trapped with the Kevin Spacey serial killer character from Seven.

Acknowledging one of the Great Satan's unsung heroes

Even though he has a boring nom de plume, unlike, say, myself, Jon Swift should be honoured for his contribution towards regularly cheering me up. Through Bloglines, I can track 'Jon Swift' (that is how I think of him) as he wrestles with the troubles of the world.

He is as 'dry' as they come. So dry that there is a bonus: after reading a dryly amusing post, one is drawn irresistibly to the post's comments, a significant proportion of which show that the commenters didn't 'get' that he is kidding.

Take his Canadians: the Other Illegal Immigrants post. The post that started it all, at least for me.

In part:

No one knows how many illegal immigrants from Canada currently reside in the United States. And it is extremely difficult to find out since Canadians, unlike Mexicans, look and speak just like normal Americans. The fact that they are able to blend in so easily makes them, in my mind, even more threatening to our way of life than immigrants from other countries. Some of you might not even realize that Canada is an entirely separate country. Some of your neighbors and co-workers may be Canadian and you might have no idea. Aside from overuse of the word "eh?" and excessive drinking of Molson, many Canadians (at least the English-speaking ones) seem just like us on the outside.

(snip)

The effect of Canadians on our economy is devastating. Unlike Mexicans, Canadians take jobs from Americans that Americans actually want.

The comments range from acknowledging his wittiness to plaintive whinging about anti-Canadianism. A number of them make me embarrassed to be one!

As an unrepentant believer in Big Government, one of my fondest hopes has always been that Canada would start requiring exit permits for Canadians, rejecting the bigger idiots so they don't get out to embarrass us internationally.

However, with the advent of the internets, any drooling moron can disseminate his or her ravings to an international audience, rendering the concerns behind my proposed 'exit-visa' effectively obsolete.

Imagine my delight when I saw through bloglines that Jon Swift had 16 postings available. Usually, he does a post or two a week, mostly because he puts a lots of work into them, unlike the usual sort of 5-a-day bloggers who just quote another blogger, add a 'witty' remark, and post it.

It turns out Jon didn't have a mental breakdown (my first fear, given the tragic meltdown of Rev. Mykeru), he must have been polishing some of his old posts, which bloglines interprets as a new post, for some reason (blogger doesn't).

Anyhoo, some great old posts to read (alert: JS is very verbose, you have been warned):

The new old ones I hadn't read:
Guantanamo: Kafkaesque, in a Good Way
Ann Coulter Tackles the Menace of Widows and Grieving Mothers
50 More Conservative Rock Songs
My Battle With CFS
No Amnesty for Old People
Let's Not Nuke Iran-Yet
Jill Carroll vs. the Blogosphere
Everyone Hates the Christians

All of them are old, but they are all worth a read!


This brings up a point about blogger/blogspot: the archiving of content is very user unfriendly. Visitors should be able to browse archives by title, not just by date of publication.

I assume that is what they are aiming for with their recent addition of labels, but it is still far from being usable.

Ponce Alert!

I have tried to remain silent on this issue, but today's "Ask Mr. Smith" column by the Globe and Mail's resident bon viveur Russell Smith has finally forced me to comment.

From the Saturday edition, on the subject of fragrances for men:

A subtle scent on a well-dressed man is a sign, particularly to sensually aware women, that this guy is making an effort. It shows that he is trying to please. And it shows that he is sensually aware himself.

Personally, I love scents. I find them expressions of personality and of desire. I think anyone who's opposed to lovely smells is a little uptight.

Uptight, maybe, but all I know is that when I get on an elevator at 09h00 Monday morning, hung-over, the last thing I want to endure is inhaling the sensually enhanced manhood of anyone, let alone Russell Smith, Esq.

Who can take fashion advice seriously from a guy that has bangs? He hasn't updated his homepage, so you, the internet public, cannot experience Russell Smith's bangs.


Those bangs might be de rigeur on the Left Bank, but here in T.O. they make Russell look like a brain-damaged homosexual (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Which is odd, because Word on the Street is that he is a flagrant heterosexual.

Lock up your daughters! A funny-looking guy with bangs and an ascot is sensually querying them about cheese! And probably acting insouciant!


I am so strident on this point (the Bangs issue) that I am considering going to a Kinko's and scanning the Russell Smith byline photo from the Globe. So I can show you what I am talking about. I care that much!


UPDATE

You think I exaggerate? I finally found one, not the masterpiece on display in the Globe, but it gives you an idea of what I am talking about.

LOST is ending?

No fear, LOST's due date might be past my own. According to the Malaysia Star,

ABC has confirmed that mystery drama Lost will be concluded in 2010, after three more 16-episode seasons.

So there you have it. ABC good, HBO bad.

HBO gave Deadwood, my favourite TV series ever, a measly six hour miniseries to finish its story, while ABC has given LOST, certainly entertaining (but inaccessible to new viewers), another 48 episodes (unheard of!) to fiddle around with, apparently regardless of LOST's ever diminishing ratings.

At this rate, by 2010, the only viewers LOST will still have will be me and my Mom (should we still be extant). And we don't watch it on TV, anyway. When we get together, we watch the show on the internets.

Maybe the writers will actually be able to wrap some things up! In the 48 episodes they have left, they had better come up with something.

Is it just me?

Or do French President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy and Kevin McDonald from Kids in the Hall look almost identical?

When I see a photo of Sarkozy, I cannot picture the Kid in the Hall mentally at the same time. Hence, my photoshop effort gracing the top of this post. It's for the sake of my own sanity!

They have the same lined forehead, the same heavily-lidded, sad brown eyes, the same thin-lipped smirk of a mouth, the waggly eyebrows, a drooping nose, even the same low-set ears. The only difference I can see is that Sarkozy has a Widow's peak and McDonald doesn't.

If I was Kevin McDonald, I would start working on my Sarkozy impersonation. Those guys' terms are eight years or something, so there is no doubt work is going to become available.

FYI back in the 80s I used to have the same problem differentiating between Winnie Mandela and Rita Marley.

And possibly others. I am pretty sure there were others...

From GABLE at the Globe and Mail: "The Changing of the Story"

Hah! Good one. I can't recall a greater example of federal shilly-shallying (but then again I have short-term memory 'issues'). Could the Conservatives (I refuse to refer to them as 'Tories') be handling this issue any more incompetently? It is hard to imagine how they could.

One thing, though, at least they are not stone-walling. They are doing the opposite: making up whatever pops into their silly heads at any given moment.

This is just the sort of entertaining keystone-kops style incompetence that I was anticipating when The Conservatives first formed their government.

It took a while, but now I feel I can finally just sit back and enjoy it.

This break will give Dion some time to work on his english elocution, and J-Lay some more time to hang around Toronto, glad-handing hapless passers-by.

Toronto F.C. opens at home

to a sold out crowd!

Just as importantly, by being trounced by some team from the bloated belly of the Great Satan, they displayed a true awareness of local tradition and I, for one, appreciate their effortless ability to fit in with local 'sporting culture'.

Right now they are 0-4 in the league, with zero goals scored. Inquiring minds should note that this is the same record (and number of goals scored) Canada compiled in its one World Cup appearance, circa 1986.

BlogTO has a posting with a bunch of photos from what looks like a pretty enjoyable occasion. Except for Tall Boys™ of Carlsberg at $8.50 each. Ouch!

Elephant attacks!

I just keep on learning.

Even though I spent a couple of weeks in Kerala recently, I did not pick up on the fact that Keralites have a special veneration for elephants.

According to India Today, which I have no link to since India Today is an entirely meat-based entity (the Mcleans of India, so to speak), I am forced to summarise. In meat time!

