January 30, 2005

Walls comes down.

A call out to people on the blog roll of the Blogging Tories.

I was recently removed from the bog roll due the comedy in my previous post.

Derek,I'm asking you to remove that post immediately as it contains1) a personal
attack2) discrimination based upon sexual orientation/preference Even though you
have the right to your opinion on SSM and homosexuality in general, the post does
not align well with the spirit of the Blogging Tories blogroll.Thanks,Steve


Hey, they have that right but why lie about the reasons. I'd like some feedback as to the validity of that claim.

First, Is it a personal attack ? I thought I was pointing to his non position on same sex marriage and his discrimination towards female bloggers with cat pictures. How is it personal?

Second, how the hell am I in a position to discriminate against anyone based on anything.

It is they who discriminate, first, against female bloggers with cat pictures, by virtue of an actual campaign to point them out for purpose of avoidance. This is in the spirit of Blogging Tories? Sounds like another, " alien kitten- eater oversight". Hope you don't work on the next campaign.

Next, they try to bully me into removing, censor, edit or retract my post. That'll be the day when anyone tells me what I can write, notice the title of the my blog.
Start building walls around peoples blogs and your roll will shrink pretty fast.

I'd like to hear from Blogging Tories, if they agree or disagree, with the decision to have me removed from the roll.

January 29, 2005

A Conservative blogger comes out.

Some of us are familiar with this guys position on a hell of a lot of topics.

His position on same sex marriage seems to conflict with his Proud Member Blogging Tory button. He has no position and doesn't want to appear biased on the topic of unipolar bliss. This doesn't seem to be a concern in many of his in other posts, especially the anti-cat picture female blogger rant (the first link).

Just to get this straight, A Blogging Tory with no position on same sex marriage that doesn't want to see pictures of female bloggers pussies.

Kinda makes me go, hmmmmmm.....

I think he is trying to tell us something. Not that there is anything wrong with that.


Update: No person linked in this post is actually gay. (not that there is anything wrong with that) I value his opinion and enjoy reading his blog. This post was an attempt at comedy that some found offensive. I have found myself between Brock and a hard place. I am sorry I hurt the linkees feelings.

January 28, 2005

And another war continues

Even though I was not permitted to post that horned picture of Warren on my Blog, I have not given up my search for a postable picture.

As my search continues here is a quote from the musings of Kinsella that should have the Conservatives jumping for joy, just no hugs and kisses please.

January 28, 05 - Their hatred knows no bounds. Truly. This one will help to ensure the Liberal Party remains divided for, say, another decade. Stephen Harpers gambit worked.


As the Liberal Party eats itself right in front us, is anyone going to ask the question? Are they still fit to govern? I'm talking about the mainstream media. At some point they will need to bring this to the attention of Canadians.

January 27, 2005

The war that never was.

I quite enjoyed the little war that erupted between Warren Kinsella and Norman Spector in the blogsphere. I mean even Paul wells got himself tangled up in it by way of pissing off the pit bull Kinsella.

Well wouldn't you know it, the popcorn just finished popping and the credits seem to be rolling on the drama. I even loaded Paul's gun for him to shoot back at Warren for that nice little picture of a horned Wells he posted. So much for the, "Web Flame War". No fizzle, just endless drizzle about the Liberal Family feud on the one hand, and way too much info about the Rock's money problems on the other.

In case your wondering what was in the pistol I gave to the, Kid with the Horned Hat and his corporate blog, without an Alamo, I lay down my ammo. Here it is.



Derek,

No, CP would absolutely not give you permission to use this picture in this way and any use without our written permission would be a breach of our copyright. Within the Copyright Act, section 28.2 to be exact, the question moral rights is covered that gives a photographer the right to protection for this misuse of his work. Under the law you would clearly be at fault should you use this picture and/or use and doctor this picture. CP would pursue legal remedy for such an abuse should it occur.

Sincerely,

Ron Poling
Excecutive Director, Picture Services
The Canadian Press
Original photo credit: CP/Fred Chartrand.
Fake Foto credit: WWW/DKRichards.

CP doesn't have a sense of Humor, too bad.

