revenge of the fan
WARNING: SPOILERS
I went to see the Revenge of the Sith the other day. I suppose I should go with the good points of the movie first.
It was visually stunning. The obligatory opening space battle sequence was damn near vertigo-inducing. There were lots of pretty colours, particularly in the various light saber battles. There were lots of those too: Anakin versus Count Dooku (ObiWan was taken out of the battle early), Yoda versus Palpatine/Sidious, General Grievous versus ObiWan, Palpatine versus Mace Windu, Anakin versus ObiWan, Yoda versus a couple of clone stormtroopers... basically one light saber duel after another throughout. General Grievous weilding four simultaneously against ObiWan was kinda cool; the two he spun in front of him were making little hash marks in the floor as he advanced. The battle between ObiWan and Anakin was fun to watch too, with much flailing about that would have gotten a real swordsman killed in microseconds.
Now, the bad points. There were holes in the script big enough to drive a Mac Truck through.
In the opening battle sequence, the fight continues from space fighters to a light saber battle onboard Grievous's command ship, where Grievous and Dooku hold Senator Palpatine "captive". After Dooku's death, the ship gets hit and starts to plummet to the planet below. The orientation of the ship means that the elevator shafts are now parallel to the surface of the planet. Anakin leads Palpatine and the inert ObiWan down a elevator shaft - with Anakin and Palpatine walking in the now-horizontal shaft quite normally, even though Anakin, Palpatine, and the ship are all in free fall.
The ship gets righted by use of emergency boosters, whereupon the elevator shaft rotates to its normal vertical position, causing the trio to fall: after a stop that ought to have torn Anakin's shoulder from the socket, they are captured.
When brought to General Grievous in the bridge, a light-saber battle ensues. Grievous breaks the glass and is sucked out into space, saving himself with a quick application of some sort of anchor. During this sequence, Anakin and ObiWan are clinging for dear life to a railing as hurricane-force wind blows past them through the open window. Seconds later, the integrity of the window is restored with no explanation; we don't get to see any blast-shield or force field or anything like that. One second they are in danger, the next they are fine. Anakin pilots the crippled ship to the surface of the planet; the reentry tears the ship in half, but the window destroyed by Grievous and magically replaced without explanation holds up to the temperatures and stresses of reentry.
Anakin and Padme continue their secret love affair in Padme's glass-walled penthouse apartment, in view of millions of other windows. The Jedi remain clueless. They are apparently clueless as to their own cluelessness: ObiWan chastises Anakin with such lines as "Only the Sith think in absolutes", disregarding the entire point of all six movies (the struggle between good and evil, which are sorta absolute). Anakin too reflects this cluelessness, killing Dooku with the words "you are too dangerous to live", but slicing off Mace Windu's hand when Windu says the exact same line to Palpatine. All the Jedi (with the exception of Yoda) are equally clueless about the murderous intent of the clone Stormtroopers, and all die (or in ObiWan's case, nearly so) without so much as a whimper. At least this has been consistent throughout the six movies: the Jedi are clueless. ObiWan in particular is daft; by the time of episode 4, he has forgotten completely about R2D2 and C3PO, and by episode 5 needs to be reminded that Luke has a twin sister, even though he was present at their birth.
The final battle between ObiWan and Anakin further demonstrates George Lucas's complete ignorance of the laws of physics and the practice of engineering. No engineer worth his salt designs anything without failsafes: if one computer goes down, an entire multizillion dollar lava mining complex should not simply collapse into the lava. Anakin and ObiWan fight their way off the disintegrating complex, ending up on hovering thingys that move mere inches from the surface of the center of a flowing lava river, without breaking a sweat. At the end of the fight, Anakin lays several feet away from the edge of the lava flow, where it is much cooler, and yet bursts into flames. ObiWan has been fighting with Anakin this whole time, cool as a cucumber.
At the end of the movie, Lucas once again demonstrates that he has no idea how to end a movie. It is almost as though he realized that he still had a hundred different things to throw in to tie the prequel trilogy into Star Wars IV, so he threw them all in there in the last thirty seconds.
So, was it an enjoyable movie? Hmmm... yeah, I guess so. It was all right, as long as one is willing to really suspend disbelief.
It would have probably been better had I viewed it on DVD though; some idiot in the theatre thought it was funny to shine a laser pointer at the screen every few minutes. If I had seen who was doing it, well... after the fourth or fifth time, I was ready to kick some asshole in the teeth.
Robot Guy rating: three Death Stars (out of five).
UPDATE: Maya has an even better review, with more spoilers.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Sunday, May 29, 2005
and now for something completely different
and now for something completely different
The topic of Canadian politics has been done to death in this blog over the last month, so I figured I would change the pace a bit.
I was looking through MovieWeb's all time 100 top grossing films the other day, and noticed that there are several actors whose names just kept popping up over and over in that list. I decided to make a list of the most-bankable actors and actresses - those thespians involved in the most successful movies of all time. Now, MovieWeb's list is not adjusted for inflation and reflects only US box office sales; if it was adjusted for inflation and reflected worldwide sales, then Gone With the Wind would have been higher up the list, and the Sound of Music would be around number two - lots of great movies don't make the list. That's fine by me.
A bit about my methodology: I made a list of only those actors that had appeared in these top 100 films. Then I eliminated those who had only appeared in one role, even if that role carried over several movies. I wanted my list to reflect the bankability of the actors involved, not the popularity of the role that they played. So, Anthony Daniels (C3P0) and Kenny Baker (R2D2) were out, but Russell Crowe was in; Tobey McGuire was out, but Tommy Lee Jones was in. Then I looked up the gross of each top-100 movie that each actor had been in, and just addded up the box office totals.
Whether my list of actors and actresses reflects the talent of those thespians or the effectiveness of their agents is not for me to say.
There were significantly more actors than actresses in my list. Only nine actresses had two or more roles in the top 100 movies; only Helen Hunt had three roles. In contrast, I counted 36 actors that had two or more roles in the 100 top-grossing films. Below I list the top grossing actors and actresses, along with their roles and the movies they were in. Following each thespian's name is a number, representing the total gross box office (in millions of US dollars, unadjusted for inflation) of the top-100 films in which they appeared.
Ladies first:
#9) Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (348) played Linda Greenlaw in The Perfect Storm and (Maid) Marian Dubois in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.
#8) Julia Roberts (361) played Tess Ocean in Ocean's Eleven and Vivian Ward in Pretty Woman.
#7) Karen Allen (435) played Melissa Brown in The Perfect Storm and Marion Ravenwood in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
#6) Sally Field (549) played Mrs. Gump in Forrest Gump and Miranda Hillard in Mrs. Doubtfire.
#5) Drew Barrymore (617) played Sugar in Batman Forever and Gertie in ET: the ExtraTerrestrial.
#4) Monica Bellucci (653) played Magdalen in the Passion of the Christ and Persephone in the Matrix: Reloaded.
#3) Helen Hunt (659) played Darcy McGuire in What Women Want, Kelly Frears in CastAway, and Dr. JoAnne 'Jo' Thornton-Harding in Twister.
#2) Cameron Diaz (881) played Princess Fiona in Shrek and Shrek 2 and Mary Jensen in There's Something About Mary.
...drumroll...
and the number one most bankable actress on my list is Liv Tyler, who played Arwen in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King, as well as Grace Stamper in Armageddon. Total box office for those four movies: $1234 million.
And now for the guys. I am not going to detail all the roles of all 36 as I did with the women, just those whose total grosses in their top-100 movie efforts exceeded a billion dollars. First, here are the rest of the best:
#36) Ed Harris
#35) Kevin Costner
#34) Russell Crowe
#33) Mark Wahlberg
#32) George Clooney
#31) Morgan Freeman
#29) (tie) Bill Murray
#29) (tie) Joaquin Phoenix
#28) Robin Williams
#27) Bruce Willis
#26) Matt Damon
#25) Will Smith
#24) Ben Stiller
#23) Dustin Hoffman
#22) Geoffrey Rush
#21) Owen Wilson
#20) Wallace Shawn
#19) Tom Cruise
#18) Tommy Lee Jones
#17) Jim Carrey
#16) Jeff Goldblum
#15) Eddie Murphy
#14) Alan Rickman
... and now, the big Baker's Dozen: The following actors have appeared in movies that have total grosses of over 1 billion dollars. Once again, I have listed the total gross (in millions of US dollars) following each actor's name.
#12) (tie) Bill Paxton (1017) played Brock Lovett in Titanic, William Harding in Twister, and Fred Haise in Apollo 13.
#12) (tie) John Cleese (1017) played King in Shrek 2 and Nearly Headless Nick inHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
#11) Mike Myers (1123) played Shrek and Blind Mouse in Shrek and Shrek 2, Austin Powers, Goldmember, Dr. Evil, and Fat Bastard in Austin Powers in Goldmember, and Austin Powers, Dr. Evil, and Fat Bastard in Austin Powers in the Spy Who Shagged Me.
#10) Sir Ian McKellan (1247) played Eric Lensherr/Magneto in X-Men 2 and Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King.