So here it goes, the shorter version: elephants are going crazy at unprecedented levels because of the strains being placed upon them, especially when the male mating time (musht, or something like that, the mag isn't at hand) overlaps the Keralan festival cycle. New to the party bread-head owners are chemically dosing their elephants to repress their 'maleness' so that they can preform.

An example of an overly repressed bull elephant behaving badly during a Keralan religious ceremony (warning- probably too graphic for children. Time 8:17):




According to the article, traditional elephant owners treat their elephants like a member of the family and their beasts don't exhibit this sort of behaviour.

Unfortunately, there is so much money to be made during the Kerala February Festival Circuit that unscrupulous carpetbaggers have become a new force in the elephant-renting market. They don't care for the elephants they own, forcing the beasts to work, regardless of their condition (ie. horny or not).

For the people that are interested in this sort of thing, many more elephant attacks are available at youtube.

NDP intentions clarified!

Thanks to a responder from my last posting, I was directed to a weblog with some inside info on the negotiations that went on between the Liberals and the NDP prior to the Tuesday vote (a motion to curtail Canada's military participation in Afghanistan by 2009).


According to ceasefireinsider,

The Liberal motion was uncritical of the military mission and supported its continuance unchanged, yet called for the government to notify NATO that our troops would be withdrawn from the combat mission in Kandahar when the current commitment ends in February 2009.

(snip)

In politics, the wording of a motion is important. When I first read the Liberal motion last week, I feared that it was D.O.A., or Dead-on-Arrival. The motion let the Conservative government off the hook by not expressing any concerns at all about the failing mission, did not call on the government to change the focus from war-fighting to peacebuilding, and missed what is becoming an obvious solution to the war: a diplomatic settlement.

We urged the Liberals to make a small amendment to their motion in order to win NDP support, and Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Peggy Mason actually suggested specific changes to the language that would likely have been palatable to both Liberals and the NDP. We sent the suggestions to every Liberal and NDP Member of Parliament. The NDP even proposed an amendment during the debate, but the Liberals rejected it.

Whew!

That is a relief. If this account is factual, though, it only increases my still relatively small fear that Dion is listening to the wrong people.

He must have some sort of workable strategy! I am even possibly prepared to accept some triangulation at this point.

Also, it lets me off the hook for my potential 'J-Lay' confrontation. As a Canadian, of course, I reflexively recoil from anything confrontational.

WTF is up with the NDP?

After lunch, on the way back to my cubicle I was informed by my main news provider, the Elevator News Network (ENN), that the Conservatives had defeated a Liberal motion that Canada withdraw from Afghanistan by 2009.

They accomplished this through the support of the NDP. What is that all about?

If the NDP is up to their old trick (infuriatingly obvious during the Harris years, here in Ontario) of supporting the Tories for short-term political advantage, I am going to have some sharp words to share with 'J-Lay' the next time I happen upon him relentlessly glad-handing hapless passers-by.

If the bill had gone through, it would quite possibly have made our part in the occupation of Afghanistan the big issue in the next election.

And what sort of "progressive" entity wouldn't want that? The mind boggles...

The NDP, apparently.

Insurgents rain on Harper's parade

Afghani insurgents killed six Canadian sepoys on Sunday, stealing the limelight from Steven Harper's Vimy Ridge photo op.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had invoked the Afghan campaign in a speech to veterans Sunday by drawing direct parallels between Kandahar and Flanders Fields, was careful yesterday to avoid any mention of the latest losses in his address to the crowd before the memorial.

My first thought when I heard the news about the deaths was: how could this possibly happen? Who could possibly conceive that Canadians would continue to be killed in this pointless exercise in national chest-thumping?

My second thought was that this news would mean less chance of a spring election since it reminds the Canadian public (a majority of whom oppose extending our involvement in the Afghanistan debacle) of the costs involved.

Then I had a third thought, which directly contradicted my second thought: this latest incident will make a spring election more likely, not less.

Pretty soon, it is going to be the 22^e Regiment (based in Val Cartier, QC) that will be taking over duties in Afghanistan. Harper would be wise to have an election before this happens because once francophones start dying (N.B. none have yet), his popularity in Québec will drop like a stone. Goodbye majority!

In related news, it is good to see that the pro-war Canadians out there have a good grasp of why we are in Afghanistan. Crooked in Canada, for example, seems solidly non-ironic when he or she wrote:

I think its time to do in Afghanistan what should have been done a long time ago, bomb the hell out of it until the Taliban have nowhere left to run or hide. I think people have had enough time to flee the war torn country by now, and I see no reason as to why the war in Afghanistan shouldn't be stepped up a helluva lot more now.

As you can see, Crooked in Canada has really thought things through. The civilian population has had more than enough time to flee the country by now, so the odds are that everyone remaining hates us for our freedoms, and deserves to die.

That being said, I don't mind blowing the f*** out of country to keep the bad guys from getting in and out of the country. Afghanistan needs to be cut off from the rest of the world in order for the war against terrorism, and the Taliban to be won. That's what I think anyway.

Apparently, Crooked in Canada lacks even a basic understanding of what creates insurgents. The use of military force against civilian populations only creates more insurgents. I could look for a link buttressing this last statement but I am too bored.

Luckily, the Canadian public is less obtuse (shoutout to WKRP!) than Crooked in Canada. A CTV poll shows

When asked about the likelihood of Canada being a terror target because of its military presence in Afghanistan, 56 per cent said we are more likely to be attacked.

This represents an increase of 18 per cent compared to one year ago. Thirty-four per cent say the military presence has no bearing; while five per cent say having soldiers in Afghanistan make us less susceptible to an attack.

Yes, if I was Harper I would definitely call an election sooner, rather than later. Before le merde hits le fan in Québec!

Rocketman

I admire the creativity of the mind or minds behind Family Guy, and one of my personal favourites has always been Stewie singing "Rocket Man", lounge-style (time 1:38):



Unbelievably, years later, I have come across a startlingly similar
clip where Shatner(?!?) does the same schtick that Stewie does, but back in the mid '70s.

Is Shatner an honest-to-goodness time traveller? That is the only plausible explanation that I can conceive of... (time 5:02)



P.S. If anyone could tell me how to make blogspot treat embedded youtubes as embedded, rather than opening a new window, I would be in your debt. Addendum: Now, for some reason, the first video is opening on the page, but the second is not. WTF?

Russell Brand: wanker? Part Deux

Previously, in this space, I cast some aspersions on the funniness of Russell Brand, based on his Big Brother's Big Mouth preformances available on youtube.

Recently, an anonymous commenter to the archived post has taken me to task for my critique, and directed me to one of Russell's standup routines, also available via youtube.

I now admit that I was wrong, and was in fact being a bit of a 'tit' (as the commenter cheerfully pointed out).

Russell Brand is funny, after all.

Judge for yourselves! The whole show is segmented into 8 10 minute parts and if you can make it past the first 5 or so minutes, I bet you will be hooked!

"Canada's New Government"

I recently read an article in Harper's Magazine, titled Our Home and Native Brand. It makes public

... a September email exchange between representatives of Natural Resources Canada and Andrew Okulitch, a scientist working at the Geological Survey of Canada in an emeritus capacity. Irwin Itzkovitch is an assistant deputy minister under Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn. Vanessa Nelson is an executive adviser. Okulitch was fired but reappointed two weeks later.

It was very interesting, in that I hadn't realized that Canada had been rebranded.

The jist of it: apparently, early last fall the Harper government mandated that in all government press releases, etc. the term "Canada's New Government" would be used instead of "the Government of Canada".

