My last post was cliches - this one is a prayer. I found it over at Cannuckistan Chronicles:

The government is my shepherd:
I need not work.
It alloweth me to lie down on a good job;
It leadeth me beside still factories;
It destroyeth my initiative.
It leadeth me in a path of a parasite for politic's sake;
Yea though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending,
I will fear no evil, for the government is with me.
It prepareth an economic Utopia for me, by appropriating the earnings of my own grandchildren.
It filleth my head with false security;
My inefficiency runneth over.
Surely the government should care for me all the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in a fool's paradise forever
Amen/woman.

When I was working in Scotland, we'd have weekly team meetings. They were boring, so to pass the time, myself and my colleagues would play a game we made up called Asshole Bingo. We had this overachieving manager, and she would use the worst of the business buzzwords (as a matter of fact, "buzzwords" was a buzzword). Going into the meeting, we would each choose 1-3 of her favorite phrases, and keep score of how many times she used them throughout the meeting, giving ourselves points each time. Things like "outside the box", "rock the boat", "value added" etc etc won me more than a couple of free coffees when I worked there.

That little anecdote was because one of my readers sent me an email of cliches regarding our current scandal, and it reminded me of Asshole Bingo.

Cliches:

The ND's "sold their soul" to the Libs.

That would be the "The devil they know",

On "principle",

For "The benefit of Canadians and the environment".

And "For the children"

But that then "begs the question",

Can the ND's "marriage of convenience"

Now be known as "same sex marrriage"

Or "a coalition of the willing"?,

Living in "a house of cards"

Or "a den of inequity"

Owned by "Canada's natural governing party"
with "their partner in crime?"

By propping up "the corrupt Liberal government"
are they now "thick as thieves"?

If an election is called both parties will be "dead ducks in the water"

Because as Pauly says "let me be very, very clear"
that "when the pony dies, the ride is over"!!

Oh yes, I almost forgot,
God Bless George Bush and Fox News,
"Fair and Balanced"

J.

From Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle:

You are now soaking in TV-Turnoff Week, one of those eat-your- vegetables, big-vision ideas that turn out, in the end, to be asinine.

Really, it's a stupid idea. Unless, of course, you're addicted to television like crack. And since that's the default cliche plastered on TV for 50 years or so, it must be true, right? You're either reading the New Yorker or you're in dirty underwear sitting on a ratty couch completely spellbound by "My Wife and Kids."

Why is do-gooderism so annoying? Why is it that people who can't control the universe or be kings or dictators or get through a dinner party without alienating everyone end up fronting groups meant to make you a better person? [I can commiserate - we recently had someone like this over for brunch. - RG]

Listen, if you need to turn off your TV for a week in order to get some fresh air or read a book or prod your kid out of the living room and into the light of day, then you've got a problem. Leave the rest of us with brains, resolve and actual parenting skills alone. Be gone.

This is the sad fate of the bastard machine: to be blamed for everything. "Oh, my television casts such a spell over me that I'm unable to do anything about it. I'm a helpless victim! For God's sake, will someone come to my house and unplug it?"

Read the whole article - it's hilarious! There is always someone out there who thinks they know what's best for you. Personally I couldn't stand that kind of well-meant condescention from my parents, and I sure as hell can't stand it from speial interest groups, regardless of whether or not their backed by a nanny state. I'm a grown up - I'll decide what is and isn't good for me. And "ists" (activists, feminists, et al) are not good for me.

Don at All Things Canadian is posting that the momentum to raise $10,000 for the Tories by the end of the month is waning.

Just $300 raised yesterday by the group - our worst day yet.

Did the Layton (our new Minister of Recycling) /Martin deal get Conservative supporters down? Maybe tax time made you realize you didn't have as much laying around as you thought - though wouldn't that be a reason to help the Tories?

Regardless, it looks like it's going to be tough to hit $10,000.

Four days left in the challenge.

I wanted to also say this - listened to Jack Layton on CBC radio this morning (both CFRA and the sports radio were on commercial and CBC was on when I hit the FM button) and I thought it was a little strange to hear him say, in talking about the Conservatives, that the NDP "isn't out to score political points" - they want to "make parliament work". The interviewer kept trying to get a straight answer out of him about when/if they would again consider supporting a non-confidence motion. Jack said as soon as the budget passed "it's open season".
Does this seem contradictory to you?

Dig deep, readers, or you may end up with Jack Laton as your Prime Minister. If that doesn't scare you into coughing up, nothing will.

Bump! Come on, people. We have to reach $10,000 by the end of the month. Start taking steps to save your country. Give $20, $50, $100 if you can. Thanks. RG

Have you ever heard of the Blogging Tories? Anyway, they've started a pre-campaign funding drive for the Conservative Party.

From Angry in the Great White North:

The Blogging Tories have undertaken a challenge to raise $10,000 for the Conservative Party by the end of the month. Don at All Things Canadian says "There are about 80 members of the Blogging Tories so if each of us can raise on average $125 we reach the goal." We're up to the challenge! Help us reach that goal in 4 easy steps!

1. Click on over to the Conservative Party donation page
2. Donate as much as you like
3. Report back here the amount that you donated in this post's comments section. (comments can remain anonymous)
4. Vote Conservative in the next election!

The Liberals are going to lie and lie about us again during the next election campaign. Let's arm our party with the resources it needs to fight back and form responsible government.

I have just donated $25.

Go read Right Thinking Girl.

Makes our governing troubles seem a little less important, doesn't it?

Turkey is annoyed that the Governator called the Armenian genocide an... Armenian genocide.

A Turkish group uniting hundreds of businesses and organizations demanded Tuesday that Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies be banned from Turkish television to protest the California governor's use of the term genocide to describe the massacre of Armenians by Turks during World War I.

Schwarzenegger, a former actor best known for his role in "The Terminator," declared April 24 a "Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide." California has one of the largest populations of diaspora Armenians.

An umbrella organization grouping some 300 Ankara-based associations, unions and businesses and led by the Ankara Chamber of Commerce said it launched a petition to have the governor's films banned in Turkey.

"We condemn and protest movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared April 24 a day to commemorate the Armenian genocide and accused Turks of genocide by acting under the influence of the Armenian lobby, and without researching historical truths," read a statement from Sinan Aygun, head of Ankara Chamber of Commerce.

"We don't want his films shown in Turkey," said the statement.

Because the truth hurts our feelings.

Cross posted to The Shotgun.

Well, somebody in his office does, which is a refreshing change from the other politicos I've been emailing lately. Let's recap.

President's Office - January - No response (one was not expected)
Pierre Pettigrew - February - No response
Sarmite Bulte - 10 days ago - No response (and I specifically demanded one)
Toronto Mayor David Miller - Saturday - Response received this morning

Here's the email I sent:

Mr Mayor

I write to you as a Toronto resident, and as a neighbor who always
smiles and waves when I see you jogging through High Park.

I am concerned about recent remarks that you have made regarding the
gas tax money you are due from PM Martin's budget. While I understand
your concern about wanting the maximum for your city, I wonder about
the
wisdom of aligning yourself with the Liberal party under the current
circumstances. I am also wondering about your belief that because this
money has been promised to Toronto, that we will actually see any of
it.
Would you really rather believe a corrupt and criminal party, instead
of
speaking with the leaders of the opposition to find out what offers
they
might make - and be more likely to keep!

Jack Lyton may have committed political suicide by aligning himself with
Paul Martin and his government, and I would hate to see the same thing
happen to you. Take heed, and temper your remarks.

Regards

And the response from his office:

Dear ,

Thank you for your email letter dated 04/23/05.

The Mayor will always work with the other orders of government on the
new deal for cities, no matter who is in power.

Mayor Miller takes the non-partisanship of his office very seriously
and does not endorse any party.

Mayor Miller will always fight for what's best for Toronto. Therefore
when elections are called, be it provincial or federal, he encourages
residents to vote for the candidate who they think will best represent
the interests of the people of this great city.