#9) Orlando Bloom (1337) played Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl and Legolas in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King.
#8) Christopher Lee (1343) played Saruman in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King and Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus in Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones
#7) Samuel L. Jackson (1360) played Mace Windu in Star Wars I: the Phantom Menace and Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, Lucius Best/Frozone in The Incredibles, and Ray Arnold in Jurassic Park.
#6) James Earl Jones (1389) played Mufasa in The Lion King and Darth Vader in Star Wars IV: A New Hope, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.
#5) Tom Hanks (1392) played Chuck Noland in CastAway, Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan, Woody in Toy Story and Toy Story 2, Jim Lovell in Apollo 13 and Forrest Gump in Forrest Gump.
#4) John Rhys-Davies (1471) played Gimli in the Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King, Gimli and Treebeard in the Two Towers, and Sallah in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
#3) John Ratzenberger (1585) played Underminer in The Incredibles, Fish School in Finding Nemo, Yeti in Monsters, Inc., Hamm in Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and Major Bren Derlin in Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back.
#2) Frank Oz (1597) played Fungus in Monsters, Inc. and Yoda in Star Wars I: the Phantom Menace, Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.
...drumroll...
and the number one most bankable actor on my list is Harrison Ford, who played Han Solo in Star Wars IV: A New Hope, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Dr. Richard Kimble in The Fugitive and President James Marshall in Air Force One. Total box office for those eight movies: $1856 million.
This list does not include any movies released this year; once Star Wars III has its totals included, the top four actors will likely be Frank Oz, James Earl Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, and Christopher Lee; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Kevin Costner will drop off the list altogether. And in the next couple years Shrek 3 and the fourth Indiana Jones movie will be released, changing the totals again. However, I don't think I will be producing a list like this anytime soon: the damn thing took me two whole days to put together.
Update: A new list, adjusted for inflation, is here.
The topic of Canadian politics has been done to death in this blog over the last month, so I figured I would change the pace a bit.
I was looking through MovieWeb's all time 100 top grossing films the other day, and noticed that there are several actors whose names just kept popping up over and over in that list. I decided to make a list of the most-bankable actors and actresses - those thespians involved in the most successful movies of all time. Now, MovieWeb's list is not adjusted for inflation and reflects only US box office sales; if it was adjusted for inflation and reflected worldwide sales, then Gone With the Wind would have been higher up the list, and the Sound of Music would be around number two - lots of great movies don't make the list. That's fine by me.
A bit about my methodology: I made a list of only those actors that had appeared in these top 100 films. Then I eliminated those who had only appeared in one role, even if that role carried over several movies. I wanted my list to reflect the bankability of the actors involved, not the popularity of the role that they played. So, Anthony Daniels (C3P0) and Kenny Baker (R2D2) were out, but Russell Crowe was in; Tobey McGuire was out, but Tommy Lee Jones was in. Then I looked up the gross of each top-100 movie that each actor had been in, and just addded up the box office totals.
Whether my list of actors and actresses reflects the talent of those thespians or the effectiveness of their agents is not for me to say.
There were significantly more actors than actresses in my list. Only nine actresses had two or more roles in the top 100 movies; only Helen Hunt had three roles. In contrast, I counted 36 actors that had two or more roles in the 100 top-grossing films. Below I list the top grossing actors and actresses, along with their roles and the movies they were in. Following each thespian's name is a number, representing the total gross box office (in millions of US dollars, unadjusted for inflation) of the top-100 films in which they appeared.
Ladies first:
#9) Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (348) played Linda Greenlaw in The Perfect Storm and (Maid) Marian Dubois in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.
#8) Julia Roberts (361) played Tess Ocean in Ocean's Eleven and Vivian Ward in Pretty Woman.
#7) Karen Allen (435) played Melissa Brown in The Perfect Storm and Marion Ravenwood in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
#6) Sally Field (549) played Mrs. Gump in Forrest Gump and Miranda Hillard in Mrs. Doubtfire.
#5) Drew Barrymore (617) played Sugar in Batman Forever and Gertie in ET: the ExtraTerrestrial.
#4) Monica Bellucci (653) played Magdalen in the Passion of the Christ and Persephone in the Matrix: Reloaded.
#3) Helen Hunt (659) played Darcy McGuire in What Women Want, Kelly Frears in CastAway, and Dr. JoAnne 'Jo' Thornton-Harding in Twister.
#2) Cameron Diaz (881) played Princess Fiona in Shrek and Shrek 2 and Mary Jensen in There's Something About Mary.
...drumroll...
and the number one most bankable actress on my list is Liv Tyler, who played Arwen in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King, as well as Grace Stamper in Armageddon. Total box office for those four movies: $1234 million.
And now for the guys. I am not going to detail all the roles of all 36 as I did with the women, just those whose total grosses in their top-100 movie efforts exceeded a billion dollars. First, here are the rest of the best:
#36) Ed Harris
#35) Kevin Costner
#34) Russell Crowe
#33) Mark Wahlberg
#32) George Clooney
#31) Morgan Freeman
#29) (tie) Bill Murray
#29) (tie) Joaquin Phoenix
#28) Robin Williams
#27) Bruce Willis
#26) Matt Damon
#25) Will Smith
#24) Ben Stiller
#23) Dustin Hoffman
#22) Geoffrey Rush
#21) Owen Wilson
#20) Wallace Shawn
#19) Tom Cruise
#18) Tommy Lee Jones
#17) Jim Carrey
#16) Jeff Goldblum
#15) Eddie Murphy
#14) Alan Rickman
... and now, the big Baker's Dozen: The following actors have appeared in movies that have total grosses of over 1 billion dollars. Once again, I have listed the total gross (in millions of US dollars) following each actor's name.
#12) (tie) Bill Paxton (1017) played Brock Lovett in Titanic, William Harding in Twister, and Fred Haise in Apollo 13.
#12) (tie) John Cleese (1017) played King in Shrek 2 and Nearly Headless Nick inHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
#11) Mike Myers (1123) played Shrek and Blind Mouse in Shrek and Shrek 2, Austin Powers, Goldmember, Dr. Evil, and Fat Bastard in Austin Powers in Goldmember, and Austin Powers, Dr. Evil, and Fat Bastard in Austin Powers in the Spy Who Shagged Me.
#10) Sir Ian McKellan (1247) played Eric Lensherr/Magneto in X-Men 2 and Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King.
#9) Orlando Bloom (1337) played Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl and Legolas in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King.
#8) Christopher Lee (1343) played Saruman in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers and the Return of the King and Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus in Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones
#7) Samuel L. Jackson (1360) played Mace Windu in Star Wars I: the Phantom Menace and Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, Lucius Best/Frozone in The Incredibles, and Ray Arnold in Jurassic Park.
#6) James Earl Jones (1389) played Mufasa in The Lion King and Darth Vader in Star Wars IV: A New Hope, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.
#5) Tom Hanks (1392) played Chuck Noland in CastAway, Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan, Woody in Toy Story and Toy Story 2, Jim Lovell in Apollo 13 and Forrest Gump in Forrest Gump.
#4) John Rhys-Davies (1471) played Gimli in the Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King, Gimli and Treebeard in the Two Towers, and Sallah in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
#3) John Ratzenberger (1585) played Underminer in The Incredibles, Fish School in Finding Nemo, Yeti in Monsters, Inc., Hamm in Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and Major Bren Derlin in Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back.
#2) Frank Oz (1597) played Fungus in Monsters, Inc. and Yoda in Star Wars I: the Phantom Menace, Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.
...drumroll...
and the number one most bankable actor on my list is Harrison Ford, who played Han Solo in Star Wars IV: A New Hope, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Dr. Richard Kimble in The Fugitive and President James Marshall in Air Force One. Total box office for those eight movies: $1856 million.
This list does not include any movies released this year; once Star Wars III has its totals included, the top four actors will likely be Frank Oz, James Earl Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, and Christopher Lee; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Kevin Costner will drop off the list altogether. And in the next couple years Shrek 3 and the fourth Indiana Jones movie will be released, changing the totals again. However, I don't think I will be producing a list like this anytime soon: the damn thing took me two whole days to put together.
Update: A new list, adjusted for inflation, is here.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Liberals win Goose Bay
Liberals win Goose Bay
... and thus the voters in Happy Valley/Goose Bay show themselves to be as ridiculous as the name of their riding.
Congratulations! You've elected a powerless backbencher in the most corrupt government in the history of Canada, perhaps in the history of the British Commonwealth.
I continue to be astounded that people anywhere would vote for these criminals. Don't worry, residents of Goose Bay: you and your money will be soon parted (probably to pay for an expansion ofthe Liberal Party money laundering scheme bribes to the Asper family the Liberal Party legal defense fund Canadian national unity programs).
... and thus the voters in Happy Valley/Goose Bay show themselves to be as ridiculous as the name of their riding.
Congratulations! You've elected a powerless backbencher in the most corrupt government in the history of Canada, perhaps in the history of the British Commonwealth.