Of course, the top hit for "Canada's New Government" in google is Steven Harper's homepage (mercifully it wasn't a 'sponsored' link), the Government of Canada. The banner graphic proclaims "Canada's New Government", with a subtitle of (in caps, I am not making this up "GETTING THINGS DONE--FOR ALL OF US")

Currently,the homepage shows a beer-bellied Harper pretending to pay attention as some hired stooge points to a tree or something. Perhaps the next place for some timber extraction?

The message is supposed to be that "Spock" cares about the environment, just like the rest of us.

At least until he wins a majority.

Then, I suspect, we will all be well and truly in trouble.

Have I lost my mojo?

It has been well over a month since my last posting and I have no doubt that I have disappointed my dozens of regular readers. I know this because several (well, two) of my colleagues have made mention of their disappointment in this matter. One colleague even made so bold as to question whether I was still drinking or not!

Well, I am still boozing, but being forced to remain 'dry' on several occasions for several days during my recent vacation certainly clarified for me some of the principal issues (or in the latest corpSpeak, 'opportunities') in my life.

Rather than collapsing into bed and instantly falling asleep, as is my wont, I was granted the rare privilege of going to bed early, then lying awake into the early hours, analysing my life and its meaning (short answer: 42).

Aside from laziness (and I find it very difficult to write these logs, especially the longer the time span between each one), I notice a change in myself, at least temporarily, regarding my world view.

When I first got back from vacation, I had a draft on 'the evils of tourism' already written in my head. As days turned to weeks, however, my indignation faded away.

Now, I am not irritated enough by anything to actually be driven to write. I have a warm apartment, as much cold potable water as I care to drink, and as much acceptable red wine as I care to swill.

I am sure that if I had remained in Canada, and had witnessed the grotesquerie of the Harper attack ads on Stephane Dion, I would have been outraged enough to at least post something.

But I wasn't here for that, and I still haven't watched them. I am saving them for when I enter 'warpath' mode, probably sometime soon, according to the forecasters.

Another election this spring? I would welcome that. I would feel energized again! I don't care how well the Conservatives are polling in Ontario, I know they are weak. And their leader? Especially weak.

Bring it on, to quote Steve's best buddy.

May the least whorish candidate win!

The whole "liquids on planes" scam

I had very much hoped that by the time I was on a plane again, the international airline industry would have backed off from this "no liquids or gels on planes" bullshit.

I mean, wasn't the whole thing disproven as being hysteria stirred to a fever-pitch by those clowns on Fleet Street, and aided and abetted by toffee-nosed war criminal Tony Blair (and his ilk) because such hysteria serves their own purposes?

I can accept, maybe, having to down nearly a litre of water before being allowed into the secure zone at Pearson international airport. What I can't accept is being forced to dump my water bottle AGAIN after disembarking at Malpensa ("Bad Thinking" in Italian?) airport in Milan even though I was still in transit!

The upshot? There I was, no water, no Euros and about to take off for Mumbai international airport, arriving at 1h30 on a Sunday morning, a place and time where I was really, really afraid of being without water.

What does a rational person do in an irrational situation like this? I am, after all, a "perspirer". (I burst into a sweat if I turn the pages of a book too quickly! And being hung-over definitely doesn't help matters.)

I did the only thing I could think of: engage in the act of shoplifting.

I nonchalantly grabbed a couple of 7.5 cl bottled waters off the shelf in a self-serve cafeteria, jammed them in my carry-on bag, and strolled over to my departure gate.

Some people might blame my behaviour on my lack of morals, but I know better. I blame the Man.

The Kerala Model

In anticipation of my upcoming vacation, I have been doing a lot of reading about India's history, politics, cultures, and the like.
One of the more interesting items I have come across is a continuing debate over the so-called "Kerala Model".

What is the Kerala Model? According to the most important information source in the universe, it is:

a set of economic practices developed in India's state of Kerala. These practices have resulted in the state attaining a high level of standards in human development, while compromising on its industrial development. This anomaly of high social development despite economic backwardness, is variously known as the Kerala model, or the Kerala phenomenon.

I think we all can agree that this description is dry, to say the least. What it all boils down to is, why does the most literate, healthy, and egalitarian state in India also have the lowest per capita income?

The modern theory is that investing in health and education for all citizens will result in a growth in production, yet Kerala is not following this pattern.

(Personally, I suspect that if the people that measure this sort of thing used the 'median', rather than the 'mean' average, Kerala would be rated substantially higher.)

Putting Economics aside for now, I intent to start my vacation in Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala, for two reasons:

1. There is a well known university there, and I hope to plunder their bookshop for books on pre-Raj Indian history. (Weirdly enough, all the Indian histories I have read, inevitably written by Britons, seem to devote approx. 6 pages to India before the Europeans, and the rest of the book to the Raj.)

2. 'Thiruvananthapuram'. This city used to be called Trivandrum, but relatively recently they changed it to Thiruvananthapuram which translates as, more or less, 'City of the Sacred Serpent' (whose name is Anantha, BTW).

I don't know how you, gentle reader, make your vacation choices, but for me this makes Thiruvananthapuram a must-visit place on my 'adventure holiday' itinerary, just because of the cool name.

(Addendum: For some reason 'City of the Sacred Serpent' reminds me of the "Conan the Barbarian" movie. I can't explain why this would be. Inquiring minds need to know!)

Reviewing Left Behind

While on the subject of Christianity, I thought I would muse aloud on the block-buster phenomenon of Left Behind.

The series, which runs 12 books, concerns the trials and tribulations of those "left behind" after all the Christians are raptured and the Book of Revelation stuff kicks in, Schwarzeneggerian Final Days-style.

First off, I should mention that I only read the first book in the series, and by 'read', I mean that I read the first twenty or so pages, mulled things over, and decided that cleaning the tub might not be such a chore after all.

I didn't need to read any more to know how much it sucked. (I didn't bother to analyze why I thought it sucked until I read Blogging Left Behind, but more on that later.)

When I was in grade 8, I thought The Shining was a great novel, and Stephen King worthy of his garlands.

A couple of years ago, I saw a paperback Stephen King novel that I hadn't read. I took it home, started reading, and was appalled at how bad a writer he is! Yet as a fourteen year-old I had found The Shining and Salem's Lot captivating!

Compared to the writers of Left Behind, Stephen King is Marcel Proust.

If you go to slacktavist's Blogging Left Behind, you can read the page by page analysis of the first novel (along with a lot of great links to other sources for Christian criticism, theological analysis, etc.) faithfully posted over a period of some time (his first post was in Sep 24, 2003, right now, Jan 7 2007, he is on page 241).

I guess slacktavist is savouring every drop!

A quote from his entry of Oct 18, 2003 (fourth up from the bottom of the page, the entries are in reverse chronological order):

The first words of Left Behind are "Rayford Steele," the protagonist's name.

It sounds like a porn star's name -- and in a sense it is. The Left Behind series is dispensational porno, but it's more than that. One of the most disturbing things about this book is the way LaHaye and Jenkins portray men, women and the relationships between them.

[...]

The character Rayford Steele is, like the authors, no longer a young man. Younger authors might not have been compelled to give their protagonists names -- "Steele" and "Buck" -- that seem such a blatant assertion of male virility. Bev is apparently not the only LaHaye who seems oblivious to phallic imagery.

I like this blogger (he is slowly working his thoughtful, sardonic way through the book) because he is a Christian and has a sense of humour. I know some Christians have a lively sense of humour, I am related to a good few of them.

Christians with a Sense of Humour should get some exposure too!

Let's steal christmas back from the Christians

What does christmas have to do with Christ, anyway?