Thank you
Joanne Miller

Nice to know someone thinks the voters are important enough to answer to.

Many of my friends, both liberal and conservative, have all but dismissed Jack Layton and the NDP as a non-party. They feel that one way or another, we'll have a minority government, and the NDP won't even be the opposition. I feel this underestimation of Smilin' Jack is a mistake.

In the past few days, since Martin's (campaign) speech, Jack has proved a lot tougher than originally thought. He has put a horse's head in the Prime Minister's bed, waiting for the inevitable capitulation.

"We're not intending to water down anything," Martin said Monday. NDP Leader Jack Layton met with Martin on Sunday night to discuss an offer to back the government as long as Martin drops the corporate tax cuts and directs the money toward social programs.

No agreement was struck between the two leaders. Layton said he gave the prime minister a deadline to reply to his demand.

"I want to hear back by Tuesday morning," Latyon said in an interview Monday. ["Or I will have him killed," almost seems to hang in the air, unsaid. - RG]

Jack isn't messing around. He's got Martin by the short and curlies, and he's milking it (quelle image!!) for all it's worth. My personal prediction is that the two opposing parties (Conservative and Bloc) will still bring down the government, and under those circumstances Jack's career might end for having sided with a criminal party. But I could be wrong. Who knows what lurks behind Jack Layton's smile...

Someone sent me a link to this site. You can add to the blog, buy Impeach Martin stickers, and make talking-head Martin say whatever you want him to say.

A great place to let out your frustrations.

It doesn't seem like much, but I've actually been trying to do this for ages. I keep trying, and I keep getting error messages. Today it worked!! The Manifesto page is gone, for now, as I've overwritten it, but I'll put it up again sometime later. Looks like I'm not moving to France this year anyway.

Wow. I hope my regulars are actually reading this, and that they've updated their links. I have a feeling my numbers will drop off for a day or two...

Anyway, it's nice to be in my own space. If any of you do find your way here, and you have any problems at all (slow loading, disjointed graphics, alarm bells, pit of snakes, whatever) please email me. I want to know for sure that my server is up to snuff.

And feel free to send housewarming gifts!!

RG

From Richard at Cannuckistan Chronicles:

A recent comment by Geoff Norquay referred to PMPM as "Osama Bin laden Martin" . He has since apologized for the "off the cuff" remark.

Thinking about it, it is a stretch, just not a big one though.

The Liberal Party leader and the Taliban leader are both hiding. They both communicate through video tapes. Neither want to be investigated or put on trial. The Liberal Party and the Taliban have a deep hate for the US and democracy in general. They both seem to acquire funding through nefarious sources.

I watched the speech. I was at work till one in the morning. Blogger was down till eight, and I didn't have time after that to blog. And besides, my fellow bloggers did a great job covering it. I'm sure my voice wasn't missed.

From today's Globe & Mail:

Tom Hayden, a U.S. activist of the 1960s, is asking Canada to provide a haven for deserters from the U.S. army.

Mr. Hayden, once a defendant in the notorious trial of the Chicago Seven and later a California state legislator, went to Parliament Hill on Thursday to ask the federal government to give special consideration to Americans who flee military service in Iraq on grounds of conscience.

He said soldiers and reservists of today are in the same boat as Vietnam-era draftees and deserters who came to Canada to avoid service in southeast Asia.

He said the soldiers are coerced to volunteer for the army by lavish offers of cash and educational benefits.

This guy's main claim to fame was being a draft-dodger married to Jane Fonda.

The article goes on to point out that we've already turned down Jeremy Hinzman.

RightGirl definition of Islamicide: Murder committed with the backing of Jihad, in the name of Allah (peace be upon him), usually against Christians. Most often committed against Americans, Islamicide is also used against infidels of all nationalities, and even moderate Muslims.

The court martial of Sgt. Hasan Akbar is wrapping up, and the defence has rested after attempting to make a plea of stupidity (no insanity - just mental incapability). In case you hadn't heard (because it is very under-reported these days), Sgt. Akbar (Does that translate to Sgt. Wonderful? Sounds like a comic book character.) is charged in the murder of his brothers-in-arms, members of the 101st Airborne Division in 2003.

Akbar's lawyers do not dispute that he carried out the attack three days after the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but hope to spare him a possible death penalty by showing he was mentally incapable of premeditation. They called nine witnesses on Monday and Tuesday.

The first rebuttal witness was Akbar's former company commander, Capt. Darmen Place, who said he asked Akbar -- a Muslim -- if he was comfortable with combat duty in Iraq and that Akbar responded he had no problems with it.

Defense witnesses have testified that Akbar was concerned U.S. soldiers would kill Muslims and rape Iraqi women.

So obviously, murdering fellow soldiers is the best way to ensure that doesn't happen.

Dr. George Woods Jr. of Oakland, California, initially testified under defense questioning that Akbar may have suffered from forms of schizophrenia and depression at the time of the attack.

But when questioned by Army prosecutor Lt. Col. Michael Mulligan, Woods acknowledged he had ruled out a diagnosis of insanity.

Woods reluctantly said "yes" when asked if Akbar "understood the natural consequences of the act" when he threw grenades into three tents at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait. Woods attempted to explain, but Mulligan pressed simply for the yes or no answer.

Woods, who has been paid as much as $14,000 so far by the government for his work, also said Akbar understood that a hand grenade was a lethal weapon and exhibited ability to make plans, although he noted that Akbar's plans were frequently unsuccessful.

Earlier, Woods testified that Akbar had a family history of mental illness that hampered his ability to function as he got older.

An Army captain and an Air Force major were killed in the attack. Fourteen soldiers were wounded.

He's not crazy/stupid/depressed. He's yet another holy-warrior, and I hope the military uses this opportunity to make an example. We already know he's guilty, and the dealth penalty should not be taken off the table in a case like this. When soldiers go into battle together, they depend on each other for their very lives. Having a sick Islamic fundamentalist toss a grenade at you in Iraq or Kuwait is a likely scenario - it just shouldn't be a fundamentalist wearing the same uniform as you.

For the past week, I have been making my way through Byron York's Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. One of the main things I noticed straight away - and it is especially relevent in our pre-election frenzy here in Canada - is that it is a veritable "what not to do" for any election. In outlining the tactics (or antics might be a better word) or MoveOn.org, George Soros, Michael Moore et al, York makes the point that they were "preaching to the choir". Money was raised and used to make ads and movies geared towards those who had already decided to vote for Kerry. It was a giant Democratic circle jerk, with very little chance of persuading the red-staters to change their minds. Being very left coast and left brained, they were content to pat each other on the back, and think that that would be enough to win the election.

Is what we're doing in the blogosphere any different? My own site, Girl on the Right, is right-minded, and read by other right-minded individuals. Likewise The Western Standard/The Shotgun. It is by us, for us. In the end, whose minds are we changing? Are we really making any difference to the Liberally-biased political landscape in Canada? I would strongly recommend that anyone who plans to be involved in what promises to be a very mucky election campaign should pick up this book and give it at least a perfunctionary read.

For example, Michael Moore touted his Farenheit 9/11 as being the biggest movie in America, and actually believed (publicly, anyway) that it would turn the political tide in the Democrat's favor. Not only did the tides not turn, but the dollar value of his film, versus the very conservative Passion of the Christ, were truly telling. The numbers are broken down, in comparison, in the book. However, if Canada had been allowed to vote in the 2004 Presidential election, Kerry would have won. Which says something about us, as well.

I'm a little more than halfway through the book. I should have finished it by now, but I no longer read political books before going to bed. Gets me too riled up to sleep.

Cross posted to The Shotgun.

From Le Cornichon.

Today is a joyous day. Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany has just been named the new pope, and has chosen the name Pope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger is hard-line conservative, and will continue on in John Paul II's steps.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, a longtime guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy, was elected the new pope Tuesday evening in the first conclave of the new millennium. He chose the name Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger, the first German pope in centuries, served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms. He turned 78 on Saturday.