I continue to be astounded that people anywhere would vote for these criminals. Don't worry, residents of Goose Bay: you and your money will be soon parted (probably to pay for an expansion of
you might be a wingnut
you might be a wingnut
Bob at EitherOrr has noticed that a favorite putdown by Liberals is to call a right winger a "wingnut". He has a Foxworthy-esque list of wingnut attributes. According to his list, I am proud to call myself a wingnut too. In fact, I have a few things to add to his list:
* if you think that actions have consequences, that causes lead to effects, then you are a wingnut
* if you think that punishing excellence and rewarding mediocrity leads to a decrease in the former and an increase in the latter, then you are a wingnut
* if you think that money is made rather than earned, then you are a wingnut
* if you think the universe is brutally honest, that reality trumps wishful thinking, then you are a wingnut
Wingnuts of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but moonbattery.
Bob at EitherOrr has noticed that a favorite putdown by Liberals is to call a right winger a "wingnut". He has a Foxworthy-esque list of wingnut attributes. According to his list, I am proud to call myself a wingnut too. In fact, I have a few things to add to his list:
* if you think that actions have consequences, that causes lead to effects, then you are a wingnut
* if you think that punishing excellence and rewarding mediocrity leads to a decrease in the former and an increase in the latter, then you are a wingnut
* if you think that money is made rather than earned, then you are a wingnut
* if you think the universe is brutally honest, that reality trumps wishful thinking, then you are a wingnut
Wingnuts of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but moonbattery.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
where's my flying car?
where's my flying car?
Classical Values has a roundup of the latest flying car news in a rather lengthy post, with plenty o' links. Soar.
Classical Values has a roundup of the latest flying car news in a rather lengthy post, with plenty o' links. Soar.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
even I make errors
even I make errors
In my where there's smoke post I indicated that Andrew Coyne had accused Tim Murphy of violating the Criminal Code. However, in his smoking audio tape post, Coyne merely posted the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, with the following caveat:
"Not that I'm suggesting anybody did anything of the kind here. But if they had..."
So, to reiterate: Coyne did not say that Murphy had violated the criminal code. There is enough BS floating around Ottawa lately; it doesn't help if I am adding to it by inaccuracy. Just wanted to set the record straight.
In my where there's smoke post I indicated that Andrew Coyne had accused Tim Murphy of violating the Criminal Code. However, in his smoking audio tape post, Coyne merely posted the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, with the following caveat:
"Not that I'm suggesting anybody did anything of the kind here. But if they had..."
So, to reiterate: Coyne did not say that Murphy had violated the criminal code. There is enough BS floating around Ottawa lately; it doesn't help if I am adding to it by inaccuracy. Just wanted to set the record straight.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
where there's smoke...
where there's smoke...
After Conservative MP Inky Mark was approached about crossing the floor to the Liberals, it was suggested (in the comments section at Andrew Coyne's blog, quite a while back... it'll take a lot of digging to find the specific comment, as he typically gets hundreds of comments for every post, sometimes more than a thousand) that perhaps the Conservatives should all start taping their conversations with Liberals. Apparently the Conservatives heeded that advice, as MP Gurmant Grewal taped a conversation he had with Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff, Tim Murphy. Coyne blogged about the smoking audio tape. Now Murphy is suing Coyne for libel - just Coyne mind you, and not the CTV (which aired the audio tape), or the Globe and Mail (which provided a transcript on their website).
Maybe Murphy didn't like that Coyne pointed outwhich sections of the Criminal Code of Canada that Murphy violated by offering Grewal a senate seat in exchange for his abstention in the budget vote on Thursday. Maybe he didn't like that Coyne pointed out the obvious fallacies in Murphy's protestations of innocence.
Maybe he is just trying to use the RCMP and all those Liberal-bought-and-paid-for judges as a bludgeon to silence Coyne.
I am copying the transcript provided by the Globe & Mail here:
Murphy: [unintelligible] ...best for you and best for us, in a way that allows everybody to feel comfortable, and also allows everybody to feel principled, and I think to be principled. Both. So, I was kind of thinking about that and I talked to Ujjal last night and again this morning, just before I came, which is why I was a few minutes late. I apologize.
Grewal: That's OK.
Murphy: What I think... what might be the easiest thing to do, and see what you think about this, because we have the vote tomorrow night, and if the government doesn't fall, it's not the only vote we may have to face. My guess is that when you look at issues like supply, final votes on the budget, opposition days, there could be as many as eight votes between now and the end of the session which could bring the government down, right? Obviously, each one of them will be a nail-biter right to the end, and obviously, the two votes that you and your wife represent are the way the House is made up now, matter a lot, or can matter. There are, just to be honest, as I think I told you yesterday. There are other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemma that you face, and are musing, so —
Grewal: [unintelligible] many?
Murphy: I don't want to, in the he same way I don't want to do anything that, I don't want to—
Grewal: [unintelligible]
Murphy: If I'm to honour your trust, I have to honour others.
Grewal: Definitely.
Murphy: So, I hope you don't take that wrongly.
Grewal: Absolutely not.
Murphy: So I think the way to make it work, and the way that allows us the freedom—as you can tell. Right? Just to be blunt, right? I think it's a bad idea, truthfully, to have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade. Because I think anything that [unintelligible]. I don't think it's good if anybody lies. So if anybody asks the question well, was there a deal, you say, 'No.' You want that to be the truth. And so that's what I want, is the truth to be told. Secondly, though, I mean obviously it's an important decision for you and your wife and I understand that you want to ensure that you can continue to contribute. Both of you. So, I understand that. And, as I said, people who make decisions like this in a principled way are people who ought to and deserve to continue to contribute.
So how do we square that circle?
Grewal: Okay.
Murphy: So one of the proposals I have is this, that, tomorrow's vote is, let me phrase it in the abstract. If two members of the Conservative Party abstain from that vote... don't vote against their own party, right? Don't have to. But equally don't vote to bring it down tomorrow night on the two - I think there's two key votes. And that can be done on the basis... those members can do it, on the basis, well, you know. Look, my riding doesn't want an election. Doesn't want one now. Thinks it's the wrong time to do it. But equally, you know, to vote the opposite way is to vote against the party I'm a member of, the leader of the party, and I'm not prepared to do that. But I don't think an election's the right thing — I don't want to say that won't create some...
[interjection by Grewal, unintelligible]
... some flak, but it keeps freedom, right? Allows someone to go back home in the right circumstance and it also allows someone an opportunity, right? So if there is an abstention. If someone then, though, in my view, if someone then abstains in that environment, who has exercised a decision based on principle, it still gives the freedom to have negotiating room. On both sides. Both going back home — then it's actually the freedom to have discussion is increased if someone has made a decision that doesn't preclude any options based on principle. Then you can come and say, "Well look..." — then you can have an explicit discussion. And then in that environment, you know, a person can say, "Look, I obviously abstained, and that created some issues, and now I'm thinking hard about." You can say, "I'm thinking hard about what's the right thing for my riding and the contribution that I could like to make." Then we can have a discussion that welcomes someone to the party. And then in that environment we know if those two votes continue to vote, either the one vote switches, or one switches and one abstains, or both abstain, from now until the end of the session the government will survive, right? We know that. And then we get through to the end of the session, right? And then, if one person wants to switch and make the contribution, then that makes a lot of sense. If the other wants to switch and then serve until an election, or some time in advance of that, and then... and then... and then... you know, something would look to be done to ensure that that person...
Grewal: Oh shit.
(It appears that Grewal's BlackBerry goes off, and the conversation is briefly interrupted.)
Murphy: That's quite all right. These things go off all the time.
Grewal: I have it switched off.
Murphy: All of which is to say, that in advance of that, explicit discussions about Senate. Not Senate. I don't think are very helpful, and I don't think frankly can be had, in advance of an abstention tomorrow. And then we'll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that with some freedom. And I think what that allows is negotiating room for you, in either direction. You can easily, say, "Look. Yeah, you know, if you don't like it, you can stay home, stay back with... where you are. And if you do like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move. Now look, I don't expect, you to react to that right now. Think about it. Please talk to Ujjal. Ujjal knows this is the discussion I'm having with you. Please feel free, and say, you know, he knows. And then, if that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something happening.
(Pause. Grewal starts to speak. Murphy interrupts.)
Well, I have talked to Volpe, already. So —
Grewal: Is he manageable?
Murphy: Yes.
Grewal: What happens is…..[unintelligible] you know how we came together. There are some common friends. He approached me. [unintelligible]
Murphy: No, it's a bit... it's the same. I understand. Sorry. Please accept, I understand completely. It's much like Belinda, where there is a third party who is independent of both sides. You didn't approach, we didn't approach.
Grewal: They did approach me.
Murphy: The independent party played the role, like we didn't approach, you didn't approach.
Grewal: [unintelligible] End of tape
UPDATE: Well, now I can't look up the comment that Conservatives ought to wear wires. All the comments on Coyne's site have been suspended. They look like they are still there, but one cannot read any of them. Here comes that feeling of vertigo again...