Some Christian marketing guy in the fourth century C.E. came up with the idea of piggy backing a new Christian holiday on top of a bunch of pagan holidays, kind of like how Subway opens a location right next to every existing Mr. Sub.

I am sure there is a marketing term for this strategy. The point is, even back then the Christians had it all figured out.

Consulting Wikipedia, the most trustworthy information source IN THE UNIVERSE, we see that christmas was actually orignally a bunch of pagan celebrations from many cultures, all centred around the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice.

Take yuletide, for example. The Christians didn't have any winter celebrations til their big one at Easter (at least it used to be the big one), so they stole it.

Yuletide sounds like a good idea to me, and the twelve wild days of yuletide are not ripping off Adam Sandler, he is ripping off the pagans with his "12 crazy days" or whatever the blazes that movie was called.

Good times, good times

When I arrived home from work today, I took the time to make sure that I hadn't received any new phone messages. I usually don't bother because I rarely receive them, and when I do they are from a) friendly neighborhood realtors; b) my landlord; or c) Jack Layton (in the last federal election, Jack left me an upbeat message a couple of times, even though I don't live in his riding. I suspect he wanted a piece of this weblog's 'juice', since it is regularly read by literally dozens of people).

Anyhoo, my dearth of messages reminded me of 1995, when I moved to Toronto straight from 6 months of hell in Lake Louise Alberta. I didn't know a single person in Toronto, having accepted a job as a cook at Bar Italia after a phone interview. So I had never met my new boss or the owner, let alone laying eyes on the restaurant where I would be working.

Needless to say, I was a bit lonely until I had been here for a few weeks and had made some friends. The strongest memory I have from that period, new in a big city, was getting home and seeing the blinking of my answering machine's 'message' light for my new Toronto number.

It turns out my new number was really the old number of a defunct crisis hotline (probably cancelled by the Harris Conservatives).

Every night, I would get home, and listen to my messages. From day 1, they were desperate pleas for help from lost people. There didn't seem to be any kidders or pranksters. It was just really depressed people leaving a synopsis of their heartaches for someone, anyone, to listen to.

I altered my answering machine message to state "Hi, this is Pete. This telephone number is no longer a Crisis Hot Line".

But it didn't matter. People kept on leaving heartbreaking tales of personal loss and sorrow.

I must admit I fast-forwarded through a lot of the longer messages, but what can you do. It's not my job!

Welcome to the big T.O., bro!

Well, I got what I wished for...

And now Stéphane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party. I should be happy, and I was very, very happy when I heard the 3rd round results. Why, then, do I now have this feeling of doom in the pit of my stomach?

I'll tell you. By Sunday, columnists in the Toronto Star (?!?), let alone the other papers, were commenting on how pathetic the Liberal Party will be with Dion leading it. A response to my previous posting seems to sum it up: Dion as the Liberal leader is handing Québec to the separatists.

Despite how often I hear this, I still do not understand the logic. What does it matter if Québec sovereigntists will stay away from the Liberals under Dion? Wouldn't they vote BQ anyway?

Would it be better that sovereigntists pretend to support the Liberals under, say, Iggy, then betray them later, Like Bouchard & co. did to the Mulroney Conservatives?

When Dion and Kennedy made a deal to move their support to the stronger of the two on the second ballot, the idea was that Kennedy and Dion were both strong in their home provinces, and almost non-existent in their ally's home ground. So this implies to me that Dion does have strength in Quebec. (Or, that Kennedy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Zing!)

Be a little more optimistic, all you Liberal power-hungry sluts. For once, you have chosen (distractedly, it seems) someone who isn't part of the red-tie/expense-account-padding establishment.

The next general election could be framed, for example, as a clear choice between a 'Nice Guy' and an 'Asshole' (as my dad would say). What more can you ask for?

Maybe you won't be seen as such opportunistic whores this time! Cheerfully abandon that perogative to the Conservatives would be my advice.

The Liberals' Big Day fast approaches!

Who will emerge as the next leader?

The Lurch-like Michael Ignatieff? The elfin Bob Rae? Perhaps even the semi-literate Gerard Kennedy? Or maybe one of the other guys?

Who can say? A Liberal convention is even harder to call than normal elections since more things go on 'behind the scenes'. As far as anyone can tell Ignatieff has the first ballot support of about 30% of the delegates. It could be higher, no one is sure. But this is sure: If Ignatieff doesn't hit well over 30% of votes on the first ballot, he is doomed.

Why is this? Because all the other candidates hate his guts, including his supposed good buddy Bob Rae. So if the first vote doesn't show definite movement towards Ignatieff, he will receive insignificant increases in support in subsequent balloting.

Assuming that Iggy gets little more than 30% on the first ballot, what will happen? It will be a competition amongst the other candidates to become the 'anyone-but-Ignatieff' candidate who will, I believe, end up winning.

In my heart, I hope it is Dion, but judging from what I have read over the last few weeks my head tells me it will be Rae.

Either Dion or Rae (or even Kennedy!) would be infinitely better than Ignatieff, but recent polls appear to indicate that Rae has the best chance of any of the candidates to help the Liberals deny the Conservatives a majority in the next federal election.

It saddens me, because I would like to see the NDP gain a greater voice in the Commons and Rae (or to a lesser extent Dion) would grab votes from border-line NDP supporters like myself.

On the other hand, if Harper's Conservatives form a majority government, it would be a catastrophe. And according to the aforementioned polls, Bob Rae is the best person to prevent that.

Still, I hope for the miraculous victory of Stéphane Dion. Mostly because I really like Frenchies!

Addendum: I should mention that it seems to me that although Martha Hall Findley was the most personable, well-spoken, and non-'full of shit' of all the candidates, she was never given serious attention. Luckily, she is young, so I hope that we will see more of her in Liberal leadership campaigns to come.

Good golly! I was wrong, gracious me

It appears that I will have to rethink alot of my previous prejudices. We aren't witnessing Berlin '33 all over again. The Republicans are not the budding fascists I thought they were.

They are the incompetent, ersatz grand-nephews of fascists that actually knew how fix an election. Why would the Republicans suddenly be competent in this case (I hindsightedly ask myself), when they are so uniformly incompetent in every other way?

This is my mea culpa.

Who are they trying to kid?

Well, it is now noon on mid-term election day in the Great Satan, and I have grown a bit tired of all these projections that the Democrats (the other 'Business' party) will take control of the House and/or the Senate.

Where have these people been? Living in some fairytale where the electoral process hasn't been perverted to the point that the Democrats will never, ever win again?

The Democrats have about as much chance of gaining seats as the Communists did in the Reichstag in 1933.

The citizens of the Great Satan have baked their bread, now they can eat it.

American Tourister




Can you think of a worse name for a company that produces luggage? 'American' is bad enough, 'Tourister' is just an irritating made-up word that caps it off. Why not write "KILL ME" on some masking tape and stick it on your forehead? At least you would be viewed with curiosity and/or fear, rather than distaste, contempt, and/or hatred.

Why do I own American Tourister luggage in the first place? Five or so years ago, I bought American Tourister luggage at a discount warehouse because it was really, really, cheap. So, apparently, did everyone else. My luggage looks exactly the same as 50% of the other bags dropping from the hopper.

My personal identifiers are green ribbons tied to the handles with "One Ireland" printed on them in white.

Before my next trip, I plan on putting masking tape over the pseudo-metal permanent logos on the luggage (an example of which is highlighted in the screengrab serving as a banner at the top of this posting) in an effort to avoid future bavardage.

An appeal from the heart

I have searched high and low on the internet, but I cannot find that photo from last summer of Jack Layton and Olivia Chow in a canoe, paddling through a Canadian Shield-type landscape.