White smoke poured from a chimney at the Vatican and bells tolled on Tuesday evening, announcing to the world that a new pope was elected in the first papal conclave of the new millennium.

Crowds in St. Peter's Square chanted: "Viva il Papa!" or "Long live the pope!"

He is the 265th pope.

The new pope will have to decide whether to keep up the kind of foreign travel that was a hallmark of John Paul's papacy, with his 104 pilgrimages abroad.

The new man may be locked into one foreign trip — the mid-August Catholic youth day gathering in Cologne, Germany. John Paul had agreed to visit and organizers have already spent millions of dollars in preparations.

I don't think that will be a problem for the new German pope. Welcome.

Update: It get better. Cardinal Ratzinger has a fan site! Can't get in due to heavy traffic, though.

I don't even need to comment on this piece. I will let my readers bask in the irony of the pacifist left.

A Caltech graduate student convicted of helping to firebomb scores of sport utility vehicles was sentenced to more than eight years in federal prison and ordered to pay $3.5 million in restitution.

A federal judge Monday rejected William Jensen Cottrell's plea for leniency.

"There's no way I'd ever be involved in anything like this again," Cottrell said. "I won't ever even jaywalk again."

However, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner said Cottrell had engaged in domestic terrorism and "we're very, very lucky" that no one was killed in the arson attacks.

Cottrell, 24, was convicted in November of conspiracy to commit arson and seven counts of arson for an August 2003 vandalism spree that damaged and destroyed about 125 SUVs at dealerships and homes in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles.

Cottrell was acquitted of using a destructive device Molotov cocktails in a crime of violence. That was the most serious charge he faced and it carried a sentence of at least 30 years in prison.

At his trial, the prosecution had accused Cottrell of "arrogance" and a "towering superiority" toward people who did not share his environmental views. Cottrell had testified that SUV dealers were evil.

The judge said he felt sorry for Cottrell, a doctoral candidate in the physics department at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, but he had only himself to blame.

Oh, they hate that don't they? When they have to blame themselves, and not somebody else?

America, f**k no.

Well, he didn't exactly put it that way, but Paul Martin and the Liberals are still trying to find new and amusing ways of pissing off our superpower neighbors to the south.

He said Canada will be an equal partner with the United States in defending North America, but not at any price.

"The foreign policy I envisage is certainly part of NATO, part of the great Western alliance," he said. "But let there be no doubt: We are not going to be out there as the handmaiden of any country."

Catchy turn of phrase, but I don't think the US was under any illusion that we aare their bitch. What Martin tends to forget (especially facing an election) is that we are not equal partners. We do not have the money, the sheer numbers, the equipment or the gumption to defend North America on equal footing with the States. They are bigger and stronger than us, and equality with them is a pipe dream.

But Paul, can't you at least try to be nice to them?

On the upside, he has noticed that we're throwing away money that we don't have.

The International Policy Statement was supposed to have been ready in the fall of 2004, but Martin asked that it be re-written several times [...and only brought out in the event he needed it to defend his position as Prime Minister... - RG] to deliver on his promise to redefine Canada's role in the world by:

- Reshaping relations between Canada and the United States [As evidenced in the above "handmaiden" statement - RG].
- Improving business ties with emerging economic powerhouses such as China [commies - RG] and India.
- Targeting foreign aid at a smaller number of countries, whittling the list down to 25 from the current 155.

So the whittling of foreign aid I see as a good thing. Charity begins at home, and we can hardly pay our own bills, let alone anyone else's.

Another concern, however, is if Martin's government actually plans on delivering any of these changes.

Bruce Campbell [Apparently not of Evil Dead fame - RG], the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, was among the skeptics.

"It would be naive to think that it wasn't in some way connected to diverting attention away from the political turmoil, scandal and so forth," he said.

Poor, poor Joe Volpe. Today he unveiled a new plan to cut down on the near-impossibility of sponsoring parents and grandparents into Canada. He's got so much going against him.

First of all, it makes no economic sense. In an age when our healthcare system is near collapse, with long lines and a shortage of doctors, it hardly seems reasonable to import more weak and infirm people - especially those who are no longer functioning in the workplace. They would be using the system without ever having paid taxes into it. You can make all the humanitarian arguments you want, but the fact is, we're not able to support them.

Second of all - nobody believes Volpe. We all know that the Liberal government is bringing out every vote-grabbing ploy they've ever used, in order to postpone or win a snap election. And who better to pander to than Canada's ever-growing immigrant population? After all, the Conservatives would never make such promises to the ethnic community, would they? Well, no, not without planning to keep them, anyway.

Some were skeptical of Ottawa's intentions, given the precarious state of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal minority government.

They said Volpe was simply trying to shore up support among ethnic voters, an important part of the Liberal constituency.

"What about the last nine, 10 years? There have been too many people suffering (because) families were never reunited," said Sam Hundal, a local real estate agent.

"Now they really come out because an election is looming and they've got problems. They are actually deceiving the public."

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton was equally skeptical. "Most Liberal announcements never happen," he said.

And thirdly, the immigrants are beginning to turn against the Liberals, anyway, thanks to their zealous quest to destroy marriage as we know it.

However, Ottawa has yet to address far more serious issues in the country's immigration policy, such as ensuring skilled immigrants can find appropriate work once they get here, Reitz added.

"The trend over time is toward an increasing problem of unemployment and higher poverty rates for newly arriving immigrants," he said.

During the announcement, a handful of Sikhs protested against same-sex marriage. Volpe dismissed them as a Conservative plant.

And you, Mr. Volpe, I dismiss as a Liberal fruitcake.

Cross-posted to The Shotgun.

Paul Stanway at the Edmonton Sun has an excellent column in today's paper, where he admonishes Canadians as being lazy voters:

We've reached the point where Canadians really must stop hiding behind the excuse of battered voter syndrome. We are not innocent bystanders. We are a part of this process, and if a substantial majority of Canadian voters once again buys the Liberal excuses and obfuscation, our democracy will be in peril.

And points out that there probably isn't a "hidden Tory agenda". Personally, I think anyone who really belives in such things also belives that the moon landing was staged.

The traditional argument that the Grits are the only party that can maintain Canadian unity, to which has lately been grafted the Chretien-Martin knee-jerk that any conservative alternative (Reform, Alliance, Conservative) involves a "hidden agenda" to destroy the social programs that have allegedly come to define us as a nation.

Let's take the last one first. What triggered the prime minister's outburst in the Commons was the release of a report titled A Canada Strong and Free, published by two notable think-tanks - the Montreal Economic Institute and Vancouver's Fraser Institute. Authored by former Ontario premier Mike Harris and former Reform leader Preston Manning, it's a thoughtful attempt to draw a conservative agenda for the 21st century. (You can read a summary at www.fraserinstitute.ca.)

But it's not the agenda the PM would have you believe. On the subject of health care, Martin called it a prescription to "privatize medicare," but here's what Harris actually said: "The objective is to ensure that Canadians will continue to be fully insured against catastrophic illness and to have universal access to all medically necessary services, regardless of ability to pay, while gaining faster access to better care at lower cost."

Does that sound like the destruction of medicare? The report had nothing to do with Stephen Harper and is not Conservative policy, but we've reached the point where even a discussion of "faster access and better care" is a scary "hidden agenda" of conservatives bent on refusing granny a hip replacement.

And if you accept the Liberal claim to be the only party capable of ensuring national unity, presumably you can explain away the growing popularity of Quebec nationalism since the 1970s and the presence in Ottawa of a separatist party with a majority of Quebec seats? The polls suggest the Bloc will take even more seats in the next election, as a direct result of Adscam - the Liberals' ham-fisted and repugnant effort to hose down separatist fervour in the wake of the last Quebec referendum.