UPDATE 2: Welcome to readers of Being American in TO. Don't worry about wiping your feet, the place is a mess anyhow. Pop a brewski, kick back, check out the archives: it's not all Canadian politics by a long shot, except for the last month or so (it seems like it has been nothing but for the last few weeks or so... sigh)
UPDATE 3: I made an error above, and acknowledge that in a separate post, here. I put this into the update because I want to make sure the correction follows this post around.
UPDATE 4: According to my sitemeter, there have been lots of hits on this blog post originating from computers at http://www.gc.ca - what the fuck are you people doing, using government of Canada computers to read blogs? Get your asses back to work and read blogs ON YOUR OWN TIME. Jerks. Oh, and if you government types are still reading this, make sure you take note of the correction I link to in update 3. Then, get back to work you lazy pricks.
After Conservative MP Inky Mark was approached about crossing the floor to the Liberals, it was suggested (in the comments section at Andrew Coyne's blog, quite a while back... it'll take a lot of digging to find the specific comment, as he typically gets hundreds of comments for every post, sometimes more than a thousand) that perhaps the Conservatives should all start taping their conversations with Liberals. Apparently the Conservatives heeded that advice, as MP Gurmant Grewal taped a conversation he had with Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff, Tim Murphy. Coyne blogged about the smoking audio tape. Now Murphy is suing Coyne for libel - just Coyne mind you, and not the CTV (which aired the audio tape), or the Globe and Mail (which provided a transcript on their website).
Maybe Murphy didn't like that Coyne pointed out
Maybe he is just trying to use the RCMP and all those Liberal-bought-and-paid-for judges as a bludgeon to silence Coyne.
I am copying the transcript provided by the Globe & Mail here:
Murphy: [unintelligible] ...best for you and best for us, in a way that allows everybody to feel comfortable, and also allows everybody to feel principled, and I think to be principled. Both. So, I was kind of thinking about that and I talked to Ujjal last night and again this morning, just before I came, which is why I was a few minutes late. I apologize.
Grewal: That's OK.
Murphy: What I think... what might be the easiest thing to do, and see what you think about this, because we have the vote tomorrow night, and if the government doesn't fall, it's not the only vote we may have to face. My guess is that when you look at issues like supply, final votes on the budget, opposition days, there could be as many as eight votes between now and the end of the session which could bring the government down, right? Obviously, each one of them will be a nail-biter right to the end, and obviously, the two votes that you and your wife represent are the way the House is made up now, matter a lot, or can matter. There are, just to be honest, as I think I told you yesterday. There are other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemma that you face, and are musing, so —
Grewal: [unintelligible] many?
Murphy: I don't want to, in the he same way I don't want to do anything that, I don't want to—
Grewal: [unintelligible]
Murphy: If I'm to honour your trust, I have to honour others.
Grewal: Definitely.
Murphy: So, I hope you don't take that wrongly.
Grewal: Absolutely not.
Murphy: So I think the way to make it work, and the way that allows us the freedom—as you can tell. Right? Just to be blunt, right? I think it's a bad idea, truthfully, to have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade. Because I think anything that [unintelligible]. I don't think it's good if anybody lies. So if anybody asks the question well, was there a deal, you say, 'No.' You want that to be the truth. And so that's what I want, is the truth to be told. Secondly, though, I mean obviously it's an important decision for you and your wife and I understand that you want to ensure that you can continue to contribute. Both of you. So, I understand that. And, as I said, people who make decisions like this in a principled way are people who ought to and deserve to continue to contribute.
So how do we square that circle?
Grewal: Okay.
Murphy: So one of the proposals I have is this, that, tomorrow's vote is, let me phrase it in the abstract. If two members of the Conservative Party abstain from that vote... don't vote against their own party, right? Don't have to. But equally don't vote to bring it down tomorrow night on the two - I think there's two key votes. And that can be done on the basis... those members can do it, on the basis, well, you know. Look, my riding doesn't want an election. Doesn't want one now. Thinks it's the wrong time to do it. But equally, you know, to vote the opposite way is to vote against the party I'm a member of, the leader of the party, and I'm not prepared to do that. But I don't think an election's the right thing — I don't want to say that won't create some...
[interjection by Grewal, unintelligible]
... some flak, but it keeps freedom, right? Allows someone to go back home in the right circumstance and it also allows someone an opportunity, right? So if there is an abstention. If someone then, though, in my view, if someone then abstains in that environment, who has exercised a decision based on principle, it still gives the freedom to have negotiating room. On both sides. Both going back home — then it's actually the freedom to have discussion is increased if someone has made a decision that doesn't preclude any options based on principle. Then you can come and say, "Well look..." — then you can have an explicit discussion. And then in that environment, you know, a person can say, "Look, I obviously abstained, and that created some issues, and now I'm thinking hard about." You can say, "I'm thinking hard about what's the right thing for my riding and the contribution that I could like to make." Then we can have a discussion that welcomes someone to the party. And then in that environment we know if those two votes continue to vote, either the one vote switches, or one switches and one abstains, or both abstain, from now until the end of the session the government will survive, right? We know that. And then we get through to the end of the session, right? And then, if one person wants to switch and make the contribution, then that makes a lot of sense. If the other wants to switch and then serve until an election, or some time in advance of that, and then... and then... and then... you know, something would look to be done to ensure that that person...
Grewal: Oh shit.
(It appears that Grewal's BlackBerry goes off, and the conversation is briefly interrupted.)
Murphy: That's quite all right. These things go off all the time.
Grewal: I have it switched off.
Murphy: All of which is to say, that in advance of that, explicit discussions about Senate. Not Senate. I don't think are very helpful, and I don't think frankly can be had, in advance of an abstention tomorrow. And then we'll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that with some freedom. And I think what that allows is negotiating room for you, in either direction. You can easily, say, "Look. Yeah, you know, if you don't like it, you can stay home, stay back with... where you are. And if you do like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move. Now look, I don't expect, you to react to that right now. Think about it. Please talk to Ujjal. Ujjal knows this is the discussion I'm having with you. Please feel free, and say, you know, he knows. And then, if that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something happening.
(Pause. Grewal starts to speak. Murphy interrupts.)
Well, I have talked to Volpe, already. So —
Grewal: Is he manageable?
Murphy: Yes.
Grewal: What happens is…..[unintelligible] you know how we came together. There are some common friends. He approached me. [unintelligible]
Murphy: No, it's a bit... it's the same. I understand. Sorry. Please accept, I understand completely. It's much like Belinda, where there is a third party who is independent of both sides. You didn't approach, we didn't approach.
Grewal: They did approach me.
Murphy: The independent party played the role, like we didn't approach, you didn't approach.
Grewal: [unintelligible] End of tape
UPDATE: Well, now I can't look up the comment that Conservatives ought to wear wires. All the comments on Coyne's site have been suspended. They look like they are still there, but one cannot read any of them. Here comes that feeling of vertigo again...
UPDATE 2: Welcome to readers of Being American in TO. Don't worry about wiping your feet, the place is a mess anyhow. Pop a brewski, kick back, check out the archives: it's not all Canadian politics by a long shot, except for the last month or so (it seems like it has been nothing but for the last few weeks or so... sigh)
UPDATE 3: I made an error above, and acknowledge that in a separate post, here. I put this into the update because I want to make sure the correction follows this post around.
UPDATE 4: According to my sitemeter, there have been lots of hits on this blog post originating from computers at http://www.gc.ca - what the fuck are you people doing, using government of Canada computers to read blogs? Get your asses back to work and read blogs ON YOUR OWN TIME. Jerks. Oh, and if you government types are still reading this, make sure you take note of the correction I link to in update 3. Then, get back to work you lazy pricks.
stick a fork in it
stick a fork in it
David Warren figures it is time to turn the lights out:
"We have committed suicide, as a nation. Outwardly, and immediately, the consequences of what we have done will be seen in much different areas. We must deal with the renewed demand for separation in Quebec, and much deeper alienation in the West, where people begin to realize that they have been permanently disenfranchised. We will endure the continuing bleeding of economic opportunity, as both capital and our most talented citizens migrate to better prospects in the United States and beyond."
Can't say as I disagree with him. I am a physicist and electronics engineer; I do research on artificial intelligence, I design and build robots and rockets. I'm pretty damn talented at what I do, too, even if I do say so myself. What is left for me in Canada? To be taxed more than half of what I earn, so that the Liberal party can steal it to fill their own coffers, with the complicity of the media? ... and then be told that I am an ignorant, racist, theocratic, backwards hick - simply because I am from Alberta - by those same Liberals and Toronto-centric media?
Staying in Canada, paying GST on every purchase I make, is the equivalent of "thank you sir, may I have another". What's the point?
David Warren figures it is time to turn the lights out:
"We have committed suicide, as a nation. Outwardly, and immediately, the consequences of what we have done will be seen in much different areas. We must deal with the renewed demand for separation in Quebec, and much deeper alienation in the West, where people begin to realize that they have been permanently disenfranchised. We will endure the continuing bleeding of economic opportunity, as both capital and our most talented citizens migrate to better prospects in the United States and beyond."