The reason I am obsessed with that shot is that, at the time, I ignored it as another meaningless photo opportunity. Then, later, I read a column (I forget where) in which the writer stated that Jack Layton was the only person he had ever seen that could look indignant while paddling a canoe.

This got a big laugh from me because, in my mind's eye, Jack did look angry about something, like maybe someone off-camera had loudly farted.

Maybe it is the moustache? It looks bristly and, well, indignant. As supporting evidence of my theory, I cite 'Gorgeous' George Galloway. He has a closer cropped, toothbrush-style moustache, but he also looks indignant, almost by default.

Truth be told, I would grow a moustache if I could, be damned the grey hairs!

Anyhoo, does anyone out there have a graphic of that shot that they can send me?

Is Michael Ignatieff 'triangulating'?

The concept of 'triangulation' was first popularised in the '90s by the administration of puffy sleaze-bag Bill Clinton. In practice, this meant that he would alter his ideas on legislation depending on how the political wind was blowing. Triangulation is defined, kindly, in Wikipedia as:

The act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

Now Iggy seems to be following a similar path to power. A couple of months ago, he mentioned in a press interview that he wasn't losing sleep about Israeli actions in Lebanon. The result: lots of criticism from the Quebec and Youth wings of the Liberal party.

Suddenly, this week, in a french-language interview, Iggy is singing a different tune: he described certain Israeli actions in Lebanon as "war crimes", which pissed off the 'Israel right or wrong' wing of the Liberal party to the extent that his campaign manager resigned.

Beyond the pathetic squabbling of the Liberals, this latest statement implies, to me, that he wouldn't lose any sleep as Prime Minister when informed about any future war crimes.

This sort of whatever! attitude may be ok for you and me, since we as everyday Canadians (ie. not Jewish, Muslim, Lebanese, Israeli, or evangelical Christian) probably didn't lose much sleep over it either.

But then you or I have no driving need to lead this country.

Perhaps, due to his total lack of experience in government, Iggy can be excused for his apparent ability to piss off everyone concerned regarding an important international issue. But who can excuse his staff? By all accounts, he has the majority of the Liberal 'brain-trust' behind him whole-heartedly.

Good luck at the convention, Iggy, you deep-thinker you.

Heck of a job, Brownie!

The sooner toffee-nosed war criminal Tony Blair ignominiously abandons his office and steps into the pages of history, the sooner I can redirect my spite to where it belongs: Canadian politics.

To that end, I encourage all the theists out there to drop to their knees, wince sharply, then set about pleading with their deity or deities to put Tony Blair out of his misery: I don't care if the event is his resignation, his passing away from natural causes, or a tomahawk to the skull. Just make it happen.

Brownie might not be much, but at least he isn't Tony 'Toadie' Blair.

If you have the strength to witness something fairly gruesome, choose to experience this 2005 ad starring Tony and Gordon (I wonder if Canadian political ads seem as cheesy to foreigners as this seems to me):

Russell Brand: wanker?

I was recently perusing the football section of of the Guardian Online when I came upon a fairly amusing opinion column by a fellow named Russell Brand. A quote:

At half-time I made the mistake of using the lavatory in the Dr Martens stand unaccompanied. Further autographs and photographs ensued. This caught the attention of a group of what I can only describe as lads. Or possibly yobs. As they queued to buy drinks, I became the focus of their good-natured chants beginning with: "Who the fucking hell are you?" Moving on to: "Brandy is a wanker." Followed by a burst of: "Sex case, sex case, 'ang 'im, 'ang 'im, 'ang 'im." Borrowed from the film McVicar. High jinks, yes, but unnerving none the less. And then: "Where were you when we were shit?"

Well frankly, I internally remarked, "we were shit in the first half, I was in my seat watching us being shit." But of course they meant where were you in previous, less successful seasons. To which I would like to rather belatedly respond. I was here but you didn't recognise me because I didn't have a famous hair-do. Obviously I didn't have the confidence to articulate that at the time because I was too busy maintaining control of both my frontal and rear sphincters. The tone of these taunts was essentially garrulous, ribald tormenting as opposed to an aggressive onslaught. Blessedly I was given a chance to redeem myself.

...

Many ran to congratulate and hug me. I was accepted. One, to show his acceptance (I don't know what manner of ritual this is), tipped some beer on my head. I've never felt more loved. Then, before I reached the lavatory, Zamora equalised, chaos erupted and I was swept off my feet. Embraced. More beer sloshed about on to my, retrospectively, ill-advised footwear - the flip-flop...

I have always been interested in the phenomenon of people that are celebrities in Britain, but not North America, so I did a search for Russell Brand on google.co.uk (I had no choice in this, because recently, at some step in a google free-app 'wizard', I indicated I preferred UK spelling rather than US spelling, which means I now bounce to google.co.uk, rather than google.ca regardless of my IP address) and it turns out Russell Brand is quite a celebrity as a comedian in the UK.

Being an enterprising sort (at least when it comes to searches, as opposed to actually doing anything physical) I found that Russell is the MC of Big Brother's Big Mouth, something that runs daily with Big Brother UK. I searched for "Big Brother's Big Mouth" on youtube.com and got more than I had expected: Russell Brand isn't the intellectual comic I had expected to see. He is a lisping, flaming, unfunny cunt, as Bob Geldof would say.

I must presume that he hides the sly humour exposed in his column because the lads prefer his pensées celebrating his 'ball bags'.

Sad. But I still love his way with words: "To which I would like to rather belatedly respond...".

That, my friends, is what is known as 'well-spoken'.

My Canada doesn't include Alberta

Well, it was a long time coming, but finally King Ralph has abdicated his throne. Come to think of it, wasn't "King Ralph" a feature film, with John Goodman in the leading role?

In celebration of Ralph's many years of stout service to the good citizens of Alberta, please entertain this proposal: that Alberta separate from Canada.

Regard this proposal objectively: isn't the rest of Canada only holding Alberta back?

Think about it from the Albertan perspective: no more GST, equilisation payments, or the need to co-label everything in french. Plus, without the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they can make damn sure no Sikh will try wearing his turban in a Legion Hall again.

At the same time, think of the benefits to the rest of us: no more having to endure lectures on fiscal propriety from a province awash in oil revenue; a drastically lowered Canadian dollar that would stop the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario and Quebec; not having to hear GOD repeatedly mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speeches.

Albertans like to talk big, "We gonna separate if we can't decide fer everyone what's right 'n' wrong, y'all", but I don't think they have the huevos for it. I wish they did!

Is it just me, or is the Globe & Mail trying a little too hard to push pro-occupation propaganda?



Articles from today's print edition include:

"The Afghan mission is not a failure" by boring, boring windbag Lewis MacKenzie

"The Afghan mission is not a failure" by only slightly less boring windbag Afghan ambassador Omar Samad

Nota Bene: The Toronto Star has a similar setup of pro/con columns in their editorial section, just like the G&M's. The difference with this G&M innovation is that it is a pro/pro discussion. Everyone wins! The G&M op-ed page debate: "Lewis, the Canadians are doing hard work." "Omar, I know it. Let freedom ring!"

"Love the soldiers? Love the soldiering" by cop-meat, hockeyplayer-meat, now soldier-meat lover Christine 'dry doe' Blatchford

"Canada's valuable role in Afghanistan's fight" by a nameless editorial writer, presumably whoring White House stooge Marcus Gee

And these 4 articles were all on the same 2 page spread!

When the G&M amasses this level of mental firepower on one subject in one edition, you know something big is going on. The only power player missing was Margaret Wente! (Maybe she was too busy pulling yet another hapless citizen out of a ditch with her SUV. Zing!)

