Remembrance Day

How to fix the House of Commons

It's rather easy, actually:

Change the Seating Plan

The reason we have the government side separated from the opposition is simply to prevent violence. The sides in the British house are apparently two sword lengths apart for the obvious reason that swords mixed with tempers was considered a bad idea. Today I doubt anyone expects the HoC to devolve into a Taiwanese style brawl. I think that if we want to make the various parties work together in more collegial style then we shouldn't seat by party. I think we should seat the leaders together and then randomly seat everyone else. I think it would be a lot harder to act like an ass, to heckle, or to ask truly stupid questions, when you aren't surrounded by your own partisans.

Kady O'Malley has a drink with Galactus

Kady O'Malley is in a froth because people, shockingly, sign online petitions with false names. How ironic that she herself sat down for a beer with the mighty Galactus, destroyer of petitions! Of course, she probably knows Galactus by his more Earthly name, Michael J. Murphy, sycophant and kiss-ass extraordinaire. Here's his take on their relationship:

Later, I spent a very enjoyable and informative couple of hours drinking alcohol with Macleans Magazine's blogging superstar Kady O'Malley. It will probably take a week to process all the political info I picked up during that time.

As an aside, Ms. O'Malley is ultra-cool, immensely charming, but really, really tiny. Thankfully, I didn't try to hit on her or wear a lampshade or anything stupid like that.

Of course, this is serious business. Falsifying names on an online petition is OK if your alter-ego is some comic book goober and you attack the right people but this is different! This is an American lobby group attempting to influence the decisions of a branch of the Canadian government. You might think that is a bad thing but Ms. O'Malley assures me it is only bad when evil Americans like the NRA do it. At least I think that email was from Kady, but who knows these days? Maybe it was from Galactus' buddy The Silver Surfer...

The Trench Coat Ban

Gun control has been an abject failure as the examples of Kimveer Gill, Valeri Fabrikant, Marc Lepine, Denis Lortie have so aptly shown. Each shooting occurred after Canada introduced some new restrictive Gun controls:
(from Wikipedia)

• Regulation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm
• Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951.
• In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” weapons. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society
• In 1977, Bill C-51 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) for the acquisition (but not possession) of all firearms and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. FAC applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before being issued an FAC. Fully automatic weapons were also prohibited
• In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on any firearms that had a military or paramilitary appearance. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, pass a more thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued one. Finally in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high capacity magazines, limiting handguns to 10 rounds and most semi-automatic rifles to 5. The restrictions did not cover rimfire rifles or manual (e.g., bolt action rifles). Provinces have the choice to opt-out of this regulation.
• In 1995, Bill C-68 introduced new, stricter, gun control legislation. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licences to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.

Controlling guns just isn’t the answer. The issue is the concealment of weapons. The first gun laws restricted pistols because they are too easy to conceal and since then each of the mass shootings in Canada has involved the use of long guns of some sort or another. Today’s gun laws continue the attempt to restrict the use of concealable weapons through the use of barrel length restrictions and over-all-length restrictions. These have made it harder and harder for mass killers to accomplish their goals but further restrictions are likely to impact legitimate gun users without further deterring the mass killer. Still, we must try!

And so I propose the ultimate solution to the concealed weapon dilemma:

The Trench Coat Ban!

Without the long-coat to conceal their weapons of choice mass killers could not carry powerful guns to their targets. And there is simply no need in a modern, Western country for trench coats. After all, we no longer have trenches, and the flimsy excuse that they are dual purpose rain coats cannot be allowed to sway us from the goal of gun safety. Certainly an outright ban may be a bit harsh so I propose, instead, a long-coat registry with strict screening and licensing requirements of long coats in the restricted category, mid-length-type coats (full length coats will be prohibited with no grandfathering). Non-restricted coats must end at the hips thereby denying the ability to conceal long guns. In this way we can continue on the road to safe, secure Canada.

Ps. What is it with all the mass shootings in Quebec?

