Debating Debates

I tried watching the French language debate on TV last night, but boredom from the annoying drone of the translators and Tiny Small’s insistence on watching CSI got the better of me. That said, I am looking forward to the English language debate tonight, despite the emasculated format this time ‘round.

It has me wondering though, just why the Bloc are allowed to participate? After the complaints of the last election, when leaders were trying to yell over top of each other and nobody could be heard, I agree change is a good thing. The easiest one to me would be eliminating the candidate who is not running a national campaign, but a regional one. You can give me all the popular vote mumbo-jumbo you want, but if it were up to me you’d have to be running candidates in at least enough ridings to form a majority government. God help us if the SoCreds were ever reconstitued.

It is pathetic that the Bloc is able to interject on a number of national issues, nation building issues when its sole existence is to tear the country apart. In the interests of democracy I have no problem with them, but in the interests of who should and should not be at the debate table, well, give me the Greens. I’d rather have a party there talking about constructive solutions to problems rather than spouting off every 2 minutes that Quebec is getting the short shrift. It does nothing for the rest of the country to make up their minds, but does make it easier to hate the Bloc and their supporters.

If the participants must be who they are, would we not be better served with a number of one-on-one debates, in a round robin format over the course of the campaign? Then each person could be heard and nobody would be screaming their points. As well, I could tune out the traitorous bastard Duceppe on nights he’s debating and watch something productive like a hocke…what’s that honey? Ahem, like America’s Next Top Model. Sigh….

GL

Building Blocs

Here’s a thought I had this morning while reading the latest poll numbers published in today’s Globe and Mail. With the Liberals staring down an almost unanimous defeat in Quebec (it would be something if even Martin lost), what happens when the next government is formed with regard to Cabinet Ministers?

Assuming for a moment that the Liberals are returned with a significantly reduced minority (and devastation, or near devastation in Quebec), they might be faced with the unpalatable position of putting completely green MP’s from La Belle Province in a Cabinet position. Perhaps though, in a strange twist, could they or would they consider Bloc members for cabinet in an effort to placate Quebecers next time round? That certainly would be a sticky situation for Martin, and one Harper could more easily ignore were he tapped for the next PM.

With the base of support for the Conservatives outside Quebec Harper could justify Cabinet positions going to all other regions of Canada, and of course fall back on the reasoning that he refuses to make a separatist a Cabinet Minister. While that rationale is an option for Martin too, he has to decide which is worse: facing a Bloc Minister in his own Cabinet meetings, but keeping some segment of Quebec happy, or ignoring the province that has been a bastion of support lo these many years.

GL

Hello....Is It Divorce You're Looking For?

I don’t know how anyone else feels but I am now in for another sleepless night after hearing that Nicole Ritchie has broken off her engagement. Gimmie the freakin’ Paxil, I just don’t know how I can go on. I’ve been crying all day, devastated because on top of that it seems Britney and K. Fed (no shit, grownups actually refer to him as that) might be packing it in since he’s dedicated himself to fatherhood by attending every party this side of Carmen Electra’s mammaries. Maybe he’s just happy about being a daddy!

More than likely though, this is just the cycle that is reaching it’s natural conclusion after it seemed everyone on the Hilton family tree (party division), the aforementioned daughter of Lionel (Hello….is it divorce you’re looking for?), Rod Stewarts kid (he’s just British, not gay!) were getting engaged lo those 3, 6, 9 months ago. God knows how this has affected the marriage rate of ditzy blondes in the general population. I hope the world's Idots in Waiting were watching Pat O'Brien when the axe started to fall on all this happiness. Perhaps they’ll use Nick and Jessica as a model of what a “long term” marriage is all about. It was a good run while it lasted…

I think the real victim here is Christina Applegate and her husband, the lead singer guy that was a bit of a prick in That Thing You Do. That Ritchie breakup knocked their untimely demise clear off the E! homepage and back into south central nowhere. Sadly, noting here that my youth is in the toilet bowl, it also blew out Eddie Van Halen and Valerie Bertinelli who at one time made Nicole and DJ Sunday Bruch or whatever his name is look like…like….Christina Applegate and the lead singer guy that was a bit of a prick in That Thing You Do. This calls for an original line up Van Halen reunion!

God help us when the Red Bull & Jagermeister wears off and all these whacky kids decide they really do love each other and should have lots and lots of babies right away! The last thing I want to see is the Simple Life 9, with Nicole Ritchie giving birth and Paris as her midwife. "Oops! I broke you baby!"

GL

I'll have a Glock combo with fries, and a Biggie clip

In a shocking twist of events yesterday, Prime Minister Paul Martin lobbied the Old Adage Society for a change of a long standing policy: guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Well, not according to Mr. Martin. With his stunningly short sighted announcement of banning handguns, Martin showed that he is a firm believer that “guns kill people, people don’t kill people”. Clearly he needs to read a copy of Freakonomics, or perhaps just pull his head out of whatever cloud it’s been residing because this policy will do nothing but foster an even larger “black-market” gun economy. It is akin to saying “we are banning fast food because it makes people fat.” What the Liberals fail to address with this new policy is that yes, guns CAN kill people, and fast food CAN make you fat, but the mitigating factor is the operator of the glock and/or Big Mac.

The populace of Canada will (should) have little tolerance for yet another program administered by the same bureaucracy and Ministers that managed to take the nearsighted Gun Registry Program and turn it into a $1Billion embarrassment to Canada; all the while crime with guns continued in increase. Are we to forget the failures of the past, and allow hundreds of millions more to be thrown at an ineffectual program? This is merely the same style program with a new title and attitude that is bound to produce similar moribund results for incredible amounts of money.