To quote Diane from Cheers: "Methinks thou doth protest too much".

Well, "methinks they doth protest too much". They know the Canadian public is increasing turning against our involvement in the occupation of Afganistan, so the shadowy forces that inexplicably favour foreign interventions are growing increasingly desperate.

We can expect more displays of this sort.

Kerala sticks it to the man,  part deux

Those CPI(M) swine in the Kerala state government are once again bolstering their Nazi bona fides, this time by pulling a "krystal nacht"-type manoeuver on Microsoft, that defender of the downtrodden.

From the New York Times (registration required):

In a new attack on multinational corporations, the Communist government in India’s southern state of Kerala is campaigning to eliminate Microsoft from use in public institutions, just weeks after it imposed a ban on Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
...
Microsoft was not being banned, he said, but the government was actively encouraging Kerala’s 12,500 schools to switch to the Linux operating system, available around the world free of charge.

P.S. Want to see another sexy photo of Bill Gates? I know I sure do, and I've got what you need! From an artistic perspective, please note that in this shot the sexy binder and foreground monitor props have been replaced by a fanned pile of 1.44 floppies, allowing Bill more space to splay himself comfortably across his desk.

Anyone but Michael Ignatieff

I can't believe this guy is the presumptive front-runner in the Liberal leadership race. But then again, Liberals are such a bunch of power-hungry sluts that they would elect Ben Mulroney as leader if they thought it would get them a majority.

Ignatieff's political views on important international issues of the day closely resemble those of the Great Satan's present administration: pro-Iraq invasion, pro-Afghanistan occupation, and a believer in the moral rightness of torture, at least as long as the torturers are in the employ (officially or otherwise) of the Great Satan.

Worse still, not only is he a war crime enabler, he is dreadfully boring, at least while speaking publically. I saw him on "Question Period" last spring and he was horrible.

To call his performance 'wooden' would be unfair to wood because at least wood has a bit of 'give'. If you can imagine a shorter, swarthier Lurch from the Munsters giving a speech, but with less emotion and his torso tilted to leeward at about 15 degrees, then you can imagine what Ignatieff was like.


But enough! The anti-Michael Ignatieff movement continues to build in preparation for this fall's Liberal Leadership convention. Lots of ammo for rewarding water-cooler chit-chat can be found at StopIggy.com.

An amuse-gueule from StopIggy:

Iggy spends a lot of time in ‘The Lesser Evil” describing how various forms of torture are not really torture at all, including, “forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress.” This is all an unpleasant but necessary part of “the war on terror” for Iggy, and he goes on at great length about concepts such as “torture warrants” that would allow U.S. agents to legally torture suspected terrorists. In another article, “Evil Under Interrogation: Is Torture Ever Permissible?” Iggy expands his list of permissible torture to include “permanent light or permanent darkness, disorienting noise and isolation.” For Iggy, what international law calls “torture” becomes “permissible forms of duress”.

Kerala sticks it to the man

The government of the Indian state of Kerala has taken a historic step in the globalisation battle (ie. the rights of local communites versus the rapacious money-lust of international corporations).

Not only have they banned Coca-Cola Co. and Pepsi Co. from operating bottling plants in Kerala, they have taken it one step further and banned even the SALE of Coke and Pepsi products in their state.

From Counterpunch:

The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada has remained shut down since March 2004 because of community opposition. Government and independent studies have confirmed the presence of toxic waste around Coca-Cola's bottling plants across India. "We will take steps to close down the Pepsi factory in Puddussery village in Palakkad district of Kerala," the chief minister added.

Last week, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a leading public interest research and advocacy group in India, released a study that found a "cocktail of between three to five different pesticides in all samples" of Coca-Cola and Pepsi products they tested in India. On an average, the CSE study said, the pesticide residues were 24 times higher than European Union (EU) standards and those proposed by the Bureau of India Standards (BIS), the government body responsible for standardization and quality control.

(snip)

Efforts are underway in India to develop regulations that will govern safety standards for soft drinks to ensure consumer safety. The Centre for Science and Environment has accused the Coca-Cola company and Pepsico, as well as "powerful interests in the government", of blocking the adoption of the standards.

"The government of India must also ensure that there are laws that protect our groundwater, and that regulations are in place to put an end to the kinds of rampant pollution that we have seen with the Coca-Cola company," said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization.

The Supreme Court of India has also ordered Coca-Cola and Pepsico to reveal the ingredients in their products in six weeks, or face a potential national ban.

On a side note, one interesting statistic I read (that I have no immediate link for) is that it takes 4 litres of good, potable water to produce 1 litre of Coca-Cola.

Hot Buttered Rum

This weekend, while reading Rum: the Epic Story of the Drink that Conquered the World, I came across a very interesting
sounding recipe for Hot Buttered Rum:

1 cup butter
1 cup brown sugar
.5 cup sifted fruit sugar
1 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
2 cups vanilla ice cream, softened
rum
boiling water

In a small mixing bowl, beat together butter, sugar, spices. Beat in ice cream. Put in container, seal, and freeze.

To serve, spoon about .33 of a cup into a mug, add a jigger of rum, and .5 cup of boiling water.

Why present this recipe to the public? Because I care.

Stephen Harper isn't so smart, after all.

All he had to do was show up at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto, shake a few hands, voice a few platitudes, then sit back and enjoy his improved polls in urban ridings. But no, his angle seems to be a Bushesque "I stand by my principles" 'thing'. And since his 'thing' doesn't seem to include reaching out to the gay or ethnic communites, he isn't going.

I was terrified that he would, in a last minute publicity stunt similar to his Cyprus airlift photo op. But he couldn't make himself do it, even though his presence would reassure nervous Ontario and Québec voters that he is not the mouth-breathing, bible-thumping neanderthal that many continue to suspect he is.

From the Globe and Mail:

Forty million people worldwide are living with HIV-AIDS. The disease is crippling sub-Saharan Africa, and concern is emerging about epidemics in Russia, India and China. In Canada, one-third of all new HIV infections occur in aboriginal populations. Thousands of conference delegates are discussing profound issues of access to treatment. They rightly expected Mr. Harper, as political leader of the host country -- one of tremendous wealth and prestige -- to likewise participate or, at the very least, to welcome and wish them well.

Canadians are engaged in all the struggles of the world around them, not just the military ones. By playing against type, Mr. Harper could have lit up the room. Instead, he is being roundly roasted. "I think part of the problem is that he's ignorant about the issue," said Laurie Edmiston of the Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange. "Mr. Harper, you have made a mistake that puts you on the wrong side of history," said Mark Wainberg, conference co-chair and director of the McGill University AIDS Centre. "It's a lost opportunity to tell the world how Canada feels about this pandemic," said Stephen Lewis, United Nations special envoy for HIV-AIDS in Africa.

Where has Ian McShane been all my life?


He is 65 years old and yet I had never heard of him before Deadwood! Impossible, says I to myself, since I am well nigh omniscient when it comes to the particulars of popular culture.

He is the standout star of Deadwood, my new favourite TV series (thanks to the twin miracles of high speed internet and peer-to-peer file sharing), and apparently he has had a long and successful career in tv and motion pictures.