Anti-Semitism

Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella seem to think Antisemitism, Judenhaas, is eight or nine white supremacists with grade school educations posting shit on the Internet. It's not.

Yesterday I went to the park with my son. He's Chinese. I'm not. Because of that I am mindful of how easy it is to criticize "the Chinese", or more specifically the government of mainland China, and how the word "Chinese" makes it hard to distinguish whether I am talking about a government or all Chinese people. As Kinsella knows it's awfully easy to be offensive when talking about the people, the government, or the food. So I am careful.

Anyway, back to the park. My son was playing on the playground while some older kids, teenagers, were hanging out near the swings. I was shocked to here the oldest of the group give the younger a primer on "the Jews", as he put it. He didn't like Jews because "they think they're better than us". So where does a kid get an idea like that? The answer is rather easy, actually, he gets it from the TV, from his parents, from teachers in school, he gets everywhere that people criticize Israel and make no effort to ensure that they distinguish between the state and the race. The real problem is that most of the criticism of Israel isn't meant to distinguish between them. I believe that the majority of that criticism IS meant to be criticism of Jews in general.

So how did it happen? Where did all the support for the plucky upstarts who held off the combined power of all the Arab nations go? It went away when the PLO and Arabs were able to get positive press coverage, when people began to see Palestinian Arabs as the underdogs. The Israelis had the bad luck to win too much, I guess. We can see it in the press coverage of the "freedom flotilla". Israeli soldiers boarded the ship armed with paintball guns and were met with knives, and metal poles. They were ambushed and they again had the misfortune to win. Their commander was stabbed, tossed over a railing, disemboweled, and then walked down a deck before his captors were shot. None of this has been reported widely. Instead we get useful idiots like Kevin Neish, who saw Israeli soldiers captured and taken below decks and still seems to think he was part of a non-violent protest. We get declarations about piracy and International law from people who don't know the law or are willfully lying, all unchallenged by our media.

I see it in our schools when teachers, mostly leftish leaning as they are, casually trash the US in front of students. Schools are terribly insular environments and it is easy for teachers to think their world view is acceptable because their peers don't challenge them. My brother had to take his teenage daughter aside after she spewed some incredibly anti-American crap and explain to her that her teachers were wrong and that her views were unacceptable.

And that brings me to the real problem with the jihad against neo-Nazis: It's a distraction form the real threat to Jews. No one will ever listen to the rantings of the skinheads but they will listen to the more subtle bigotries of their teacher, their parents, and the media. The left in this country and across the globe has bought into the working class under dog myths built about Palestinian Arabs. The left has become the real threat to Jews worldwide and I can only hope that the outing of people like Helen Thomas and Libby Davies will open some eyes to the damage closet-Judenhaas can do to our children. I only wish I had said something to that kid but I doubt it would have helped.

An update: The children of Germany are as bad. Just go home to Germany says Helen Thomas. Right.

Canada's military awards system is broken

"Our recognition system still sucks" - General Rick Hillier

I was a soldier once. For a short time. I was a reservist. I almost feel embarrassed to say that. I feel that way because I feel like I'm one of a very few who ever did that. But I shouldn't feel that way. Sure, I was "only" a reservist but I volunteered as any soldier volunteers. I knew that Canada could call on me to fight, to kill, and to die at any time while I was a member of The Regiment. It's strange because there are a lot of people like me who don't talk much about their time in the service, many because we served during the "decade(s) of darkness", other because after serving for 20 years they had nothing to show for it beyond a pension. The government of Canada has always been very stingy recognizing the service, volunteer service, of the men and women in the military.

I am now part of the Regimental Association, a group of ex-soldiers who work together to support and remember the service and sacrifice of the members of our regiment. Because of that I became aware of the veteran's plates available to BC residents who meet the requirements set by veterans groups in consultation with the government of British Columbia. I felt undeserving having served only two years but it was explained to me that these things are as much to remind other Canadians of the sacrifices soldiers make on their behalf as it is to recognize one individual's contribution. So I applied and received veteran's plates and I display them proudly.