Can't say as I disagree with him. I am a physicist and electronics engineer; I do research on artificial intelligence, I design and build robots and rockets. I'm pretty damn talented at what I do, too, even if I do say so myself. What is left for me in Canada? To be taxed more than half of what I earn, so that the Liberal party can steal it to fill their own coffers, with the complicity of the media? ... and then be told that I am an ignorant, racist, theocratic, backwards hick - simply because I am from Alberta - by those same Liberals and Toronto-centric media?
Staying in Canada, paying GST on every purchase I make, is the equivalent of "thank you sir, may I have another". What's the point?
Friday, May 20, 2005
makes perfect sense to me
makes perfect sense to me
Kate at Small Dead Animals points out the absurdity of the acceptance of Liberal malfeasance, and how the "it's only a tiny percentage" argument falls flat on its face:
"I've made a deal with your bank. They have agreed to allow me, at the time of my choosing, to dip into your personal account and take a few dollars when I need them. Or alternately, when I want them. It's nothing to get worried about, because the amounts I take will be such a tiny percentage of the bank's overall holdings.
I won't be telling you when I'll be accessing your account, how much I'm going to take or how I will spend it. I negotiated that, too.
Because this is a democracy, you will have the right to complain just as loudly as you wish - so long as you remain civil. No anger allowed, because I really am uncomfortable - distrustful really - of angry people. They scare me."
Kate also complained that Andrew Coyne gets more hits from her best lines than she does (although to be fair, he did credit her). She was referring to this post, but a more striking example would be this one; half of the (over one thousand) comments consisted of lawn signs that commenters generated from a script on Kate's site. Here are my versions of the sign:
Kate at Small Dead Animals points out the absurdity of the acceptance of Liberal malfeasance, and how the "it's only a tiny percentage" argument falls flat on its face:
"I've made a deal with your bank. They have agreed to allow me, at the time of my choosing, to dip into your personal account and take a few dollars when I need them. Or alternately, when I want them. It's nothing to get worried about, because the amounts I take will be such a tiny percentage of the bank's overall holdings.
I won't be telling you when I'll be accessing your account, how much I'm going to take or how I will spend it. I negotiated that, too.
Because this is a democracy, you will have the right to complain just as loudly as you wish - so long as you remain civil. No anger allowed, because I really am uncomfortable - distrustful really - of angry people. They scare me."
Kate also complained that Andrew Coyne gets more hits from her best lines than she does (although to be fair, he did credit her). She was referring to this post, but a more striking example would be this one; half of the (over one thousand) comments consisted of lawn signs that commenters generated from a script on Kate's site. Here are my versions of the sign:
Thursday, May 19, 2005
sheople
sheople
Well, Canada, you got what you wanted. We won't have a federal election. Nope, no election this summer. No election next year. Nor the year after that.
But wait! Didn't Prime Minister Paul Martin go on TV to say he would call an election 30 days after Gomery reports?
Oh yeah, he did. This is why Jean Chretien's and Alphonso Gagliano's lawyers are having the inquiry stopped. Remember the Krever (tainted blood) inquiry? It took two years after the end of the inquiry for Krever to issue his report while government lawyers did everything in their power to stop him from reporting. So, even if Gomery manages to continue the inquiry, it will be several years before he is allowed to report.
No, no election in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011...
But wait! Aren't elections to be called every five years at most?
Too bad. The Canadian people have been loud and clear, we don't want any more elections. So what if it is in the Constitution? That's a meaningless document now: Martin used it for toilet paper last week.
You've pissed away your democracy, Canada. Welcome to Banana Republic status.
Well, Canada, you got what you wanted. We won't have a federal election. Nope, no election this summer. No election next year. Nor the year after that.
But wait! Didn't Prime Minister Paul Martin go on TV to say he would call an election 30 days after Gomery reports?
Oh yeah, he did. This is why Jean Chretien's and Alphonso Gagliano's lawyers are having the inquiry stopped. Remember the Krever (tainted blood) inquiry? It took two years after the end of the inquiry for Krever to issue his report while government lawyers did everything in their power to stop him from reporting. So, even if Gomery manages to continue the inquiry, it will be several years before he is allowed to report.
No, no election in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011...
But wait! Aren't elections to be called every five years at most?
Too bad. The Canadian people have been loud and clear, we don't want any more elections. So what if it is in the Constitution? That's a meaningless document now: Martin used it for toilet paper last week.
You've pissed away your democracy, Canada. Welcome to Banana Republic status.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
disappointment
disappointment
Here is a blog post by somebody who worked on Belinda Stronach's leadership campaign. He has changed his mind about her:
"It now seems that I underestimated Belinda’s self-image. She has deluded herself into thinking that she has a special gift that qualifies her ready to govern. But the fact is that without her money, her clothes, her looks, and daddy’s connections, Belinda Stronach would be a nobody. She would not have been paid any attention by anyone. Everything she has achieved has been a consequence of something beyond her control, circumstances which fell upon her out of sheer luck. Interestingly, this is why I supported her entry into politics: because I thought that she, aware of her privileged situation, wanted to do something difficult, to serve a higher cause, to pursue a noble objective. And to earn something for herself. Her commitment to run for a seat even if she lost the leadership was key in this: it suggested to me that she was willing to start at the bottom if necessary.
It is now clear that she was not. Obsessed with the top job, she was impatient. She couldn’t wait. She needed to move up, and fast. She is so convinced of her indispensability that she just had to be a Minister, now – even if it meant switching parties. Harper telling her that she should get in line was the final straw: after all, nobody talks like that to Belinda Stronach! Who does this Harper guy think he is?"
Of course, who hasn't changed his mind about Belinda lately? About all she has left going for her now is that she's cute. Kinda reminds me of the Friends episode where Rachel told Joey "you're so pretty".
Here is a blog post by somebody who worked on Belinda Stronach's leadership campaign. He has changed his mind about her:
"It now seems that I underestimated Belinda’s self-image. She has deluded herself into thinking that she has a special gift that qualifies her ready to govern. But the fact is that without her money, her clothes, her looks, and daddy’s connections, Belinda Stronach would be a nobody. She would not have been paid any attention by anyone. Everything she has achieved has been a consequence of something beyond her control, circumstances which fell upon her out of sheer luck. Interestingly, this is why I supported her entry into politics: because I thought that she, aware of her privileged situation, wanted to do something difficult, to serve a higher cause, to pursue a noble objective. And to earn something for herself. Her commitment to run for a seat even if she lost the leadership was key in this: it suggested to me that she was willing to start at the bottom if necessary.
It is now clear that she was not. Obsessed with the top job, she was impatient. She couldn’t wait. She needed to move up, and fast. She is so convinced of her indispensability that she just had to be a Minister, now – even if it meant switching parties. Harper telling her that she should get in line was the final straw: after all, nobody talks like that to Belinda Stronach! Who does this Harper guy think he is?"
Of course, who hasn't changed his mind about Belinda lately? About all she has left going for her now is that she's cute. Kinda reminds me of the Friends episode where Rachel told Joey "you're so pretty".
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
jaw dropping
jaw dropping
Last week, Belinda Stronach voted to declare non-confidence in the Liberal government four times. This week, she has crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, and been parachuted into cabinet as the minister for human resources.
Damn. And to think that I had nominated her for Republican Babe-of-the week. Turns out, she was a Liberal all along.
So, what does this mean for the budget vote on Thursday? As it stands, the Liberals still stand to lose, unless they renege on their pairing arrangement (ie instead of both their sick MP and the Conservative cancer-stricken MP missing the vote, they sneak their guy into the House to vote at the last minute). If they do that, then they only need either Kilgour's or Cadman's vote to retain power.
If the government should still fall, look for Belinda to be thoroughly trounced at the polls in the upcoming election.
Last week, Belinda Stronach voted to declare non-confidence in the Liberal government four times. This week, she has crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, and been parachuted into cabinet as the minister for human resources.
Damn. And to think that I had nominated her for Republican Babe-of-the week. Turns out, she was a Liberal all along.
So, what does this mean for the budget vote on Thursday? As it stands, the Liberals still stand to lose, unless they renege on their pairing arrangement (ie instead of both their sick MP and the Conservative cancer-stricken MP missing the vote, they sneak their guy into the House to vote at the last minute). If they do that, then they only need either Kilgour's or Cadman's vote to retain power.
If the government should still fall, look for Belinda to be thoroughly trounced at the polls in the upcoming election.
Monday, May 16, 2005
mad as hell
mad as hell
Things are starting to boil over in Canada. Here's a picture from a rally today on Parliament Hill:
via Autonomous Source
Things are starting to boil over in Canada. Here's a picture from a rally today on Parliament Hill:
via Autonomous Source
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Lack of critical thinking
Lack of critical thinking
CNN reports that Newsweek has backed off on a story of Americans defiling the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. This Newsweek story was widely reported in the middle east, and led to riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere: 15 people died in the riots. All of this was sparked by a report that an American interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet.".
Yep, you read that right. 15 people killed because of a report that the impossible had occurred. Flushing a book down a toilet? An entire book? Toilets can barely flush down toilet paper. They can't handle feminine napkins. How could a toilet flush down a book?