Consulting the NY Times entertainment database reveals these credits, and incredibly enough I have hardly seen any of them. Of the ones I have, I was too young to notice and he probably had only a couple of lines:

2006 Scoop Actor: Joe Strombel
2004 Nine Lives Actor: Larry
2003 Agent Cody Banks Actor: Brinkman
2003 Terror in Moscow Actor: Narrator
2002 Bollywood Queen Actor: Frank
2001 D.R.E.A.M. Team Actor
2000 Sexy Beast Actor: Teddy Bass
1995 Soul Survivors Actor
1992 Con Man Actor
1990 Columbo: Rest in Peace, Mrs. Columbo Actor
1990 Perry Mason: The Case of the Desperate Deception Actor: Andre Marchand
1990 Turgenev's Month in the Country Actor
1989 Blood Sport Actor
1989 In the Frame Actor
1989 War & Remembrance: The Final Chapter Actor
1989 Twice Shy Actor
1988 War & Remembrance Actor
1988 The Great Escape II: The Untold Story Actor
1987 High Tide Actor
1987 Grand Larceny Actor: Flanagan
1986 Rocket to the Moon Actor: Willy Wax
1986 The Murders in the Rue Morgue Actor
1985 Braker Actor: Alan Roswell
1985 Evergreen Actor: Paul Lerner
1985 Too Scared to Scream Actor: Hardwick
1984 Torchlight Actor: Sidney
1984 Ordeal by Innocence Actor: Philip Durrant
1983 Bare Essence: The Final Chapter Actor
1983 Grace Kelly Actor: Prince Rainier of Monaco
1983 Exposed Actor: Greg Miller
1982 The Letter Actor
1982 Marco Polo Actor: Ali Ben Yussouf
1980 Cheaper to Keep Her Actor: Dr. Alfred Sunshine
1979 The Great Riviera Bank Robbery Actor: The Brain
1979 Yesterday's Hero Actor: Rod Turner
1978 Harold Robbins' The Pirate Actor: Rashid
1977 Code Name: Diamond Head Actor
1977 Jesus of Nazareth Actor: Judas
1977 The 5th Musketeer Actor: Fourquet
1975 Freelance Actor
1974 Journey into Fear Actor: Banat
1974 Ransom Actor: Petrie
1973 The Last of Sheila Actor: Anthony
1972 Sitting Target Actor: Birdy Williams
1972 The Left Hand of Gemini Actor
1971 Villain Actor: Wolfe Lissner
1971 The Devil's Widow Actor: Tom Lynn
1970 Pussycat, Pussycat, I Love You Actor: Fred
1969 If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium Actor: Charlie
1969 Battle of Britain Actor: Sgt. Pilot Andy
1966 The Pleasure Girls Actor: Keith Dexter
1966 Gypsy Girl Actor: Relbin
1964 The Young and the Willing Actor
1962 Young and Willing Actor: Harry Brown

I recognise some titles, "Agent Cody Banks", "Sexy Beast", "Pussycat, Pussycat, I Love You", "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium", "Battle of Britain", but it is the only last 3 mentioned that I have actually seen. And I don't remember him.

One of my colleagues said that he was "Lovejoy" in a British TV series, so the list above might well be incomplete.

I will look into it.

Are Canadian troops using depleted uranium munitions?

Because, if so, that would suck. I have a hard time understanding the benefits of using ammunition that not only pollutes the environment for, what, a half life of 5000 years or something, as well as poisoning the soldiers firing it, not to mention the surrounding populations that will suffer the resultant genetic defects (essentially) forever?

What is the benefit of DU munitions? Longer range? Greater penetration? Even if true, why would they use it? A fleeing teenager in his or her pajamas will be killed or maimed just as soundly by a good, old-fashioned chunk of lead.

This flippant use of environmentally hazardous materials reminds me all too much of the Great Satan's military/industrial decision to spray DDT (Agent Orange) over huge swathes of Vietnam, as well as bordering countries, in the whimsical expectation that denuding Vietnam's forests of their leaves would allow the Great Satan's aircraft the visibility necessary to ensure that the dominoes will stop falling.

Anyhoo, there is no point in "jumping the gun", so to speak, until I find out whether Canada is using them or not (I doubt it would be proudly broadcasted, if true). If there is no easily available answer on line, maybe I can lobby one of the local NDPers to ask about this during question period in the next parliamentary session.

I'm looking into it.

Interested in knowing what is going  on in Lebanon?

Really going on, militarily at least, minus all the political spin and associated bullshit? I recommend the War Nerd's most recent column- A Hezbollah Upon All of Thee!

The War Nerd is a very opinionated and annoying asshole. Luckily for us, he also has an interesting take on global conflicts, as well as a sense of humour (sort of).

From the article linked to above:

Hezbollah has great soldiers. That's one reason I can't help liking them. They're some of the most underrated soldiers on earth facing what I consider the most overrated military force on earth, the IDF. The Israelis have been coasting on their reputation for a long time, but way back in Gulf War I it was clear they made their record like a Don King fighter, padding their Win column against a bunch of bums. When I saw those pitiful Arab "soldiers" crawling toward US camera crews on their hands and knees to surrender, the first thing that went through my head was, "Whoa, so that's the kind of opponent the Israelis have been showboating against? Well Hell, my high school marching band could've beaten those Arab chickenshits!"

I'm not alone in that conclusion either. One of the top US commanders in GW I called the IDF "a bunch of arrogant pricks who wouldn't last ten minutes on a European battlefield." Well, that bit about a "European battlefield" is another sad case of our NATO obsession, but the point is, the IDF doesn't deserve its rep. It did once, back in 1948 and during Suez, when it was manned by double-tough survivors of the European Jews who were determined to show up the book-nerd stereotype by kicking ass from Haifa to Damascus. Those dudes were truly tough.

But we're talking demographics again, dude. Passage of time, plus difference in birthrate, means that by now the IDF has a thin, real thin, crust of Ashkenazi brains'n'brawn on top and a bunch of flabby mama's boys under them. See, those whitleather-tough survivors wasted their genes on the whole socialist kibbutz commune experiment, had a kid or two, or none. Their kids are old now. Meanwhile, Israel admitted every loser from Russia or Ukraine or Yemen who could claim a grandpa who liked carp or a grandma who carried the overprotective gene or whatever, anything that could make them look Jewish. Half of them were just lying to get out of their native Hellholes, and none of them were willing to die for Israel the way that kick-ass first generation was.

"Yo, Blair!"

I'm loving this stuff! I wouldn't have been surprised if Bush had "jokingly" ordered Blair to get down on his knees and suck Bush's dick! Or "seriously" ordered Blair to bring him a Diet Coke!

The best part of the Open Mic Incident at the recent G8 summit has to be the total humilation of toffee-nosed war criminal Tony Blair. (And no, in case you were wondering, the photo above was not photoshopped. Although it looks kind of fake, Bush apparently makes those sorts of facial expressions in real time.)

From the Observer:

There's no question which exchange is most enjoyable for those with contempt for the Prime Minister. It is the moment that makes Mr Blair look like the poodle of popular caricature. Worse, he comes over as a poodle who can't even beg his master to toss him a dog biscuit. It is the same bit of the encounter that has caused the most wincing among the Prime Minister's friends.

When Tony Blair offers himself as a Middle East peace envoy, he is casually rebuffed by the American President between bites on a bread roll. Told by Bush that 'Condi is going', the normally fluent Blair is reduced to inarticulate jabbering. 'Well, it's only if, I mean, you know, if she's got a... or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.' Yeah, just talk.

The transcript of the entire recorded conversation, courtesy of the TIMESONLINE:

Bush Yo, Blair. How are you doin’?

Blair I’m just . . .

Bush You’re leaving?

Blair No, no, no, not yet. On this trade thingy . . .(inaudible)

Bush Yeah, I told that to the man. Thanks for (inaudible) it’s awfully thoughtful of you.

Blair It’s a pleasure.

Bush I know you picked it out yourself.

Blair Absolutely (inaudible).