I received an email the other day about another form of recognition. There is a movement to request the creation of the Governor General's Volunteer Service Medal. It is meant to recognize and reward service of one year or more in the Canadian Forces after 1947. It is a simple thing, just a small medal that will distinguish veterans from the mass of citizenry at Remembrance Day ceremonies.



Yes, I would receive this medal, though I don't feel I particularly deserve it. I support the creation of this medal mostly for the thousands of ex-service men and women who put in years of their life and left with no recognition whatsoever. It is important to recognize this service and encourage these people to remember and display that service to the rest of Canadians. In only a few short years the veterans of the second war will be gone and our Remembrance Days will be diminished. We need to encourage the other veterans to come out, to give them some token of esteem to distinguish them so they can march with some small pride as we remember others who's sacrifice was so much greater.

I hope we can convince the government of Canada to look at this proposal seriously. If you would like to help please sign the petition at:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/volunteer-service-medal-for-our-veterans.html

November 11, 2009

Lt. Col. R.L. Boyle, 10th BN, Canadian Infantry, Poperinghe Old Military Cemetery

Lt. Col W.F.R. Hart-McHarg, 7th BN, Canadian Infantry, Poperinghe Old Military Cemetery

Frank Smith, 879 Royal Army Medical Corps, Poperinghe New Military Cemetery

Unknown, 7th BN, Canadian Infantry, Bedford House Cemetery

Carbon Tax end game

How does a carbon tax not affect gas prices? By not DIRECTLY adding to the price, says Dion. But how do you not add to the price of a litre of gas when you tax the exploration, drilling or digging, & refining of fuel? No matter how much you squawk Dion’s Carbon tax WILL increase the price of gasoline. And food. And electricity. And heating oil. And shipping. And manufacturing. And. And. And.

Of course, we can offset those price increases buying nothing and by not traveling. Say bye bye to the economy. But we'll have such a nice planet!

Checkers vs Chess

So, why is the Conservative party having so much difficulty in the last few weeks? I could gnash teeth and find a sack-cloth or I could indulge in a little conspiracy theory. Remember that article by Tom Flanagan? The one where he said Harper's goal wasn't to beat the Liberals but to destroy them? Isn't it possible Harper is doing just that?

When the election was half-way through and Jason Cherniak was pulling out his hair bemoaning the lack of Liberal advertising I suggested in an un-published comment (you chicken, Jason!) that perhaps the Liberal party was trying to save themselves for the future by not spending close to the limit. Given all the speculation about the Liberal debt levels and their inability to fundraise I thought maybe the Liberals had gone into survival mode and were trying to keep the debt down.

Since then the Liberals have gone up, the Conservatives down, the Liberals are spending on ads all over the place and people are once again questioning Harper's campaign. What if it's all a deliberate plan on Harper's part? Think about it, if the Liberals spend the max and lose they are toast for the next ten years. Harper wants to destroy them and what better way than to lure them into a full on punching match at the end of the election? I'm sure Harper will be quite happy with another minority, especially because the Liberals will be totally unable to oppose his agenda. And I'm quite sure that if Dion loses he's out and the Liberals will have another destructive and expensive leadership race and convention. It's a no-lose situation for Harper.

Another example of S.13 stupidity

It seems too many Liberals can't see the forest for the trees. The "trees" being non-liberal thinkers and the "forest" being everyone. You see, if the the bar for S.13 is "contempt" and protected groups include nationality, how then can we talk about the holocaust? Seriously, if you were a German or German-Canadian, how would you feel if you were constantly told it was your people who murdered 6,000,000 Jews, and 6,000,000 others? How do you think other people feel about Germans when they learn this truth? How does a German child feel in class when her people are discussed in that context? Is it likely that some people would feel contempt for Germans given that information?

Or Russians? Do you think the Ukrainian genocide could lead to contempt? Chinese? How about the cultural revolution? English? Ever hear of the potato famine, the penal laws? Do you begin to get the idea? I sure hope so.