So why is it that so many Canadians still buy into the argument that the Liberals are the only party that understands Quebec, and the only party capable of keeping Quebec within Canada? Blind faith? Timidity? Stupidity? Ignorance?

Yup, that about covers it. Let's think about unity for a second. Is that what Martin is really going to base his platform on? Again? Haven't the Liberals already spent enough of our hard-earned cash on unity? Not to mention that all this unity talk oppresses (yes, I used that popular left-wing word) the right of Quebec to seperate, if they so desire. I'm fine with us trying to talk it out, but we've been victims of extortion at the hands of Quebec and the Liberals (in the name of Quebec) for far too long. Besides, they only really try to seperate when we have a Liberal government in charge. Coincidence? No. A Conservative government puts more power in the hands of the individual provinces, which is all Quebec really wants anyway.

Unity is not a platform.

"We are not America" is not a platform.

Conservative "hidden agenda's" do not exists, and are therefore not a platform.

Mr. Martin, stop talking about all the others, and start talking about us. The people of Canada are the platform.

The Globe & Mail today cites a human rights report condemning countries like Canada and the United States for deporting terror suspects back to countries where there is a high probability of torture.

The report specifically cites Canada and its security-certificate procedure, in which suspects can be tried using secret evidence and deported to countries where torture is believed to be common, as long as that country vows not to abuse that particular person.

"Governments in states where torture is a serious human rights problem almost always deny such abusive practices," Ms. Hall says in the report, titled Still at Risk.

"It defies common sense to presume that a government that routinely flouts its obligations under international law can be trusted to respect those obligations in an isolated case."

Human Rights Watch is one of several organizations worried that the global ban on torture is being eroded by legal manoeuvring and public complacency.

Personally, I'm not losing any sleep at night over the idea that someone who is a threat to my country and my safety might be tortured once he is deported back to whatever hole he came out of. While here in Canada we have humane (to the point of soft) prisons and punishments, we are under no obligation to host foreign criminals who are trying to hurt us. Many of these people come to Canada and America with the sole purpose of promoting or engaging in terrorist activity. Sometimes they come with a visa. Sometimes it is under the guise of refugee. Canada has a very open-door policy, but (despite recent opinion) we're not completely stupid. If you spit in the eye of your host, he's going to throw you out on your ass. If that means you end up back in a country where you will be tortured or killed (most likely for getting caught, and thereby failing in your terrorist mission), well that's your problem. You should have thought of that before.

"If these suspects are criminals, they should be prosecuted, and if they're not, they should be released," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of the organization. "But shipping them off to countries where they'll be tortured is not an acceptable solution."

To me, that is a more than acceptable solution. I agree that if they are not criminals, they should be set free. So if we have enough evidence to say that they are linked to terrorist organizations, but perhaps not enough to prosecute, we set them free. In their own countries. Why should the Canadian taxpayer foot the bill for the trial, anyway? North America should not have to be the purse of the entire uncivilized world. Send them back if they are a threat.

Every week or so, I wander by Monte Solberg's blog, just to see if he's updated. The MPs often have a hard time keeping their sites up to date, seeing as they obviously have other things to do. Monte did a great post on April 10th. Read the whole thing, but here's the part that caught me.

Lately in the news we see what a difference it makes to our own outcomes and the impact on others depending on whether we build our lives on those eternal first things.Pope John Paul II lived a life of sacrifice, courage, charity and holiness. That is why he was able to help end the Soviet Union, build bridges to other faiths and, as his health deteriorated, help the world see age and illness through a new lens. The lens of dignity.The other big headlines were about what happens when we focus on just ourselves. They were about Sponsorship. Sponsorship is what happens when we sneer at young idealists, and especially old idealists like Pope John Paul.

God knows how poor I am at heeding my own advice. He knows how chastened I am by my own 4 a.m. reflections, but I still have the gall to ask, who would you rather be like: Jean or John? Clearly it's better to attempt to be John and to fall miserably short then to attempt to be Jean and be wildly successful.

Sponsorship is shaking us by our lapels, but will we snap out of our reverie? Do we have enough self respect to say that we will wipe out corruption and to punish all those who participated directly or by failing to blow the whistle?

I guess it depends on who you are doing this for.

I love him, and he's the very best housekeeper I ever could have wished for, but as a secretary he leaves a lot to be desired. Someone from Stephen Harper's office called me today. Would you like to know why? Yeah, me too.

So now I've laid out, in finite detail, who should be given my work number in the event that they should call:

• Stephen Harper or any member of his staff
  
• George - either Bush or Strumboulopoulous (still waiting to hear back from him regarding an interview)
  
• Anyone claiming to be my long-lost sister - I have a sick curiosity that would like to be satisfied
  

I don't think this is a difficult list to keep track of. And hey, if they don't want to call me at work, get their number! How about that??

So no, I don't know why Stephen Harper's office called me today, but I sure do hope they "call back after 7 tonight", as they have been instructed to do by my ex-secretary!

Sorry for the crappy title.

Good news out of New York - it seems there is some sense in their hard little heads, after all.

April 13, 2005 - ALBANY - A majority of New Yorkers want former Mayor Rudy Giuliani to run for president - and the same number think Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should skip the contest, a new poll yesterday showed.

The Marist College survey found 51 percent of New York voters - including 40 percent of Democrats - saying Republican Giuliani should run for president in 2008.

But only 44 percent of voters - and just 24 percent of Republicans - want the former first lady to make the race - while 51 percent said she should stay out.

I couldn't agree more. Giuliani, hero of 9/11, is loved by most of New York City (except the criminals and the corrupt unions). New York State, as a whole, seems to think Hillary can better serve in her current role, and would continue to vote for her as senator.

However, all the love seems to be for Rudy.

While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2006 re-election chances look good - unless Rudolph Giuliani challenges her..

Basically, it boils down to Hillary can have whatever job Rudy doesn't want. Heh.

Not that this should come as a surprise, but Iran has decided to turn down the request made in our strongly worded letter, asking that an independent autopsy be done on the remains of Zahra Kazemi. Basically, they told us to get lost and quit perstering them.

"Such a demand does not conform with Iranian laws or international regulations," the spokesman for Iran's judges, Jamal Karimirad, told reporters Tuesday.

"Kazemi was an Iranian citizen. Although she also had Canadian nationality, under Iran's laws, an additional citizenship doesn't negate her Iranian nationality. Therefore, Iran's judiciary is competent to carry out the investigation," Karimirad said.

Nice to know somebody is competent. Too bad it isn't our Foreign Affairs Minister. I'm sure he'll send the Iranian authorities another strongly worded balloon-a-gram, once again politely (but strongly) requesting the remains of Ms. Kazemi. And if that fails (surely it won't!), well, then they're breaking up!

Friend? Since when have I been friends with the likes of you? I have enough thieves and shady men in my past without having you hanging around, Paul.

In recent days, testimony at the Gomery Commission has captured a great deal of public attention.[No matter how hard we tried to keep it out of the papers. At least the CBC hardly mentions it. Good guys, those bosses at the CBC. They'll go far.] It has also given rise to allegations about the Liberal Party itself and, by extension, all of us who are members. I felt it was important to write you on this subject and share my perspective and my pride in all of you as Liberals and activists.

As Leader and Prime Minister, I want party members everywhere to remember that it was this Liberal government that established the Gomery Commission [So that we could decide who was running it. It wouldn't have worked to my advantage if we had a conservative judge throw me in jail.] – precisely in order to see that anyone who might have used the Liberal name to profit from national unity would be identified and punished. Similarly, if there are those who abused our party’s trust by using their position or their association with it, they have done a terrible disservice to the people of Canada and the members of our Party [As have I, but I'll never admit it!!!].

Like all Liberals and all Canadians, I'm offended by what I've heard in recent testimony. If even part of it turns out to be true, it is abhorrent to us all. [The very thought that I might not win another election actually makes me sweat.]