So far, the only grain of truth in this whole mess is that there was "one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting [them] in the toilet to stop it up as a protest."
It is amazing that not one of those people who rioted stopped to think, just for a moment, about the physical impossibility of flushing an entire book. So, fifteen people are now dead, thanks to a refusal to think and dismiss a story for the obvious hogwash it is.
CNN reports that Newsweek has backed off on a story of Americans defiling the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. This Newsweek story was widely reported in the middle east, and led to riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere: 15 people died in the riots. All of this was sparked by a report that an American interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet.".
Yep, you read that right. 15 people killed because of a report that the impossible had occurred. Flushing a book down a toilet? An entire book? Toilets can barely flush down toilet paper. They can't handle feminine napkins. How could a toilet flush down a book?
So far, the only grain of truth in this whole mess is that there was "one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting [them] in the toilet to stop it up as a protest."
It is amazing that not one of those people who rioted stopped to think, just for a moment, about the physical impossibility of flushing an entire book. So, fifteen people are now dead, thanks to a refusal to think and dismiss a story for the obvious hogwash it is.
Liberal Party Campaign Slogans
Liberal Party Campaign Slogans
The comments section of Andrew Coyne's blog generates tons of interesting discussion. An early-morning entry today delved into the Liberal election war-room, generating dozens of Liberal Party slogans or the upcoming election. The ones Andrew posted to kick things off ("Vote Liberal and nobody gets hurt", "Vote Liberal -- we haven't been corrupt lately", and "More taxes for a French Ontario") are all right, but some of those in the comments are just a hoot:
Vote Liberal. We have no convictions.
Vote Liberal because Paul Martin wrote all those Red Books and now he wants to see if any of those ideas would work.
Vote Liberal. You think Harper can be this much fun?
Vote Liberal and Fuggeddaboutit!!
Vote Liberal. Or don't you want your cut?
Vote Liberal and sign up for your share of Toronto's tax dollars.
Vote for Paul Martin- He very, very very much wants be Canada's number one Wise Guy. Period.
Vote Liberal, before you find a horse head in your bed.
Vote Liberal, none of the charges have stuck yet
Vote Liberal. We're better than those pesky Italians!
Vote Liberal: Do as we say, not as we do
Vote Liberal. Lowering the bar since Confederation.
It doesn't matter if you vote Liberal or not, we'll hang onto power anyhow.
Vote Liberal, and we'll tell you what to think for another 35 years
Vote Liberal, so we can show Italy how the Mafia should be run
Vote Liberal - A grow-op in every garage
Vote Liberal: pot in every chicken
Vote Liberal: Give us a few years, we'll make buying sex cheaper than registering a gun!
Vote Librano... or else.
Vote Librano... perpetuate the coup.
Vote Liberal: We're a bunch of goodfellas!
Vote Liberal: Would you like cash or a cheque?
Vote Liberal: We always tell the truth. Even when we lie.
Vote Liberal: Make way for the bad guys.
Vote Liberal... or else you might want someone else to start your car.
The comments section of Andrew Coyne's blog generates tons of interesting discussion. An early-morning entry today delved into the Liberal election war-room, generating dozens of Liberal Party slogans or the upcoming election. The ones Andrew posted to kick things off ("Vote Liberal and nobody gets hurt", "Vote Liberal -- we haven't been corrupt lately", and "More taxes for a French Ontario") are all right, but some of those in the comments are just a hoot:
Vote Liberal. We have no convictions.
Vote Liberal because Paul Martin wrote all those Red Books and now he wants to see if any of those ideas would work.
Vote Liberal. You think Harper can be this much fun?
Vote Liberal and Fuggeddaboutit!!
Vote Liberal. Or don't you want your cut?
Vote Liberal and sign up for your share of Toronto's tax dollars.
Vote for Paul Martin- He very, very very much wants be Canada's number one Wise Guy. Period.
Vote Liberal, before you find a horse head in your bed.
Vote Liberal, none of the charges have stuck yet
Vote Liberal. We're better than those pesky Italians!
Vote Liberal: Do as we say, not as we do
Vote Liberal. Lowering the bar since Confederation.
It doesn't matter if you vote Liberal or not, we'll hang onto power anyhow.
Vote Liberal, and we'll tell you what to think for another 35 years
Vote Liberal, so we can show Italy how the Mafia should be run
Vote Liberal - A grow-op in every garage
Vote Liberal: pot in every chicken
Vote Liberal: Give us a few years, we'll make buying sex cheaper than registering a gun!
Vote Librano... or else.
Vote Librano... perpetuate the coup.
Vote Liberal: We're a bunch of goodfellas!
Vote Liberal: Would you like cash or a cheque?
Vote Liberal: We always tell the truth. Even when we lie.
Vote Liberal: Make way for the bad guys.
Vote Liberal... or else you might want someone else to start your car.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
follow the money, if you can
follow the money, if you can
Andrew Coyne's latest column shines some light on the elephant in the corner at the Gomery inquiry:
"Two former executive directors of the Liberals’ Quebec wing have now testified to giving or receiving great big wads of cash, in amounts that stagger the imagination: not just envelopes but suitcases full, as much as $200,000 at one go. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly distributed in this way, to dozens of people -- that we know about.
We know why they did this: to escape detection. What’s not clear is how. Where does anyone get their hands on $200,000 in cash? You can’t just walk into a bank and cash a cheque for $200 grand, in small bills please, unmarked, and be sure to scramble the serial numbers, won’t you? Even if you make a lot of little withdrawals, there are bound to be questions asked. There are laws about these things. To scrape together that kind of cash without attracting attention, you have to draw from a large number of separate and unrelated sources, and do so in a way that does not leave a paper trail of its own. Or you have to know the kind of people who can do that for you."
Andrew Coyne's latest column shines some light on the elephant in the corner at the Gomery inquiry:
"Two former executive directors of the Liberals’ Quebec wing have now testified to giving or receiving great big wads of cash, in amounts that stagger the imagination: not just envelopes but suitcases full, as much as $200,000 at one go. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly distributed in this way, to dozens of people -- that we know about.
We know why they did this: to escape detection. What’s not clear is how. Where does anyone get their hands on $200,000 in cash? You can’t just walk into a bank and cash a cheque for $200 grand, in small bills please, unmarked, and be sure to scramble the serial numbers, won’t you? Even if you make a lot of little withdrawals, there are bound to be questions asked. There are laws about these things. To scrape together that kind of cash without attracting attention, you have to draw from a large number of separate and unrelated sources, and do so in a way that does not leave a paper trail of its own. Or you have to know the kind of people who can do that for you."
go mark go
go mark go
Mark Steyn ravages the lemmings. Money line:
"Corruption feeds off its victories. If you've got some nickel'n'dime racket going and it makes the papers and there's a bit of huffing and puffing but in the end nothing happens, then, reasonably enough, you'll conclude that having crossed that line you might as well see where the new line's been drawn. Ten grand? A hundred thousand? A multimillion-dollar boondoggle? And every time you get away with it you lower public resistance and increase the chances you'll get away with the next scam. That's what the Liberals have done to Canada's political culture, which is why you run into large numbers of Canadians who are entirely indifferent to Gomery and equally large numbers who think it the height of sophistication to sneer knowingly that "everyone does it." There's no one quite so naive as a faux cynic who can't wait to fall in line with the herd of iconoclasts parroting the "everybody does it" line: it's the intellectual equivalent of those teenagers who express their individuality by wearing exactly the same clothes as everyone else--like Warren Kinsella in his Ramone-groupie days."
Mark Steyn ravages the lemmings. Money line:
"Corruption feeds off its victories. If you've got some nickel'n'dime racket going and it makes the papers and there's a bit of huffing and puffing but in the end nothing happens, then, reasonably enough, you'll conclude that having crossed that line you might as well see where the new line's been drawn. Ten grand? A hundred thousand? A multimillion-dollar boondoggle? And every time you get away with it you lower public resistance and increase the chances you'll get away with the next scam. That's what the Liberals have done to Canada's political culture, which is why you run into large numbers of Canadians who are entirely indifferent to Gomery and equally large numbers who think it the height of sophistication to sneer knowingly that "everyone does it." There's no one quite so naive as a faux cynic who can't wait to fall in line with the herd of iconoclasts parroting the "everybody does it" line: it's the intellectual equivalent of those teenagers who express their individuality by wearing exactly the same clothes as everyone else--like Warren Kinsella in his Ramone-groupie days."
Friday, May 13, 2005
with apologies to Monty Python
with apologies to Monty Python
A parliamentarian enters the House of Commons.
Mr. Harper: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The Prime Minister does not respond.)
Mr. Harper: 'Ello, Miss?
Prime Minister: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Harper: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Prime Minister: We're closin' for the Queen's visit.
Mr. Harper: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this government what I defeated not half an hour ago from this very House.
Prime Minister: Oh yes, the, uh, the Liberal government...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Harper: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Prime Minister: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
Mr. Harper: Look, matey, I know a dead government when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Prime Minister: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable government, the Liberal Minority, idn'it, ay? Beautiful campaign promises!