25 Rejected Liberal Tips on a Greener Living

1. Inside, outside, frontside, backside, use your underwear for 4 days!
2. When buying clothing, if it itches it’s good for you and Gaia.
3. Take the 100 mile challenge. Sure, that means wormy onions in February but shift happens, you know.
4. Body hair is beautiful.
5. After you smoke your ganja you can make the fiber into tie-dye T-shirts for barter.
6. Ride your bike to work . . . in January . . . in Toronto.
7. Don’t just sell your car, recycle it! Your financial loss is Gaia’s gain (and the wrecker’s . . .)
8. Go vegan! The animal exploitation industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gases.
   
9. Turn down your thermostat, wear wool. (hold on, what was #8 again?)
10. Use ethanol! No, wait, use wind power! No, wait, use nuclear! No, wait . . . Aaw, man! Which one doesn’t starve kids, kill birds, or go all “China syndrome” and shift?
11. Drink water. But not that trendy bottled crap in plastic, no, drink tap water. Unless you’re under a boil water advisory or live on a reserve.
12. Eat less. Thin is in!
13. Don’t think too hard, brains use lots of calories.
14. Get a vasectomy using only natural anesthetics. Seriously. You love the planet, don’t you?
15. Don’t use antibiotics; they’ll just end up in our water one way or another.
16. Move to the “big city” and live in a loft with 10 other eco-friendly people. You’re body heat will keep you warm in winter!
17. Buy only organic food produced by fair trade, unionized labourers. (Not those fascist farmers. They all vote Conservative, you know)
18. Turn off your computer. Your parents didn’t need one and neither do you.
19. Turn off your TV. Your Grandparents didn’t need one and neither do you.
20. Refrain from having children. Sex is ok, just not the kids.
21. Sign a non-resuscitation order. Why waste energy when you’re gonna die someday anyway?
22. Body odour is natural. Deodorants are not.
23. Ride the bus. A lot.
24. Compost everything. Your Great Grandparents didn’t need a toilet and neither do you.
25. Finally, consider suicide. One less person poisoning Gaia is the greatest gift of all. (But not until after the election, ok? We need your vote)

BC Politics and the Carbon Tax

BC politics are so much fun. I used to support the Socreds but they kinda blew themselves up. Scandals, you know. Then I found the BC Liberals who were, at least, not the NDP. Then the old Socreds took over the Liberals and the Liberals became a right of centre party coalition with the blue Liberals. I was pretty happy. I have parked my vote there ever since.

Not anymore.

Gordon Campbell? What can I say about him other than he is a complete flake. One year he is all over deficit reduction, the next he's the Olympic guy, the next it's homelessness, or the "New Relationship" with aboriginals, and now he's "Mr. Green Jeans". The thing is, he doesn't finish anything he starts, and that may now be a good thing. With the carbon tax coming in to effect in a few weeks and his continued green agenda I have to wonder if this is what I voted for? In many ways I think the BC Liberals are becoming much more like their federal friends and I just can't vote for them. And of course I can't vote for the NDP.

So, who wants my vote?

The comment too truthful for the Big City Lib

The Big City Hypocrite posted on the Lemire case and in his usual fashion couldn't take the heat in the comments. His little favourite, Ti-Guy, had this to say

Ti-Guy said...

Who ti-guy? Anyone who is forced to suffer the indignities of a HRC, that's who.

What indignities?

Standard rules of evidence do not apply and the truth may well not be a defence.

What standard rules of evidence?

What standards do apply to quasi-judicial bodies?

How is truth not a defence?

Yes, Ti-Guy, how exactly is truth not a defence? You may not know it but I gave you a perfect example. Unfortunately BCL either couldn't stand seeing his darling demolished or he realized exactly how wide a net you guys are advocating. Just to show you how much of a hypocrite/coward BCL is I'll risk an HRT complaint and re-create my post:

Muhammed married a 6 year old girl named Aeysha. He consummated the marriage when she was 9. Many Muslims believe that, as this was the example of the prophet, it is acceptable for Muslims to do the same (There is dispute as to her age but many Muslims believe the writings that list these ages). To most non-Muslims this would be considered pedophilia.