January 24, 2005

Stop the Slide

All Things Canadian asks the question

One question
Paul Martin said
today:
Polygamy is against the law and will always be against the law. So, if
the courts rule in favour of polygamy....


Paul Martin would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent polygamy?
I'm not so sure.

Polygamy may not be on the Liberal agenda right now, but we find an attitude in some Canadians an apathy towards stopping it. A fellow blogger has written me with his views that I will share with the couple of other people who read this blog.

The Conservative position is enhanced when you have Liberal supporters like James Bow admitting the following in an e-mail to me. I've added the emphasis to make it clear that there are Liberal supporters that would allow the charter to protect any deviation in our society, even if they conflict with traditional Canadian values. This is exactly the, "slippery slope" Conservatives are trying to prevent.


I'm not saying that polygamy is something to be feared, and there is nothing the state can, or should, do to prevent consentual polygamous relationships. However, I am saying that Stephen Harper is fearmongering, by making the analogy between same sex marriage and polygamy and using it as an excuse for the state to not respect same sex marriages. If you have any problem with somebody disparaging the validity of consentual polygamous relationships, it should be with Stephen Harper,who brought it up in the first place with the express desire to make polygamy the bogeyman on which to prevent the recognition of same sex marriages....James



January 23, 2005

Now back to the Bias.

From our respected news anchor over at the CBC.

The tsunami test
The Southeast Asian disaster has given Paul Martin a chance to show his stuff
PETER MANSBRIDGE


I wonder if this is the kind of crap that made "liberal" a dirty word in the U.S., using a horrible disaster for political gain.

Over at inkless, Paul Wells blames the media for making the PM look like an idiot.

What do you do when you blare to all of your readers that the PM is
THREATENING a SNAP ELECTION when, in fact, he was doing no such thing? You
report his clarification as a retraction. Hence this morning's forest of
MARTIN
BACKTRACKS headlines

Did you learn nothing from the campaign guys, this is one tough cookie to spin for, even Kinsella would have a hard time.





January 21, 2005

This, That & The Slope

*The good people at NASA have caught one of the waves hitting the east coast of India on December 26/04. This was not the biggest wave that hit that day and is an incredible sight from the safe distance it was captured at.

*An incredible graphic can be found here. Try it and enjoy the trip.

*Are we really going to have an election on same sex marriage? I'd say bring it on.

It is a perfectly sound argument to say that making gay marriage equal to heterosexual marriage may lead to an objection of the wording, "one person". Since the gender designation within the definition is offensive to some, why wouldn't the singular over the plural be offensive to others. Why shouldn't conjoined twins be allowed to marry another set of conjoined twins? Should the Canadian Constitution only protect a minority that has a big enough lobby?

Why wouldn't someone object to the, "person" designation. If a Canadian wants to wed his furry, (plush toy) that they have loved since he/she was four years old, should they be stopped? If the charter doesn't protect this individuals rights, why should it protect another's over gender?

Anybody?

January 19, 2005

"Paul Martin's good week"

If I am to believe the Canadian media, Paul Martin has had a good week.

Oh come on, a cabinet resignation, a politically motivated aid tour, an appointment of one of the blossoms in the Bush Family orchard.

Welcome to the Paul Martin party of Canada, we accept free labor and pizza in exchange for arrest and deportation.
We will match each of your dollars you donate to Asia with another one of your dollars, up to a point though.
We will meet with the, "rebels" (terrorists) to ensure the free flow of aid and political contributions to our party.
We acknowledge that calling Americans, "bastards" and "idiots" hurt this country in the form of the phony American ban on Canadian beef. It was really about the American beaf with us.

The backdrop to all of this is the adscam inquiry. What we are watching, live on C-PAC, is the climax of the long standing Liberal Party family feud with Gomery as the host. I really do miss Richard Dawson.
The inquiry should not be compared to, as some would say, "Ken Starr of the north". Bill Clinton didn't appoint him to,"get to the bottom" of the Carter administrations suspicious spending habits and it is not some, Hillary Clinton inspired, vast right wing conspiracy.


May Paul Martin have many more, "good weeks".

January 14, 2005

Canada for Canada

I watched as much as I could of the Canada for Asia money raiser on the CBC last night. I stopped watching about the same time Celine Dion began to speak. I simply found it too painful to watch.