Public life is the highest service to which one can commit and the Liberal Party must embody the highest of ethical standards. This is my determined view, just as I know it is yours. To those who have watched recent testimony, I say simply this is not the way politics should be done. Most certainly, this is not the way we do politics in the Liberal Party. [Except for the former Prime Minister, various henchmen, and the ex-minister of finance, but hopefully you'll never find out about that. In fact, I left a fat envelope on Justice Gomery's dining table, and then went to the loo, and when I came back, the envelope was gone. So chances are, you won't find out about my involvement.]

Canadians are looking for someone to step forward and to be accountable for cleaning up this mess and as Prime Minister and Liberal Leader, I accept that responsibility. [As long as that's all I have to accept responsibility for.]

In fact, as my first act in office, on December 12th, 2003, I cancelled the sponsorship program. I made sure that those implicated were removed from their positions as crown corporation executives. The Government has also filed a lawsuit against 19 defendants, including several communications companies and their directors, to recover $41 million. And of course, it was this Liberal government that appointed Justice Gomery. With his conclusions in hand, I will act swiftly and surely to ensure those who did wrong face the full consequence of their actions. [Especially Chretien. But not me. Never me.]

As Liberals, these challenging times will also give us an ideal opportunity to show Canadians our true values and ethics [We're commies.]. It is the Liberal Party that believes in the good that government can do [And the more government, the better.], that has stood at every important moment in our nation's history to fight for a united country and that has delivered to Canadians the strongest economy and best quality of life anywhere in the world [Take our healthcare system, for example.].

It is these values, expressed through the policies we pursue that tell the true story of what the Liberal Party stands [More for me!] for and what it will fight for in the future. Together we have made great strides to strengthen public health care by finding ways to lower the times that Canadians have to wait for heart surgeries and cancer treatments [They'll still die, but they'll have hope, right up to the last breath.]. We have taken steps to revitalize Canada’s cities and communities [Except Toronto, which pays more taxes than all the other cities combined. That tax money is going into my pocket. To preserve the country.], and to preserve our natural environment [Except I had to cut back on Kyoto, or the eeeevil Conservatives would have brought down my empire. Um, I mean my democratic government. Your government.]. We are working to build a child care system on which Canadians can depend.

In other words, this Liberal government is keeping its promises to Canadian taxpayers [We told you we would cost you millions, and by golly, that's what we've delivered!]. While the Gomery inquiry finishes its job, we must continue to do ours. Most important of all, we must be proud of who we are, the good we’ve done and the good we will continue to do in the future. That is why I am - like you - so proud to be a Liberal [After all, somebody has to be.].

[In]Sincerely,

Prime Minister Paul [Dithers] Martin

The Toronto Star requested feedback from its readers over the weekend, asking them how they felt about the sponsorship scandal. Here's a brief tasting of some of the asinine comments that were sent in.

I've read the responses from other readers and they seem to miss the point. They want the government brought down. What is the sense? The next bunch will be no better.
Jack Larkin, Stayner, April 10

I think everyone must remember that no sitting federal MP has been implicated in the sponsorship scandal. It concerns civil servants, election workers and advertising agency executives. Calling Paul Martin, his cabinet or any other MP belonging to the NDP, Tories or Bloc Quebecois "corrupt" is not fair. [No faaaaaair!! - RG]
Joe Smith, Toronto, April 9

I do feel this was a terrible mistake on the part of Jean Chretien and Canadians should be reimbursed by the companies involved and the federal Liberal Party, but to paint all Liberals in the same light would be a grave mistake.
Judy Carter, Fort Frances, Ont., April 9

It was the Chretien Liberals, not the Martin Liberals who made this mess so we should be thankful Chretien and his gang are gone. Martin should be applauded for setting up the inquiry rather than shuffling it under the rug. [You're a fine upstanding individual, Mr ex-Finance Minister. - RG]
Miles Lunn, Burnaby, B.C., April 8

And the saddest one of all...

It's sad to say, but I will reluctantly accept a bit of corruption in my government if it keeps a man like Stephen Harper out of office.
Ted Parker, Toronto, April 8

What is wrong with these people? How can they still feel such loyalty to a party that has robbed them blind, cheated them out of millions, and laughed in their faces when confronted. If we are judged by the company we keep, these people are theives and morons by proxy.

Oh, and I just couldn't restrain myself from posting this last one:

I think that there is a serious overreaction to this scandal. Yes, millions of dollars were handed out untendered and yes, there is mounting evidence of corruption, but it is clear that this country has more pressing issues to deal with than whether the opposition is going to force an election. Cleaner air, better cities, better post-secondary education - that's what we should be talking about right now.
Sharif Mahdy, London, April 8

Oy.

Public Works Minister Scott Brison defended Sunday the scandal-ridden Liberal sponsorship program as Canada's war effort against Quebec separatists, dismissing those who used it for personal or political financial gain as a "few war profiteers" who should be severely punished.

"There were profiteers in Canada's war effort," he said on CTV's Question Period. "That doesn't mean the war effort of Canadians was bad.

They call it war - I call it good money after bad. War? That's rich. Like the war on drugs? The war on terror, even? We were fighting a province with a bunch of people who don't want to be here, and who are costing us a fortune by staying within the country (not counting the Adscam money). Wouldn't it be better all around if we just let them go? Okay, maybe not an option, given that they own most of the hydroelectricity on the eastern seabord, but were billboards and concerts really going to save our country? That's hardly what I'd call a war. More like a carnival gone very, very wrong.

Brison also promised that if the Liberal party "inappropriately" received any funds from the program, as has been alleged in testimony to the Gomery inquiry, the money will be repaid to Canadians and those involved will be punished.

Let me break that one down into a couple of key points. It will be tough to prove that the Liberals received any money, seeing as they did everything in cash, like a bunch of cheap prohibition-era gangsters. So he's making promises the Liberals likely won't have to keep. It's a nice political bluff that makes them look honorable. And as for punishing those involved... how high are they willing to go? It seems that the current government would be more than happy to make Jean Chretien the scapegoat, but are they willing to risk their current leader, the ex-Finance Minister?

Well, they may not have to bother.

Canada's minority Liberal government is heading for defeat at the hands of the Conservatives after more than 11 years in power, according to a new poll released on Monday.

The EKOS poll, taken after revelations last week of kickbacks to the Liberal Party, showed support for the Conservatives at 36.2 percent, compared with 25 percent for the Liberals -- their lowest showing since taking office in 1993.

The Toronto Star, which commissioned the poll, said this suggested a late June election. The Liberals lost their majority in Parliament in the last election, in June 2004. [I am inclined to trust this poll, if for no other reason than Torstar is generally in support of the Liberal government, and I commend them for reporting news that they really didn't want to hear in the first place - RG]

The newspaper, which commissioned the survey, quoted EKOS pollster Frank Graves as describing "a breathtaking shift in what had been a stagnant and listless political landscape."

Breathtaking. According to some of the reports I read this morning on my way to work, the Liberals have lost the confidence of the Ontario voters, which has always been their sure-fire powerhouse. If they lose Ontario, the lose the "war". We may not have to prove that money went astray. All we have to do is keep the thought in mind as we're walking to the ballot box. And we could be walking there as early as June or July.

Cross Posted to The Shotgun.

I have been lucky enough to have been invited to expand my blogging over to The Shotgun, which I will begin doing this week. Of course, I feel like I'm on the spot now, and I'm sure my blogging will be crap from now on...

Anyway, my thanks to the gang at The Shotgun for giving me the chance.

I've noticed that over the past three days, 30% of the searches that have led to this blog have been from people searching out "Karla Homolka Blogs". I don't know who you people are, are what titillating filth you're hoping to find, but whatever it is you won't find it here.

From Metro Toronto this morning:

Bookmakers are offering 1,000 to 1 odds on Father Dougal McGuire of Craggy Island being the next pope.

Metro's credit goes to Reuters.

The top aide to Heritage Minister Liza Frulla has stepped down - at least temporarily - after he was named in explosive testimony at the federal sponsorship inquiry.