Under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." Stating that some Muslims consider sex with a 9 year old acceptable would be very likely to stir feelings of contempt. Very likely.

So, under section 13 I can now have a complaint lodged against me and I can fully expect to lose despite the fact that everything that I have written above is truthful.

What I really want to know is why BCL deleted my comment, a comment that basically stated the above? Was it because he doesn't like me? Was it because I lied? Or was it because he knows that by hosting that comment he was just as liable to a complaint as I am? Doesn't that seem hypocritical? Well of course it does, but we've come to expect little better from him. So Ti-Guy, maybe you can now ask BCL why truth isn't a defence because he seems to know.

First they came for the neo-Nazis and I said nothing . . .

Carbon Tax end game

How does a carbon tax not affect gas prices? By not DIRECTLY adding to the price, says Dion. But how do you not add to the price of a litre of gas when you tax the exploration, drilling or digging, & refining of fuel? No matter how much you squawk Dion’s Carbon tax WILL increase the price of gasoline. And food. And electricity. And heating oil. And shipping. And manufacturing. And. And. And.

Of course, we can offset those price increases buying nothing and by not traveling. Say bye bye to the economy. But we'll have such a nice planet!

How many responses will it take?

The right to respond? Is that really what the Canadian Islamic Congress Human Rights Complaint against MacLean’s magazine is about? I guess I am terribly confused by those who seem to think such a right exists. I wasn’t aware. So let me see if I have this right:

1. If I don’t like what MacLean’s writes I have the right to respond and I can force MacLean’s to print that response?
   
2. And this right is separate from the multitude of letters to the editor that MacLean’s (and most publications) already publish?
   
3. And would this right mean that everyone who is offended has a similar right?
   

Because the one question that keeps popping in to my head is why these particular offended people get to demand a response? Do they represent all offended Muslims or just themselves? And if it is just themselves does that mean that the next group of offended Muslims can demand the same right using the same tactics? I am just so full of questions on this topic, I mean, how does one go about representing an amorphous community of co-religionists that can’t seem to agree on anything? Is this response only for Sunni Muslims or Shia Muslims? Or Sufis? Or fundamentalists, or moderates? How many responses must Maclean’s publish in order to satisfy all the offended people? I am soooo confused!

Why I won’t buy a “domestic” vehicle

This is the story of how one company, Chrysler Canada, has lost a customer forever. And with any luck they will lose you, dear reader, as well.

I leased my first ever new vehicle in 2002, a beautiful yellow Mazda Protégé 5. Oh! How wonderful it was! Quick! Versatile! Fun! And it had a 5 speed standard. I was in bliss! 3 months after I leased it I met my wife-to-be. She couldn’t drive standard.

A year after we got married I started a new job much closer to home and I could drive our toy car, an old Volkswagen Beetle. The wife (no names, I am so very scared Kinsella might try to track me down!) needed a better vehicle for her commute. And so the tale of woe began. We went to the local 5-star Jeep dealership and worked out a deal to lease a Liberty. Wifey liked it and I was strangely willing to get rumped by these guys in order to make her happy. The original price “fell through” when the 0% wasn’t available and we were jacked-up an extra $25 a month, but I accepted it because the Jeep made her comfortable traveling all over town to strange, new places. Deal done, we left, leaving the beautiful Mazda behind.

The deal with the Mazda was that Chrysler would buy it out. It was a very popular car then and almost impossible to find a used one in that colour. They called Mazda and got the lease buy-out and worked the deal based on that figure. They also promised to cancel my insurance once the buy-out was complete. They didn’t do either.