The only real deterrent can come from markedly harsher sentencing for crimes committed with guns. 10 years minimum sentence whether you used it to steal some bubble gum or kill your spouse. As well, consecutive sentencing must be enacted to give it real teeth. It should be noted I have never, nor will I ever own a gun. Does that mean I think gun owners are wrong, or guns are dangerous? Nope; it means that I don’t hunt, nor do I target shoot. There are lots of good people that do though, and they should not be forced in any way to change their upstanding habits due to somebody in Toronto or Winnipeg having an itchy trigger finger and a score to settle. People will continue to commit crimes with guns, despite registries, buyback programs, amnesties or other. Sentence them accordingly.

The Old Adage Society has heard Mr. Martin’s argument, and will hand down their ruling on or about January 23rd. Stay tuned…. GL

Victoria's Secret is Ralph Goodale's Wink

I have a problem. A secret that frankly isn’t very “en vogue” these days. I like girls. There, I said it. I know there is no cachet to being "hetero" these days, but I still particularly enjoy the kind who, in between PETA protest gigs, roll down the runway wearing what can only be described as a cross between gossamer, dental floss and sunlight.

So it was with some enthusiasm last night that I was able to watch the Victoria’s Secret “orgy of clothing that your wife will never own” with the full blessing of Tiny Small. These promoters aren’t dummies, toss in a little Seal and you can at least claim you're watching it for the asthetic cool that he provides rather than full bore oggling.

As the prancing carried on I kind of grew bored of the runway beauties, as it appeared the same outfit rolled out one after another, until the blur of pink and satin became to much for my eyes to individually distinguish. But then it happened. The “all candy” lingerie on the ever beautiful Alessandra Ambrosio. It was a stunner, she couldn’t have looked better wearing nothing but a confectioners wet dream, yet, it was a just a tease I kept thinking. “She’ll never be able to wear that anywhere, it’s kinda pointless”. Clearly I was cranky and needed to sleep.

Of course, drifting off to the nightly news put some strange thoughts in my mind for dreamtime, and thus melded the world of Victoria’s Secret, and federal Liberals. Having no time of Jungian analysis this morning, I tried to piece together why my brain had betrayed me so on a more simplistic level. This is what I figured...

Liberal polices are designed to look good to the eye, and distract you with the jiggle of big numbers. Ralph Goodale will even shoot you a wink as he writes the cheque to your province/group/association/service club/dog/houseplant but like a runway model, he turns and vamps away, needing to reload backstage for another lucky trip down the lane for somebody.

With a front row seat at this show is Ontario. Sure, the Liberals are spending their way to the top and ignoring the Province at the same time, but it’s that wink Ontarians can’t get out of their head. The see it with Quebec sitting next to them, and keep hoping the next time it will be for them…but it never comes. Ontario is merely a hopefull wannabe in the Supermodel sweepstakes; the “great guy” Liberals know are "there" for them even after ignoring them repeatedly in favour of the sexier Quebec.

Ontario is a sucker. A province that is willing to buy the Grits wine and roses, show them a good time, nay, even go “all the way” with them but at the end of the date they get a kisson the cheek and hear the familiar refrain of "I'll call you". If this was my buddy I know what I'd say to him. “Grow up, get over her and move on. There are better women out there than her. Don’t you know she’s a whore?”

GL

Leah Casselman loves Tony Soprano

The GL is back, mainly because he’s had it with Unions. Never a fan in the past, now that Tiny Small is being pushed around because of OPSEU, he’s about to explode. The whole thing has damn near driven me Oobatz! It has convinced me that ‘organized workers’ are no better than ‘organized crime’. Let’s look at their mandates:

The Union: We exist to protect workers.

The Mob: We exist to protect you from all the bad guys.

The Union: As a collective, we can achieve more.

The Mob: As a collective, we can scare the shit outta anyone to get more!

The Union: The longer you’re with us, the more protection we can give you.

The Mob: The longer you’re with us, the more protection we can give you.

In a Union shop you are protected the longer you have been a member of the Local; or looking at it another way, the longer you have paid dues the more we’ll protect you (racketeering). It might be different if you had a choice to join, but in most cases you don’t (monopoly). This means that if Employee A has been at an employee for 20 years, and Employee B for 6 months, Employee A will have a shot at their job through the “bumping” process (being “made”). Even if employee B was hired as a skilled worker for a very specific job description, if the Union feels that Employee A can perform a percentage of that job, B is sent packing. It’s a purely subjective process, and subject to massive cronyism (collusion).

So, what the Union has accomplished in this case is stunting the future of a bright young employee, and replacing them with an older person who’s been doing a completely different job since Jesus was in short pants. A production killer if ever there was one. Employee A was rewarded not for exemplary job performance, or creativity, but for simply being able to stay alive at their station for a long time (stupidity).

Were you an employer, would this seem right to you? Let me rephrase that, we’re you anyone but Buzz Hargrove, would this seem right? Probably not, at least not too often here in Eastern Canada, so the number of NDP governments has been substantially stunted, although the Liberals are the new darlings of organized labour. (OL)

Now, the GL could go on and on about this, because this is obviously what happened to Tiny Small, despite the fact that she’s been continuously lauded by her employer. So the point, well, I suppose it’s a cautionary tale…you see a Union coming, you cross to the other side of the street, and keep individual power and responsibility alive. Nobody ever got rich off dumbed down mob mentality…except for the Unions, and the Mob.

More griping to come... GL