John Welch, who took over as Frulla's chief of staff in January, was the subject of allegations by Montreal ad executive Jean Brault.

In previously banned evidence that was released Thursday, Brault claimed he was pressured by Liberal party officials in 1996 to put Welch on the payroll at his company, Groupaction Mareketing.

Brault said he did so, and paid Welch a salary of $80,000 a year, despite the fact that his real job was to organize for the Liberals in Quebec.

''He came to the office, he was very active on the telephone and we were made to understand that he did work of one nature or another for the party,'' Brault told the inquiry headed by Justice John Gomery.

Keep 'em coming. Let's see them all fall. Wheee!

Dammit. Huge news coming out of Ottawa and Montreal, and I just got a million and one things to do at work this afternoon. So tell you what, go read Angry. He's got all the juicy details.

RG

I can actually picture a five year old girl with ringlets, and her fingers stuck in her ears, while her harried mother insists that it's bath time.

Apparently, despite the feverish linking and higher-than-ever-expected web traffic, no one is listening. This is getting more press in the US than in Canada. Some say it's because only a portion of us Canadians are "wired", and not all the wired ones read blogs. Is that really the case? Millions of Canadians work in offices, sitting in front of our computers all day. We know how to use them. If there were a sale on airline tickets, you'd be amazed how quickly navigation could be learned! But apparently, the thieving government isn't nearly as important.

Most Canadians just aren't interested. I can scream till I'm blue in the face, as can many of my fellow bloggers, but no one will go looking for the news if they don't want to find it. A few weeks back I wrote about a friend of mine who is a liberal, a journalist, and an avid detractor of Fox news. I tried to bring the subject of Mr. Brault's testimony up to her the other night on the phone, and she didn't want to know. "I haven't read the blogs. I'm not interested." Not interested. I get this from her over a lot of important issues, including the Iraq elections, the capture of Saddam, and the spate of beheadings that took place last summer. Not interested. She's a fucking journalist!!!! She's supposed to be interested. But like so many others, she has her fingers in her ears, and she is refusing to hear the bad news. She's an ostrich.

How many ostriches do you know personally? Look around your dinner table. Look at your coworkers and the guy you play golf with on Sundays. These are the ones that have been voting Liberal since they turned 18 and their parents told them to, and will do so until they die. Because it's easier than facing up to their mistakes.

So what can we do? Blog, I suppose. Letters to the Editor? Maybe. Leaflets and flyers - hey, why not? They're the domain of lefties anyway, so maybe they'll actually read them. The people don't want to hear what's happening, but we've got to find a way to make them listen. Preferably without being as obnoxious as they are when they're trying to make a point. Any suggestions?

Speaking in Geneva, Mr Annan said the [human rights] commission was undermining the credibility of the entire UN.

We have reached a point at which the commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system," Mr Annan said as he addressed the commission's annual six-week session at its Swiss headquarters.

This is even funnier than the Liberals painting themselves as victims.

He said the council must be more accountable and more representative.

The commission was launched in 1946 to uphold human rights worldwide, and has 53 members.

Libya chaired the commission in 2003, despite opposition from the US and human rights groups.

Really, it's like a sitcom being played on the world stage. With lives. Human rights groups campaining against the human rights commission, which is made up of countries like Sudan. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

Captain Ed has a post this morning regarding yesterday's Toronto Sun article. Like I said yesterday, you never know with the Sun.

First, after I posted about the Toronto Sun's allegations yesterday about Parti Quebecois receiving Sponsorship Program monies through Groupaction, several people e-mailed and commented that PQ vigorously denied the allegations and that the Sun had reported factually incorrect data. Specifically, the contract to which the Sun tied the illegal payments expired in 1998. However, Greg Weston's column in today's Sun makes the chronology clear :

As we reported yesterday, Alain Renaud, a senior executive who worked for the ad firm Groupaction during the Adscam years, claims that while the company was getting $43 million in sponsorship funds, it was slipping thousands of dollars to the PQ.
In one deal, Renaud says, Groupaction paid about $90,000 to the PQ in return for a $4.5-million advertising contract with the Quebec liquor board, the SAQ.

The PQ, of course, went berserk over the story, denying it with separatist vigour. Groupaction had actually lost the bid for the liquor board contract in late 1998, the party insisted. Too bad Renaud was talking about Groupaction's contract from 1996-97.


It does indeed appear that money spent on convincing the Quebecois not to secede from Canada went into the pockets of the very separatists it was meant to oppose. This led to a particularly uncomfortable exchange between Conservative leader Stephen Harper and Liberal PM Paul Martin during yesterday's Question Period:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper made the perfectly sensible point that since "hundreds of thousands of tax dollars may have been funnelled through the Liberal sponsorship program to the Parti Quebecois, I guess the Keystone Crooks stole the money and gave it to the wrong people."
Harper asked, could the PM "guarantee Canadian taxpayers that not one red cent of their money went to the separatist cause in Quebec in the name of national unity?"

Martin, of course, could give no such guarantee.

Well, how could he, really? If he gave a guarantee that money he was laundering did not slip through the cracks and wind up in the hands of the Parti Quebecois, then he would have to actually admit to laundering the money in the first place. Heh.

Ed also advises that he may have further updates later this evening from his source, although he hopes we won't need it. With any luck, the ban will be lifted today.

A harsh indictment indeed.

Canada's death row

Nationalized (government-run) health care has been the goal of many for decades. And Canada's system, some say, is a good model.
Yikes.

"Universal health care," the spoonful of sugar that's supposed to make nationalized medicine go down better, increases demand. Which begets shortages. Which beget rationing. Which begets waiting. So long have the delays grown for some services that Health Canada had to form the "Wait Time Alliance."

"Emergency" heart-bypass surgery should be done within two days. Not "urgent"? You'll have to wait anywhere from 42 to 182 days.
This isn't medical care; this is death row. And it's an expensive one at that: Canadians are paying $5.5 billion just to figure out how to reduce waiting.

Obviously, nationalized health care is an idea whose time hasn't come.

I wonder if Hillary will take the hint. Perhaps she ought to come up here and stand in line the next time she gets sick.

"If the prime minister is so eager to ask questions, he'll have that chance soon when he finds himself in the opposition."

Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois, to Prime Minister Paul Martin.

It's interesting to see the way our scandal is playing out here in Canada, especially since Captain Ed helped us by breaking the news of what's been going on under our oblivious noses for all these years. Jugde Gomery placed a publication ban on testimony that incriminates not only Brault et al, but our entire Liberal government, from the bottom up. Funny, when you think how much of Martin's last campaign was based on clarity of government. So Ed circumvents the ban, and a whole mightly lot of us here in Canada out-and-out break it. We're laughing all the way to our prison cells, because Gomery and the Liberals are being likened to Stalinists for trying to supress this information.

But publication bans are nothing new. For decades we've sheilded anyone under the age of 18 (unless it was going to adult court), be they victim or accused. Few of us take issue with that. No one knows the name of the kid accusing Michael Jackson, or the one that accused him 12 years ago, either. We nod our heads and accept that, because they were just kids. The records from the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case have been pretty much sealed, especially the videos that show the brutal sex killings of Kristin French and Leslie Mahaffy (not to mention the murder to Homolka's own younger sister, Tammy). That's as it should be. We don't need to have these snuff films getting into the wrong hands. It's not porn - it's three young girls who were murdered.

So why is this ban so different? Why does this one have us so angry we're willing to break the law? Well, because it's our government. We (not me, mind) elected these people based on our trust in them, and they have shown themselves to be swindlers and money launderers. Gomery might have put the ban in place to protect Brault, Guite and Coffin in their upcoming criminal trials, but Canadians have a right to know - in real time - what their politicians have been up to. This isn't about Brault's role so much as what he can tell us about the Liberal party. We have a situation right now where the Conservatives are holding back on a no confidence vote, because technically they're not supposed to know what the Liberal's have been doing. So it will drag out until after the ban is lifted, which could be as early as today. It will drag out, and Paul Martin (may I remind you once again that he was the former Finance Minister) and his band of merry theives will carry on collecting taxes from you and I, being paid their salaries out of our pockets, and they will not face the wrath of the voting public.