Mr. Harper: The campaign promises don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Prime Minister: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
Mr. Harper: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Liberal Government! I've got a lovely fresh cod fish for you if you show...
(Prime Minister hits the cage)
Prime Minister: There, it moved!
Mr. Harper: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the cage!
Prime Minister: I never!!
Mr. Harper: Yes, you did!
Prime Minister: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Harper: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO LIBBY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes government out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Harper: Now that's what I call a dead government.
Prime Minister: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Mr. Harper: STUNNED?!?
Prime Minister: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was wakin' up! Liberal Minorities stun easily, major.
Mr. Harper: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That government is definitely deceased, and when elected not a year ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged leadership campaign.
Prime Minister: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for the Trudeaus.
Mr. Harper: PININ' for the TRUDEAUS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got into Parliament?
Prime Minister: The Liberal Minority prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable government, id'nit, squire? Lovely campaign promises!
Mr. Harper: Look, I took the liberty of examining that government when I got to Ottawa, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Prime Minister: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If the media hadn't nailed that government down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Mr. Harper: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this government wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Prime Minister: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Harper: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This government is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet the Governer General! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If the media hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GOVERNMENT!!
(pause)
Prime Minister: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of democracy.
Mr. Harper: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Prime Minister: I got a slug.
(pause)
Mr. Harper: Pray, does it govern?
Prime Minister: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Harper: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Prime Minister: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Harper: Well.
(pause)
Prime Minister: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to Rideau Hall?
Mr. Harper: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
A parliamentarian enters the House of Commons.
Mr. Harper: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The Prime Minister does not respond.)
Mr. Harper: 'Ello, Miss?
Prime Minister: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Harper: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Prime Minister: We're closin' for the Queen's visit.
Mr. Harper: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this government what I defeated not half an hour ago from this very House.
Prime Minister: Oh yes, the, uh, the Liberal government...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Harper: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Prime Minister: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
Mr. Harper: Look, matey, I know a dead government when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Prime Minister: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable government, the Liberal Minority, idn'it, ay? Beautiful campaign promises!
Mr. Harper: The campaign promises don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Prime Minister: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
Mr. Harper: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Liberal Government! I've got a lovely fresh cod fish for you if you show...
(Prime Minister hits the cage)
Prime Minister: There, it moved!
Mr. Harper: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the cage!
Prime Minister: I never!!
Mr. Harper: Yes, you did!
Prime Minister: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Harper: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO LIBBY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes government out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Harper: Now that's what I call a dead government.
Prime Minister: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Mr. Harper: STUNNED?!?
Prime Minister: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was wakin' up! Liberal Minorities stun easily, major.
Mr. Harper: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That government is definitely deceased, and when elected not a year ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged leadership campaign.
Prime Minister: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for the Trudeaus.
Mr. Harper: PININ' for the TRUDEAUS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got into Parliament?
Prime Minister: The Liberal Minority prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable government, id'nit, squire? Lovely campaign promises!
Mr. Harper: Look, I took the liberty of examining that government when I got to Ottawa, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
Prime Minister: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If the media hadn't nailed that government down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Mr. Harper: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this government wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Prime Minister: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Harper: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This government is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet the Governer General! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If the media hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GOVERNMENT!!
(pause)
Prime Minister: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of democracy.
Mr. Harper: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Prime Minister: I got a slug.
(pause)
Mr. Harper: Pray, does it govern?
Prime Minister: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Harper: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Prime Minister: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Harper: Well.
(pause)
Prime Minister: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to Rideau Hall?
Mr. Harper: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
non-confidence
non-confidence
I struggled to comprehend the scope of Liberal Party corruption; there were so many twists and turns, so many interconnected webs, so many heads on the Hydra that I found it simply impossible to follow it all. Well, it looks like the Conservative Party of Canada has done that work instead (and well they should, as it is part of their job as the Official Opposition), and neatly summarized it in this speech to Parliament on Wednesday. This motion was one of three non-confidence motions the Conservatives put before the House of Commons in as many days; all three motions have passed, and yet the Liberals refuse to call an election.
How much is enough? When will Martin step down? Must we all start wearing orange?
I struggled to comprehend the scope of Liberal Party corruption; there were so many twists and turns, so many interconnected webs, so many heads on the Hydra that I found it simply impossible to follow it all. Well, it looks like the Conservative Party of Canada has done that work instead (and well they should, as it is part of their job as the Official Opposition), and neatly summarized it in this speech to Parliament on Wednesday. This motion was one of three non-confidence motions the Conservatives put before the House of Commons in as many days; all three motions have passed, and yet the Liberals refuse to call an election.
How much is enough? When will Martin step down? Must we all start wearing orange?
Thursday, May 12, 2005
bag of hammers
bag of hammers
A couple of yahoos blogging at the UN have decided that they don't like Roger L. Simon's blogging about the UN Oil-for-food scandal. They complained that he spent 20% of his posts in April focusing upon OFF and 0% on the UN's many other good works. Then they sent the complaint out to a number of influential blogs (no, not me, that would just be silly).
There is no commenting feature on their blog, but the Trackbacks are a hoot: nearly every Trackback link makes fun of them. Confederate Yankee's response is just devastating. Mark in Mexico followed all of the UN-provided links to their listed "good works" and the results are, well... not exactly favorable to the UN: three of their 13 links don't work, and the other ten "accomplishments" either aren't accomplishments at all or are accomplishments for which the UN can't legitimately take credit (but for which the USA can).
As of now, the Trackbacks linked are one pro-UN and 17 anti.
Free tip for the UN bloggers: If you're going to piss off the blogosphere, at least get your facts right. Otherwise you look like dumbasses.
note to self: Figure out how to do Trackbacks.
A couple of yahoos blogging at the UN have decided that they don't like Roger L. Simon's blogging about the UN Oil-for-food scandal. They complained that he spent 20% of his posts in April focusing upon OFF and 0% on the UN's many other good works. Then they sent the complaint out to a number of influential blogs (no, not me, that would just be silly).
There is no commenting feature on their blog, but the Trackbacks are a hoot: nearly every Trackback link makes fun of them. Confederate Yankee's response is just devastating. Mark in Mexico followed all of the UN-provided links to their listed "good works" and the results are, well... not exactly favorable to the UN: three of their 13 links don't work, and the other ten "accomplishments" either aren't accomplishments at all or are accomplishments for which the UN can't legitimately take credit (but for which the USA can).
As of now, the Trackbacks linked are one pro-UN and 17 anti.
Free tip for the UN bloggers: If you're going to piss off the blogosphere, at least get your facts right. Otherwise you look like dumbasses.
note to self: Figure out how to do Trackbacks.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Liberals on their knees
Liberals on their knees
The Canadian federal government is in disarray. Today the House of Commons voted 153-150 in favour of amending a committee report to include the recommendation that the Government resign. The Liberals are refusing to view the amendment as a vote of non-confidence, and likewise refusing to introduce a motion of confidence. This is an unprecedented breach of Parliamentary tradition in Canada, and could indicate the beginning of a Constitutional crisis. More here, here, and here.
Stephen Harper has the money quote of the day: "Mr. Martin's behaviour has gone from dithering to desperate and now to dangerous."
The Canadian federal government is in disarray. Today the House of Commons voted 153-150 in favour of amending a committee report to include the recommendation that the Government resign. The Liberals are refusing to view the amendment as a vote of non-confidence, and likewise refusing to introduce a motion of confidence. This is an unprecedented breach of Parliamentary tradition in Canada, and could indicate the beginning of a Constitutional crisis. More here, here, and here.
Stephen Harper has the money quote of the day: "Mr. Martin's behaviour has gone from dithering to desperate and now to dangerous."
Monday, May 09, 2005
whole cloth
whole cloth
Is the Independent Inquiry Committee into the UN Oil-For-Food program fabricating conclusions so as not to embarrass Kofi Annan? You decide.
Hat tip: Pajamas Media
Is the Independent Inquiry Committee into the UN Oil-For-Food program fabricating conclusions so as not to embarrass Kofi Annan? You decide.
Hat tip: Pajamas Media
fearless prediction of the month
fearless prediction of the month
Jason Verheydon blogs about the shuttle launch delay. My prediction: no shuttle will ever launch again. The design is just so faulty, they can never ever live up to the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The necessary modifications require testing which turns up more problems than the modifications have solved; solving those problems results in more testing which turns up more problems... the cycle will not end. The design is bad, and no amount of tweaking and duct-taping will make it a good design.
Jason Verheydon blogs about the shuttle launch delay. My prediction: no shuttle will ever launch again. The design is just so faulty, they can never ever live up to the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The necessary modifications require testing which turns up more problems than the modifications have solved; solving those problems results in more testing which turns up more problems... the cycle will not end. The design is bad, and no amount of tweaking and duct-taping will make it a good design.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
my lame joke of the month
my lame joke of the month
scene: 17th century Paris. Center stage is a homeless guy begging for change.
enter, stage left: Rene Descartes, walking across the stage.
HOMELESS GUY: brother, can you spare a franc?