The pain I felt was for a country that found it necessary to congratulate itself and tell everyone that was willing to watch, just how giving and important we are.

We did this without shame and on the back of a horrible tragedy where people lost everything. This is not the time to celebrate our giving nature and showcase our most gifted.

I, am.....Embarrassed!

Canada, please just shut up and empty your pockets.

January 13, 2005

The sword bends.

The efforts of the world community in response to the Asian tsunami has been incredible. Individuals, governments, and world bodies have given like never before.

A handful of nations have risen above and beyond the call and should be mentioned. Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the U.S. have given two-thirds of the total contributions.
The same coalition that took action in Iraq and was termed a coalition of idiots by some and a coalition of the coerced by others, actually behaved like the concerned global citizens they are.

I recall that many said this wasn't an international coalition and it had failed the international test. If the war in Iraq was an international midterm, then the Asian tsunami was the international final.
China, Russia, and France didn't even bother to show up.

Water becomes a sword.

Each and every day we go through our routine without thinking about it. We wash ourselves, our dishes, and even our cars. We cook with it, make coffee with it, and of course, we drink it. Water has always been central to our daily life because it is the foundation of life itself.

Many of us, still submerged in the spirits of Christmas , were awakened to a new reality of water as reports came in from Asia. We had seen the destructive side of water as floods in our own country, yet with each passing day, it became ever more difficult to relate what happened in Asia to our own experience.
Not in our lifetime has the ocean become such an efficient sword, killing tens of thousands of people from many nations over thousands of kilometers. The kind of chaos we have witnessed is usually reserved for the destructive power of man and the weapons of mass destruction we posses.

As we continue to help the people whose world was torn apart and destroyed by the very substance that gives us life, we should reflect upon the need to continue to hold that kind of destructive power in our own hands.

The more things change?

Welcome.

As we move from the year of the Monkey(2004) to the year of the Rooster(2005) I thought it was a good time to start blogging.
I'm not a writer but you know a room with an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters will eventually bash out Hamlet. I'm sure the same can be said about Roosters and Bloggers so I'll throw my indiscriminate bashing into the sphere and see what happens.

2004 was a year that saw America go from being a divided nation to being a purple one. This great transition occurred in the minds of the media because a small percentage of voters pushed G.W. Bush over the top in a key state for the win.
Hey, that sounds a lot like the 2000 election though. So what changed? How did America go from divided between Democratic Blue and Republican Red, into a homogeneous purple?

Rural Americans gave Bush 51% of the of the popular vote. This single factor forced the media to abandon the stolen election, illegitimate president, nation divided tune, for a song of various shapes of purple.
Rednecks legitimize president, could have been the headline but the reluctance on the part of the media to call any state Red dismantled the illusion of division and shed light on the fairly homogeneous voting patterns in all states.
America is not any more or less divided than in 2000 and we have the rednecks who voted in greater numbers for Bush to thank for creating the new electoral map of various shades of purple. Thank-you.


The Canadian election of 2004 was really a wedding story.
No, not same sex weddings but the coming together of the Yin and Yang of the Canadian right.
The popular vote numbers look very similar to the 2000 election and yet we have gone from a majority to a minority in parliament. Despite what Warren Kinsella and Paul Wells might want us to believe, Paul Martin did nothing during the election that led to his ultimate fate. Yes he could have won by more, but not when your asking for a fourth mandate.

In this country, it is good enough to simply be from central Canada when your opposition is from western Canada. Since two thirds of your nation won't vote for your party because your address is the wrong side of the 100th meridian, you can be sure it won't change to 24 Sussex. It then becomes a question of how much you'll win by.

The Liberals had to overcome scandal and voter fatigue, the very same conditions Kim Campbell faced in 1993.
Paul Martin had the address advantage in 2004 and would have gained a majority if not for the merge of Conservatives. The Tory base of 24 rural seats in Ontario denied Paul Martin a majority.

Many said 1+1 wouldn't add up for the Conservatives but it did create a new glass ceiling for them .

In Canada, one might say the rednecks created the illusion of a more balkanized country, the opposite effect of the U.S. vote. In reality though, Canadians voted in a very similar pattern to the 2000 popular vote.

You know, the more things change...........