Because we're not supposed to know.

Bans are to protect the innocent, or those considered of an innocent age. They should not be put in place to sheild the guilty from justice.

From Conservative in Canada

Conservative Rally in Toronto RE: Gomery

Since I love free speech and freedom of the press, and those are values that are supposedly held high in Canada, I have made a decision. Because of being kept in the dark regarding Gomery, I have decided to organize somewhat of a rally/protest in Toronto.

At Union Station, or in that area, on April 9, 2005 we will have a meeting for the public. Bring any information that you may have "acquired" with you to hand out and spout off.

If you are interested contact me, I will get you more information.

Say no to Big Brother and help get the information out.

Thank You!

[Edit: The date for this bad boy has been changed due to the March 4 Marriage which is on the same day, the new date is the following Saturday, April 16th, 2005. Sorry about that.]

It seems I won't be able to make the March 4 Marriage, since I couldn't find someone to hitch a ride from, but I can definitely make it to Union Station.

A UK site has picked up on the publication ban scandal created by Captain Ed (oops, did I just say Captain Ed? I meant Mr. Ed... please don't arrest me!)

The lid has been kept more or less on the scandal until a US bloke, who lives close to the border, started reporting it on his website. Edward Morrissey, or Captain Ed, who describes himself as a libertarian, has a mole in the Montreal courtroom where the hearings are taking place. He also has the advantage of being in the US, where the ban does not apply.

Since the ban does not apply to the UK either, we can tell our Canadian readers that Captain Ed's blog makes for juicy reading. It seems that Jean Brault told the Commission that there was a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal Party and government.

Angry (who always seems to find the best sources first, due to the awesome job he has where he gets paid to read newspapers and blogs all day long - I'm so jealous) has posted regarding a Toronto Sun article that is damaging not only to our beleaguered Liberal Party, but which also may bring the Bloc Quebecois to its knees. As a rule, I'm not partial to the Sun (in any city), as it tends to be a scandal rag, but I want to see how this one plays out, and if any more reliable sources pick it up.

A MONTREAL advertising firm that received more than $40 million in AdScam sponsorship contracts paid huge kickbacks to both the federal Liberal party and the Quebec separatists, senior executives of the company have told Sun Media. "I remember seeing the cheques," one former Groupaction executive said of payments to the federal Liberal party in Quebec.

The $250 million in sponsorships that the previous Liberal government pumped into Quebec was supposed to help fight the separatists after the near-miss referendum in 1995.

But another former Groupaction executive, Alain Renaud, said that while the firm was getting millions of dollars in federal sponsorship money, it was secretly cutting cheques to the separatist Parti Quebecois.

Renaud said that in one transaction, a total of about $90,000 was given to the PQ as part of Groupaction's getting a $4.5-million advertising contract for the Quebec liquor board, called the SAQ.

Everyone was in on it! So if the Gomery inquiry brings the Liberals and the Bloc down, who does that leave as a viable option? The NDP may take some of Quebec in the event of a snap election, since they are a socialist party, and that's the way Quebec likes their politics. But it could be an even split for all the major parties, which means no real leader for that province.

Once Ontario finally accepts the fact that not only were their precious Liberals lying and stealing, but that the Lib cohorts (Groupaction et al) were in bed with the Bloc, that might mean a more even split in Ontario as well. Throw in the prairies, and we have a Conservative victory.

Too simple? Probably, but a girl can dream, can't she?

Sunday night I wrote about the Junos, and described them as

Right Girl definition of Juno Awards: Let's have a celebration of how much tax money is spent trying to promote Canadian "artists" and their "music". This will cost even more tax money. Yay! A two-for-one!

Well, Rick McGinnis of the Toronto Metro wrote virtually the same thing.

THE MINISTRY OF MUSIC: It was with a heavy heart that I realized I was going to be sentenced to watching the whole of the Junos on Sunday night, sitting as I do near the only free newsroom TV. But nothing - not congenital pessimism, nor a decade and a half as a music critic - prepared me for the spectacle of some babbling Ottawa kulturkrat onstage with Cape Breton songwriter Gordie Sampson, as they jawed amiably about someone obtaining a "five-year funding commitment." When, I wondered, did the Canadian music industry start to resemble the scrum after a cabinet meeting?

Five year funding commitment. And just where do you think that money is coming from? The tooth fairy? No. It comes from you and me.

Am I the only one who's depressed to hear a Canadian rock band demand the country shoulder the burden of hosting an ineffectual, corrupt organization that, alas, has come to represent squandered ideals more than anything else - much like Canadian music.

No, Mr. McGinnis, you're not the only one.

I can't figure out why the G&M put the word murder in quotation marks. Is it journalistic prudence, or do they honestly not believe she was "murdered"?

The toughly worded announcement [Toughly worded! Oh, my! Did we actually offend somebody? - RG], which called the Montreal woman's death a murder, came as Iranian President Mohammed Khatami was scheduled to attend a UN conference in Paris.

Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to announce the move Tuesday in the House of Commons, where he has come under considerable fire over the Kazemi case.

The Liberal government has been hammered for failing to recall its ambassador to Iran even after allegations of unspeakable torture were made last week by Kazemi's exiled Iranian doctor, Shahram Azam.

"We need an independent autopsy which will help determine precisely what happened during her custody," said Sebastien Theberge, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

"Dr. Azam's story reinforces our belief that this was a murder, but the Iranian government will not listen to reasonable demands.

"Now the ball is in Iran's court."

So once again our strong, macho government is leaving it to someone else to decide. Someone else who has proven themselves to be dishonest and dangerous, not just to Canada, but to the world. Why is the ball in Iran's court? That's not much of a demand, is it? More of a request, really. Please, let us have her body back. Pretty please?

Mr. Pettigrew, if you want that body, go and get it. I double-dog-dare you.

Pussy.

Canada was hoping to take its plea directly to Mr. Khatami, the reform-minded President of the Islamic republic who was in Paris on Tuesday.

He was to speak to hundreds of foreign dignitaries at a conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Canada seemed intent on using its message and its envoy to UNESCO - Yvon Charbonneau - to put pressure on Iran.

Ahhh, now I see. Not only are we depending on Iran to be honest (when they've already dropped the charges and ruled her death an "accident"), but we're counting on the UN to help us with our strongly worded whinge. Yup. That sounds like Canada.

What do I gotta do to make you care? Elton John sang those lyrics in 1976, in Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word.

Elton, nothing is going to make Canadians care that they keep electing a phoney, corrupt government.

From Toronto Free Press:

Adscam is a big deal for the politicians and the media. Unfortunately, it seems that corruption in government has crossed over the line and it is no longer regarded as simply an event. From the reaction, or lack of it, from most of the Canadian public, government corruption now seems to be a way of life, much as it is in Nigeria or India.

Nice comparison. Are these places we really want to be lumped in with? Nigeria?? They stone women in Nigeria! Here, they stonewall conservatives.

Should an election be called now, Paul Martin will do what he did during the last election campaign. He will demonize the Conservative Party of Canada by telling Canadians that a Conservative government will end health care as we know it and women who even think about having an abortion will be jailed or worse. Martin will tell Eastern Canadians that a Stephen Harper-led government will bring an end to the equalization benefits that the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador now enjoy. Unfortunately not much has changed since June 2004. Conservative leader Stephen Harper didn't have the ability or the inclination to challenge the prime minister then and likely won't be able to do so now.

The only effect that Adscam will have on the next election will be a possible shutout for the Liberals in Quebec. Martin will merely step up his rhetoric and convince the rest of Canada that they will be doomed, simply doomed, if they elect a Conservative government. It will work in the east and it will work in Ontario. The likely effect will be another minority government.