RENE DESCARTES: I think not!
(Rene Descartes disappears)
exeunt.
scene: 17th century Paris. Center stage is a homeless guy begging for change.
enter, stage left: Rene Descartes, walking across the stage.
HOMELESS GUY: brother, can you spare a franc?
RENE DESCARTES: I think not!
(Rene Descartes disappears)
exeunt.
my place in the blogosphere
my place in the blogosphere
I had forgotten about registering my blog with The Truth Laid Bear ecosystem (I must have done this ages ago) until Political Staples started his list of most-read Canadian blogs. So, I decided to check it out and see just where it is that I rank in the Blogosphere. To my surprise, this blog is number 9974 - not bad, considering that there are something like 7 million blogs out there. IN YOUR FACE, Selective Amnesia!
I had forgotten about registering my blog with The Truth Laid Bear ecosystem (I must have done this ages ago) until Political Staples started his list of most-read Canadian blogs. So, I decided to check it out and see just where it is that I rank in the Blogosphere. To my surprise, this blog is number 9974 - not bad, considering that there are something like 7 million blogs out there. IN YOUR FACE, Selective Amnesia!
Friday, May 06, 2005
new moons
new moons
Using the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii, astronomers have discovered an even dozen new moons orbiting Saturn. This brings Saturn's total number of moons to about a gazillion.
Using the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii, astronomers have discovered an even dozen new moons orbiting Saturn. This brings Saturn's total number of moons to about a gazillion.
Canada: where the flying excrement intersects with the rotating propeller
Canada: where the flying excrement intersects with the rotating propeller
The Conservative party finally managed to introduce a non-confidence motion into Parliament. The vote is set for May 18th. This has been quite a feat, getting any motion put forward, since the Liberal government has cancelled all Opposition days (days in which the Official Opposition may put forward motions) in the House for the forseeable future.
The Liberals fought tooth and nail to have this motion, which calls for the Commons Finance comittee to recommend that the government resign, declared out of Order. Fortunately for all Canadians, the Speaker of the House ruled the motion in Order. Unfortunately, the Liberal House leader, Tony Valeri, has declared that the Liberals will not step down and call an election if this motion should pass.
This is a travesty; one would expect such behaviour from a thugocracy like that of Mugabe in Zimbabwe, not from a liberal democracy.
The level of corruption in the Canadian government is so pervasive as to be mind-numbing: government contracts awarded to government-friendly PR firms for little or no work done, with millions of dollars kicked back into Liberal Party coffers; billions of dollars unaccounted-for in funds beyond the reach of the Auditor-General; ties between the Cabinet and the Mafia; a state-run broadcaster (the CBC) acting as the government's propoganda arm; the government filibustering its own budget; now the government vowing to ignore a non-confidence motion which it will surely lose. No wonder the Liberals want to keep track of everybody's rifles (in a $2 million program which somehow mushroomed to $2 billion). What's next? Proroguing Parliament? Martial Law?
Andrew Coyne figures we may have to all start wearing orange scarves. Perhaps it is time for a new Canadian flag:
The Conservative party finally managed to introduce a non-confidence motion into Parliament. The vote is set for May 18th. This has been quite a feat, getting any motion put forward, since the Liberal government has cancelled all Opposition days (days in which the Official Opposition may put forward motions) in the House for the forseeable future.
The Liberals fought tooth and nail to have this motion, which calls for the Commons Finance comittee to recommend that the government resign, declared out of Order. Fortunately for all Canadians, the Speaker of the House ruled the motion in Order. Unfortunately, the Liberal House leader, Tony Valeri, has declared that the Liberals will not step down and call an election if this motion should pass.
This is a travesty; one would expect such behaviour from a thugocracy like that of Mugabe in Zimbabwe, not from a liberal democracy.
The level of corruption in the Canadian government is so pervasive as to be mind-numbing: government contracts awarded to government-friendly PR firms for little or no work done, with millions of dollars kicked back into Liberal Party coffers; billions of dollars unaccounted-for in funds beyond the reach of the Auditor-General; ties between the Cabinet and the Mafia; a state-run broadcaster (the CBC) acting as the government's propoganda arm; the government filibustering its own budget; now the government vowing to ignore a non-confidence motion which it will surely lose. No wonder the Liberals want to keep track of everybody's rifles (in a $2 million program which somehow mushroomed to $2 billion). What's next? Proroguing Parliament? Martial Law?
Andrew Coyne figures we may have to all start wearing orange scarves. Perhaps it is time for a new Canadian flag:
Thursday, May 05, 2005
way to go elon
way to go elon
SpaceX has received a $100 million contract with the US Air Force for launch services aboard their Falcon 1 series spacecraft. Congratulations, guys.
SpaceX has received a $100 million contract with the US Air Force for launch services aboard their Falcon 1 series spacecraft. Congratulations, guys.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
the devil has a new number
the devil has a new number
Analysis of the Oxyrhynchus texts has revealed that the book of Revelations was slightly mistranslated centuries ago. In this oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, the "number of the Beast" turns out to actually be 616, not 666 as has been assumed. Beware of Michigan!
Analysis of the Oxyrhynchus texts has revealed that the book of Revelations was slightly mistranslated centuries ago. In this oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, the "number of the Beast" turns out to actually be 616, not 666 as has been assumed. Beware of Michigan!
banned or not, who cares
banned or not, who cares
Is the publication ban on or off? At this point, it is hard to tell. And, I don't give a damn. So, here is a link to the relevant post at Captain's Quarters. Andrew Coyne provides us with a link to this PDF from the year 2000, which notes the Vickers and Benson contract with Human Resources and Development Canada (of boondoggle fame). I'm sure I'll have more later.
So, what's the big deal in all of this? Chuck Guite basically linked Prime Minister Paul Martin into Adscam with his testimony. Bottom line, PMPM lied about not knowing anything about what was going on with Adscam. He was into it up to his neck.
update: Apparently the ban has been lifted. CTV has more details on the testimony.
Is the publication ban on or off? At this point, it is hard to tell. And, I don't give a damn. So, here is a link to the relevant post at Captain's Quarters. Andrew Coyne provides us with a link to this PDF from the year 2000, which notes the Vickers and Benson contract with Human Resources and Development Canada (of boondoggle fame). I'm sure I'll have more later.
So, what's the big deal in all of this? Chuck Guite basically linked Prime Minister Paul Martin into Adscam with his testimony. Bottom line, PMPM lied about not knowing anything about what was going on with Adscam. He was into it up to his neck.
update: Apparently the ban has been lifted. CTV has more details on the testimony.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
desperation
desperation
Just when you thought the Liberal Party of Canada couldn't get any sleazier: they have started dangling ambassadorships and senatorial positions in front of a few Conservative MPs. If four of those MPs bite, then that reduces the number of opposition MPs in the house of Commons just enough that the Liberals and NDP together can avoid any votes of non-confidence. Andrew Coyne is all over this, including references to the relevant sections of the Criminal Code.
Just when you thought the Liberal Party of Canada couldn't get any sleazier: they have started dangling ambassadorships and senatorial positions in front of a few Conservative MPs. If four of those MPs bite, then that reduces the number of opposition MPs in the house of Commons just enough that the Liberals and NDP together can avoid any votes of non-confidence. Andrew Coyne is all over this, including references to the relevant sections of the Criminal Code.
BoeLock
BoeLock
In a surprise announcement, Boeing and Lockheed will be creating a new joint venture called United Launch Alliance. The new entity will be the sole provider of rockets for the US Air Force and other US government agencies.
This is great news for small space-launch startups; the resulting entity will be even more bureaucratized and unwieldy than the present two companies, thus driving up launch costs and therefore sending more and more business to smaller, more nimble companies like SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace, and Scaled Composites.
In a surprise announcement, Boeing and Lockheed will be creating a new joint venture called United Launch Alliance. The new entity will be the sole provider of rockets for the US Air Force and other US government agencies.
This is great news for small space-launch startups; the resulting entity will be even more bureaucratized and unwieldy than the present two companies, thus driving up launch costs and therefore sending more and more business to smaller, more nimble companies like SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace, and Scaled Composites.
Monday, May 02, 2005
rattus
rattus
I am from Alberta. There are no rats there at all: the government of Alberta spends something like 5 million dollars a year on the "Rat Patrol", basically guys who roam the borders killing rats. Given that, it is perhaps not surprising that I have never seen a rat in all my 36 years on this planet.
That is, I had never seen a rat until yesterday. I am presently in Florida, and the cat in the place where I am staying caught a big male rat yesterday. We took a picture of the thing; I just had to post it here so that the people back home could see what a rat looks like.
I am from Alberta. There are no rats there at all: the government of Alberta spends something like 5 million dollars a year on the "Rat Patrol", basically guys who roam the borders killing rats. Given that, it is perhaps not surprising that I have never seen a rat in all my 36 years on this planet.
That is, I had never seen a rat until yesterday. I am presently in Florida, and the cat in the place where I am staying caught a big male rat yesterday. We took a picture of the thing; I just had to post it here so that the people back home could see what a rat looks like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)