Bush What about Kofi? (inaudible) His attitude to ceasefire and everything else . . . happens.

Blair Yeah, no I think the (inaudible) is really difficult. We can’t stop this unless you get this international business agreed.

Bush Yeah.

Blair I don’t know what you guys have talked about, but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral.

Bush I think Condi is going to go pretty soon.

Blair But that’s, that’s, that’s all that matters. But if you . . . you see it will take some time to get that together.

Bush Yeah, yeah.

Blair But at least it gives people . . .

Bush It’s a process, I agree. I told her your offer to . . .

Blair Well, it’s only if, I mean, you know. If she’s got a, or if she needs the ground prepared, as it were. Because obviously if she goes out, she’s got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.

Bush You see, the thing is, what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over. (inaudible)

Blair Syria.

Bush Why?

Blair Because I think this is all part of the same thing.

Bush Yeah.

Blair What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way . . .

Bush Yeah, yeah, he is sweet.

Blair He is honey. And that’s what the whole thing is about. It’s the same with Iraq.
Bush I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.

Blair Yeah.

Bush We are not blaming the Lebanese Government.

Blair Is this . . .? (he taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)

An idea for a Shootout replacement

Sudden death overtime, 1 new substitute in each period for 2 20-minute periods. After 2 periods, 2 players are allowed to be substituted in each period, including redcarded and previously replaced players, and the periods should continue INDEFINITELY.

Let's stop the madness! Perhaps this would avoid the spectacle of Portugal, one man up, playing defensively in extra time in hopes of a shootout.

Let the moronic horn-honking begin!

Well, it's the apex of the four-year World Cup cycle again, which brings the local yokels out in force to either a) drive around a couple of city blocks, honking their horns, screaming "WHOO! WHOO!" out of their windows, and doing their bit to ensure that everyone in Toronto has a better chance of developing lung cancer, or b) (if no vehicle is available) stand on the side of the road on either Dundas or College Street, scream "WHOO! WHOO!", wave flags and blow whistles at passing motorists.

For hours. And hours. There doesn't seem to be any boozing in the street (lots of police are around to actively prevent this) nor is there any indication of pot smoking (although police generally seem to tolerate this). So how are these people able to maintain this level of apparent euphoria for hours on end? They can't ALL be on mushrooms/extasy/whatever. It is a total mystery to me. The only thing I can think of is that they are, in fact, morons.

I shudder to think about what being a tourist at a real World Cup tournament is like, if this is any indication. However, at least those people are drunk. Which makes it a little more acceptable, especially since they aren't driving.

Sometimes people from other parts of town drive down to blow their own horns, wave their own flags (Korean, Croatian, English, Ecuadoran, Angolan, even Greek, perhaps in memory of their Euro 2004 victory), and generally contribute to the pollution.

The ironic thing, as usual with the World Cup, is that Holland were way better, and deserved the victory. If that ref wasn't in the pay of Portugal's sneaky José Manuel Durão Barroso, I'll eat my hat.

While Portugese seem like interesting enough people (and I originally moved to Toronto because I figured that if I am forced to live in anglophone Canada, at least it should be a place with lots of immigrants), I ultimately find this sort of celebrating a bit of a drain.

Especially since, once Portugal are eliminated, the Brazilian flag will join that of Portugal and the Açores on the roof of everyones' vehicles. That way, any Brazilian success is an excuse for more driving, and more WHOO WHOOing.

That is why I fervently hope for Brazil and Italy to lose. Their presence in World Cup competitions tends to be longer than that of Portugal.

Also, they are notorious 'floppers'.

David Beckham: Useless Tit

Luckily for David Beckham, we haven't been treated to the spectacle of him poncing around in a sarong for a while. Because, as far as I can tell, the guy is a waste of space on the pitch.

Joe Cole, another midfielder: now there's a guy that's "on the ball" (as my dad would say). He is like the English version of Branko Segota, a powerhouse of energy and aggression. Even freak o' nature Peter Crouch (I intend a separate posting on the subject of Crouchinho) is at least making some sort of effort.

This is the first World Cup where, thanks to the twin miracles of highspeed internet connections and person-to-person filesharing, I have been able to actually watch all the games I want. Which in turn means I can watch the England games over and over, if I want, when I want. And I do!

Perhaps the source of Beckham's failure lies in the fact that he is the squad's captain, and is over-sensitive to the pressure of being the focus of English hopes. Or maybe, like Michael Owen, he is an over-rated putz that should be dropped sooner, rather than later, despite how many endorsement contracts he has listed on his c.v.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that David Beckham is a useless tit in all fields of human endeavour. To quote an English guy I met while vacationing in Thailand a few years ago (shoutout to Ben!):

Besides David Beckham the Sportsman, there is David Beckham the Cultural Icon, David Beckham the Politician, and especially David Beckham the Thinker.

So David has got that going for him, which is nice.

Addendum: Go Ghana!

The Great Satan

I was recently reminded by someone, in meat time, that I habitually refer to the US as "the Great Satan" when I am speaking. For example, "I was last in the Great Satan for Teamsite training, spring 2005 I think".

I acknowledge the hypocrisy of using "the US" in this continuing journal, and will henceforth refer to "the US" as "the Great Satan".

Gosh, when you type it out, 'Satan' is a weird looking word.

I fail to understand how anyone can take these clowns seriously



From this morning's Guardian:

The deputy secretary-general of the United Nations was last night accused of making "a very, very grave mistake" after calling the Bush administration hypocrites who were feeding a right-wing anti-UN frenzy in middle America.

Washington's ambassador to the UN responded with undisguised fury to a speech by Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary-general, in which he accused Washington of using the international body "almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool" while failing to defend it at home.

What I find really funny is wondering just what "Washington's ambassador to the UN" (John Bolton, pictured above) plans to do, bleed on him or something?

Is Marcus Gee a paid White House Stooge?

Remember when the U.S. administration announced a little less than a year ago (right around when Marcus became the Globe and Mail editorial writer) that they were going to start planting pro-USA articles in foreign media?

I didn't pay attention (therefore I have no immediate link for this). Why should I care overmuch if the US is attempting to upgrade their image in Cairo, or Jakarta, or wherever, through the sneaky payoff of foreign opinion makers?

I guess that acknowledging, and modifying (sp?), the injustice at the heart of US foreign policy would be too much. Instead, they are still beating the dead horse about how the US is a "light unto the world". (Maybe a "gaslight unto the world", considering how much gas issues through their collective blowholes.)

Anyhoo, a posting at What's Left got me thinking. In part:

According to the July 31st issue of Marcus's own newspaper,

"The office, which has been operating unofficially for months, will work with foreign journalists and broadcasters to create positive images of the US that do not appear to be propaganda." The office, the newspaper goes on to explain, reports directly to the White House.

Propaganda that does not appear to be propaganda, prepared by foreign journalists working with a US agency reporting directly to the President? Hmmm.

This is only a sidebar to the main thrust of the article, which is certainly worth a read.

Previously I have complained about Marcus Gee. This conspiracy theory confirms what I have always felt: Marcus Gee is the journalistic equivalent of Tom Jacobek.

And now that I think about it, I would be interested to know how well Tom and Marcus got along...

[Every day, I try to praise Wotan for the internet]

A cry from the heart!

Can someone supply me with the shot of Paul Martin (ex-Head Custodian of Canada) that was printed sometime, approx. 2 years ago on the front page of the Globe and Mail in regards to an international conference (maybe the OAS?) that showed him (apparently) giggling with glee, arms raised akimbo, as the bushman leans over and condescends to address him.

I know that shot is still out there, and I want it!