A couple of weeks after signing the deal I noticed ICBC had taken my insurance payment for the Mazda. I phoned the dealership to see why my insurance hadn’t been canceled. A week after that I got a call from Mazda Financial asking why I hadn’t made my lease payment. Again I called the dealership. I didn’t get a response on either call but a few days and then I did get a message that the dealership needed to talk to me urgently. It wasn’t about my problems, I found.

They discovered they had made a $600 error on the lease buy out and wanted me to make good on it. They weren’t at all interested in the $150 insurance payment I was out or the damage to my credit from missing a lease payment. Well, we had a deal and we agreed to stick to it, I ate the $150 and they ate the $600. Really, what else could they do?

And so, seeing how bad their “5-Star” service really was, I carried on with the lease with a bit of apprehension. But the Liberty was a great truck. It was reliable, fun, safe, everything we wanted. We drove it for four years and were really torn when it came time to return it. We had used 30,000 fewer Ks than the lease allowed and it was immaculate in and out but we had an adoption to spend our money on, a very expensive adoption.

We said goodbye to the Jeep. The dealer took it back and their inspections mentioned no problems with the vehicle. We thought we had moved on and only a week earlier we received a referral for a 4-year old boy from Taiwan. Everything was going so well! Then we received the letters from Chrysler Canada. The first was a notice that they had “lost” our personal information during shipping and they sincerely hoped we didn’t have our identity stolen and our credit ruined. The second was a demand letter for $4000 for “excess wear and tear”. The invoice didn’t detail what that “excess wear and tear” was. I phoned my brother, the car salesman, and he laughed and laughed as he told me how Chrysler and it North American compatriots do business. This, he said, was a scare tactic and soon we’ll receive a phone call telling us that Chrysler will “forgive” the debt if we just lease another vehicle. He’s seen it a hundred times.

What began as a horror story on dealership ethics has ended as a horror story on the culture of North American car manufacture and sales. Aside for the fact that Fords are badly designed, ugly things and GM hasn’t made an interesting car in 30 years, it seems that the concept of customer service and building brand loyalty are foreign to these domestics. I won’t buy a Ford just to save some guy’s job in Oshawa. I want value for my hard-earned money, I want to buy a car because it is a well designed, quality built vehicle. I’ll even pay more for that. It seems to this consumer that, rather than emulate the Japanese, or Germans, the domestic companies would rather bully and trick their way into sales of what I can only see as inferior cars. Maybe if they built cars with the elegant designs of Audi or Mazda, domestic companies wouldn't have to resort to tricks and extortion to get buyers to re-up with them.

Well, this laddie is not for turning, to paraphrase Thatcher, and Chrysler can come see me in court if they really want their money. They can also kiss goodbye any future sales to my family. It's sad because we really like the new 4-door Jeep Renegade and believed Chrysler had some interesting cars, too. They should also know that I will tell everyone I can this little story, like I just did to you, and recommend you never do business with Chrysler Canada either. I think Mazda will be getting a few more sales from me in the future.

Incredibly Selfish Athletes

Tibet. I've never been especially worked up over Tibet because the types that do get worked up are the same that get worked up over EVERYTHING. I hope I was just being a little more discerning. But with the recent violence in Tibet and some reading on the Interweb I am a little more supportive of the protests against China and especially the torch relay.

What I am also getting a little more intolerant of is the whining of athletes. Catriona Le May Doan on leaders considering boycotting the opening ceromonies

"Well too bad for them"

Funny. She goes on to say "The Olympics are about the athletes, who train their entire life to represent their country. This has become a platform for political situations."

Let's break down that sentence.

"Who train their entire life to represent their country"

There are two things there I think need clarifying. First, they train their entire life. OK. Do they do it all by themselves? Do they pay for it themselves? Or do they EXPECT and DEMAND that Canada support them? Well, it’s the latter. We pay them and they, or at least that twit Le May, Doan expects us to pay and shut up.