The only reason the Liberals continue to win elections is because as a group, we are too bloody lazy to demand change. A few very vocal people can call for all the elections they want, but if the voter really can't be bothered to look over party information and demand answers and solutions to what means most to them, we will continue to have these corrupt bastards in power.

What is it going to take to make the average Canadian stand up and demand better from their government? What are we afraid of? That the Conservatives will draw us too close to the eeeevil Americans? That welfare payments will be more strictly controlled? That we won't have so many special interest groups? That our taxes will be lower? That's it, isn't it? You're afraid that if you're not paying as much in tax, you must not be getting as good a service. After all, your parents taught you that you get what you pay for. Well, congratulations Canada - you've renewed your subscription to a vacuum for your tax dollars; people who will lie and steal and line the party pockets. All sales are final. You got what you paid for.

Captain Ed has more of the contraband testimony from Friday over at Captain's Quarters.

What the hell - I'll lay it on the line for a few lines (will you visit me in prison??).

Brault testified to other links to people identified with the Martin regime. Among the people Brault put on his payroll (while in fact working for the Liberals) were Georges Farrah - who later served as a Parliamentary Secretary under Paul Martin - and John Welch - who is now Chief of Staff to Martin's current Heritage Minister, Liza Frulla. (He was urged to hire Welch by Denis Paradis, a Liberal MP who also served as one of Martin's Parliamentary Secretary.)

I'm so going to the big house for this.

I think Mr. Justice John Gomery is missing the point of the whole inquiry.

Judge Gomery also allowed the Liberals extra funding to have their lawyer at the hearing full time.

I thought the point of this inquiry was to show that the Liberals already have more than enough money to fling around. Our money. Laundered to a squeaky cleanness.

According to the Shotgun, CTV will be our backup and fall guy if there's any heat over posting the details and links regarding the Gomery inquiry. A lot of bloggers have been pulling the link to Captain's Quarters, and many (myself included) have linked but not quoted.

CTV provided the information tonight to their viewers, naming the blog and displaying the page - a move that would have been cleared by their lawyers before hand. Questions about the validity of the information were also cleared up by CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief, Robert Fife - whose comments suggest that the content is probably pretty accurate.

That's reassuring.

I'm trying to watch a simple, entertaining episode of Desperate Housewives, and it's being plagued by red carpet moments from the Junos.

Right Girl definition of Juno Awards: Let's have a celebration of how much tax money is spent trying to promote Canadian "artists" and their "music". This will cost even more tax money. Yay! A two-for-one!

Anyway, am I the only one who has noticed that Canadian musicians are ugly? I mean really, really ugly. Bad hair, bad clothes - no one told them that the Seattle scene is so over. Even Bob Dylan is a sex bomb compared to what's coming out of Canada these days. Maybe a special award should be given to the band/artist who makes the most effort to clean themselves up before the show.

And Aboriginal Recording of the Year? Can I get a brakedown of what this is costing me, please?

Anyway, lest you think I'm making up the ugly conspiracy thing, check out my evidence, below.


Fiest (whoever she is)


Garret Mason (again, I ask - WHO??)


The Tragically Hip (Tragic. Really)


Measha Bruegger (otherwise known as Ursula the Sea Witch)


Sum 41


Wildlife (They look like wildlife, don't they? PETA would love them.)

The BBC is showing its age. Apparently, in endevouring to be cool, they have requested an interview with Bob Marley in celebration of his 60th birthday. Which is nice of them, except he's been dead for 24 years.

And before you ask...

A BBC press officer, contacted by AFP in London on Friday, confirmed that the gaffe was not an April Fool's joke.

Rock on, BBC!

Thanks to Angry in the Great White North, I came accross this link to a US blog which is not restricted under the publication ban regarding the Gomery Inquiry.

I will not post quotes from his story, as I am based in Canada, and should therefore honor the terms of the ban, but may I just say YIKES! Go read it for yourself at Captain's Quarters.

I stood vigil at the altar of CNN all day. When the news came that Pope John Paul II had died, I went to church and prayed. So long away from the Catholic Church, I still knew the words. The church was nearly empty, except for a portrait of the Pope on the altar, and three other women, crying like me. Slowly the building began to fill, as women with tissues and men with sombre expressions trickled in, all praying for the soul of John Paul II - not that he needed it.

When there were enough people in the church, the priest turned up the lights, called in an impromptu staff, and held a mass.

Mr. Right didn't come with me, as he is not Catholic, and didn't feel up to the thought of sitting through a mass. So I sat alone - yet not alone. We were all there for the same reason. The priest gave us communion, and as I made my way out of the church after the mass, I felt better. I realized that although John Paul II was the only Pope I had known throughout my life, that today a child would be born that would know no other than the one elected in the next three weeks. The beat goes on. The Catholic Church doesn't guage time in terms of months or even dacades, but in terms of centuries. Twenty-six years is a drop in the bucket, and I should just be thankful that he was my Pope, at least at first.

The Canadian Cancer Society is selling daffodils again. As an orphan of cancer, I bought a bundle ($6) for each of my parents.

Please buy a bundle if you pass one of the volunteers this weekend.

Thanks.

The headline of this morning's National Post is: Vigils Begin and End. The one for Terri ended yesterday, after 13 days without food or water. And then last night, it was reported that the Pope was gravely ill. This morning he is reported to be near death. And so a newer, bigger vigil begins.

On Wednesday, I said to Mr. Right that I thought the Pope might die on the same day as Terri Schiavo, and that his news would eclipse hers, the way Princess Diana eclipsed Mother Theresa. I wasn't far off. The world is going to lose a great man - probably today or tomorrow - and the Catholic faith is going to lose a leader who has rebuilt a flock in places where the collective mind was dead set against religion of any kind. Places like the former Soviet Union. And places like North America, where it still seems to be okay to be any religion except Christian; except Catholic. People have reacted more openly and warmly to the Catholic faith, despite its scandals, because its leader is such an amiable fellow. The Dalai Lama of Christianity, if you will.

Is there anyone who can fill those shoes one he is gone? So much time is devoted to politics that we know who the likely candidates are for an election that is more than three years away. But does anyone know who the potentials are to be Pope?

Key cardinals

Giovanni Battista Re, a 67-year-old Italian, is prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, which enables him to advise the pope on episcopal appointments around the world. After a successful career as a Vatican diplomat, with posts in Panama and Iran, he became deputy to the Secretary of State, giving him a key role as the pope's chief of staff. Described as a workaholic, he is regarded as papabile - a possible pope.

Francois Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan was born in Hue, Vietnam, and was imprisoned by the Communist regime for 13 years, nine of them in solitary confinement. He is now president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Claudio Hummes, 66, is Archbishop of Sao Paulo in Brazil. He is seen as a moderate, and has spoken out on human rights issues.

The Polish-born Zenon Grocholewski has a top Vatican job as prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education.

New cardinals from the United States include the Archbishop of New York, Edward Egan, and the Archbishop of Washington DC, Theodore McCarrick.

There is also a red hat for Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, and spiritual leader of the four million Catholics in England and Wales.

Also included is Karl Lehmann, the liberal-minded head of the German Bishops' Conference. He has been named as a cardinal despite concern at the Vatican over the involvement of the church in Germany in abortion counselling.
He caused consternation last year by suggesting that the pope would be prepared to resign if he became too ill to carry out his duties.

This gives us some idea who the players are, but few people understand the game, or its ramifications. Not only does the Pope have to make important ecumenical decisions on a daily basis, but he's got to be PR savvy, too. If he can't hold the interest of the 1.1 billion Catholics around the world, they will drift away from the Church.

It will be an enormous job to out-do Pope John Paul II in terms of people-skills.

Correction: The headline Vigils Begin and End was on the cover of the National Post, not the Globe and Mail, and I have made the adjustment above. RG