Second, Catriona states that these athletes “represent their country”. And that’s why we pay them, I guess. Still, if they represent us should we not, through our elected representatives, have a say in how they represent us? If we are embarrassed by their participation in an event we should, at the very least, be able to state our displeasure by removing our REAL REPRESENTATIVES from the opening ceremonies.

Ms. Le May Doan should be a little more grateful for the tax dollars that supported her in her when she needed it. She should understand that Canada is at these Olympics, not just the athletes. She should be frickin’ thankful we don’t just pull out of the whole sordid thing.

Finally, maybe we shouldn’t wrap our national pride up in selfish athletes. Maybe we should make the Olympics an individual event without nations. Maybe that would both get us off the hook for these self-serving ingrates and remove politics at the same time. Think on that Catriona.

Christy Clark: Ignorance Kills

Christy Clark, wife of Liberal Party organizer Mark Marrisen and afternoon talk show host on Vancouver's CKNW, is an ignorant . . . well, I'll let you finish that sentence.

This afternoon Clark interviewed a woman from the Canadian Cancer Society who wants "cosmetic" pesticides banned in BC. And she sees that as the first step towards the banning of all pesticide use in Canada. A caller, an older sounding gentleman, strongly supported the use of DDT despite Rachel Carson and, as Clark stated, "99% of scientists". Clark compared this man to global warming skeptics and commiserated with her guest as to the ignorance of this poor sod. Too bad he's right.

If Clark had just a touch of professionalism she might have researched pesticide use in Canada before the show and she just might have found out that DDT is the best hope for millions of African children in the fight against malaria. Or she could have asked her husband what Liberal MP Belinda Stronach is up to these days. Clark's is an example of the utter ignorance behind the resistance to DDT and the indirect cause of death for over 3,000 African children each day.

Maybe the management of CKNW will see fit to remove this moron from the airwaves.

Which story will they tell this time?

What part of no does the BC Human Rights Tribunal not understand? These guys have acccepted a case regarding Sikhs, turbans, and hardhats, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court that bona fide safety concerns trump religious rights. I know that a recent mediation between Sikh longshoremen and the Port of Vancouver allowed a compromise where Sikhs don't work in areas requiring hard hats, but at what point does accommodation become favouritism? We know from several sources that Sikhs can and do wear modified turbans with helmets, that there is no prohibition in the Sikh religion against wearing helmets (despite a lie from another recent complainant), and that the turban is not a symbol of the Sikh religion. How much more clear cut can this be?

Frankly, I do believe that the state imposes too many restrictions on Canadians in the name of safety. If someone wants to do something stupid, well, the Darwin Awards await. But if the State is going to legislate safety, exemptions based on religion and especially falsehoods spread by religious groups to gain special status, should be disallowed.

Death to the Infidels!!

Yeah! Death to the non-believers! How dare they not join in our protest! Death to those who didn't turn off their lights!

I'm not kidding. It appears that the recent Earth Hour debacle has enraged the greenies to the point that they are seriously pissed with anyone who dares not participate in their hour of non-power. Worse, they are showering conservative blogs with a crap-storm of intolerant, bigoted posts displaying a zealotry not seen since Spain took the Auto de fe to new levels.

From Cjunk:
Thanks Paul, you've added one more Christian to the list of people for whom I'll being going out of my way to ruin their Xmas season next year. After all, I don't believe in the baby Jesus, and apparently it's ok to just sh*t all over people when you don't believe what they do. Thanks again, you contemptuous dick!

So, for my poor greenie friends: Get over yourself! We are under no obligation to worship at your altar just because the TV news says we should. We don't have to turn off our lights to appease your wrathful earth god. We do not have to believe as you do. Please, if you feel a temptation to burn us non-believers at the stake, or chop our heads off in a cheesy video, remember that you are supposed to be the enlightened, progressive, tolerant left. Protest is a right, a right the right rarely uses. If we chose to ignore your orgy of self-righteousness and "awareness raising", or protest it with a Christmas display of massive proportion, we do so because we have the absolute right to do so. Forced conversions, though you may be sorely tempted, are just wrong.