Translate

Sunday, April 05, 2009

What a Modern Media Muzzle Looks Like

In September 2008 I returned to university to complete my degree in Journalism, which I began in 1997. After such a long absence from school, and from my field of study, much has changed. I certainly notice that I am very unlike my student compatriots in age and stage of life. It's much fun though.


Those of you who've been reading me since the beginning will have noticed a distinct shift in what I've been writing about, a shift that happened somewhere in 2006.


Two things have converged to bring me to writing this post; one of my classes was Journalism Theory and Practice, which was interesting if not depressing, considering the state of the media. The other thing was that I had promised my prof that I'd give him my blog's web address, but at the end of classes so as not to put any more fuel on the fire that is my opinionated self.....



Classes ended this week past so he is now in possession of the website, caution be damned. The rest of this post is what began as a paragraph or two to him by email about my blog, what it is, where it started and why it morphed... I'm not good a short pieces... So, here’s a bit of background on what happened to my blog and why it morphed from general observation to politics. The last bit of this post has links to most of the stuff I’m going to refer to, so if you print this to read, hang on to the digital format so you’ll have the live links.


Most of my readers know I'm a single parent with three kids (20, 22 and 25). I come from a culturally religious family with a long tradition (about 180 years and counting) in the ministry. I married a ‘christian,’ whose family was part of the Aberhart/Manning religio-political machine. We, he and I and his family and I, were instantly at odds because I am bilingual, speak French whenever possible and am sympathetic to the separatist point of view. I am not aligned with any party but I was a Liberal way before I knew it myself. I knew things were not going to go well when I found a copy of “Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s Plan to Ruin Canada,” in their bookshelf….


My dad, a preacher’s kid from Nova Scotia, was a cultural, religious and political conservative. He was a teacher most of his life, was an RCAF cadet and did a stint at General Motors to pay for university. He taught for 35 years, the last 15 of which he was a principal at two schools in this city. He retired in 1989 and went immediately into rural politics, where he spent 12 years as an uncontested counsellor his area.


He was a brilliant man with a questioning mind, but the extent to which he was comfortable questioning was very much informed by the values of the family he grew up in, his innate conservatism and his astounding willingness to ignore the obvious when it conflicted with his world view. I can put that down to a very human wish to preserve those views because the alternative is an abyss. I am sure the human fear of that abyss is why most people are so resistant to questioning in general. But, as he was armed with an agile and questioning mind and spent his life learning and teaching, it is telling to note which subjects he absolutely would not question. If such a brilliant man would not consider possibilities, how much more so the general, ‘average,’ putting-food-on-the-table, loyal, working, voting public?


My dad died from lung cancer in September 2004. He was a lifelong athlete and never smoked. My step-mom is a rabid – and I mean rabid - health-obsessed person who oversaw every morsel of food and every chemical that my dad ingested or came into contact with. That such a man, who wouldn’t eat in a restaurant where there were smokers and would exit a room where anyone lit up and who, among the many committees he was on, chaired The Seniors Anti-Smoking Committee, should die from lung cancer – of the smoker’s brand – well, suffice to say, I have many, many lingering questions about the cancer industry. I wrote a column on this for my blog.


My dad and I had, at best, an adversarial relationship, despite that we loved each other with a deep passion. I am as far left as he was right so it was war from the time I could question. I know he was always in full support of me and my writing, which, every time anything was published, he would copy and post to all our relatives, even when we weren’t speaking to each other, silent truce being less mortifying than war….


At any rate, all that set the stage for me being very comfortable questioning everything and being resigned to the reality that even very smart, educated, interested people sometimes lack the wisdom - and the courage - to question.


In 2006, I was introduced to a benign, unassuming and unremarkable (looking) man, a dentist. You would pass him on the street and not notice him at all beyond thinking he looks like Billy Crystal. He is, however, the most well-read person I have ever met. If you consider that my step-dad read six novels a week and that my dentist friend bests that in two days, whilst running a full-time practice, you can begin to understand the un-fillable well that is his mind.



My friend is a ‘conspiracist,’ which in our culture is a pejorative, one applied so that anything that issues from such a person’s mouth, mind or pen is dismissible. We are taught to discount anything that comes from the ‘conspiracist’ point of view and further to know that we are suspect if we put even the smallest stock in anything a ‘conspiracist’ says. It will not surprise you to know I ate up everything he said and devoured two books he gave me.


At first, my interest was only for-fun but thanks to my friend’s two-minute long soliloquy on the Kennedy assassination (which, at first is just funny but leaves one’s eye’s buggin’ out at the end), my interest rapidly passed into research. Meeting my friend was the point on which my blog posts began a shift away from curmudgeonly satire to “Hey, what the hell is going on here?”


When judged against the research of others who make it their full time work, mine is decidedly minor; however, I am every day dumfounded by what people don’t know about things, places, people, politics and the workings of the world and even more astounded by what they do not want to know. As examples, two issues in which people are completely invested but know absolutely nothing about are the “Climate Change” and “Cancer” industries…. Worse, I am saddened, and I would call it a desperate sadness, by how angry people become when their paradigms are confronted. Try questioning the gospel of “Global Warming,” or ask where all that cancer research money is going (given the unimaginable increases in cancer rates in the last 20 years). Instant outrage.


As this relates to the media, I am convinced that the state of it as researched by Pew Institute and others is absolutely the tip of what’s going on. I am convinced (and yes, I know many think I presume) that what is happening to the media is by design, not by happenstance. It would take much more space than I’m sure you have time for to explain my point of view but just this; what has happened to investigative journalism – its disappearance – has more to do with the speed at which information can be transmitted, the numbers of people that can receive that information and, specifically, to who wants what known, than it has to do with money or lack thereof. It has to do with the reality that what we think we know is a house of cards – used, trick cards – that we must carefully tend lest it blow down and show itself for what it is; a pile of stultifying nothingness.


The demographic that consumes the bulk of what passes for news is old enough to remember WWII Germany and the USSR and how their media was controlled. We are mostly all aware of how the media is overtly controlled now in a variety of other countries, North Korea, for example. We can agree that North Americans would not knowingly allow their media to be controlled by the government – or its agents, yes?


So how then can those interests control the media? (this is a video link to a GREAT interview by the first two recipients of the I.F Stone Award). By cutting it off at the knees: no money, therefore, no means of investigation; keep reporters busy 16 hours a day, seven days a week, on call, reacting to breaking ‘news’ so they have absolutely no time to step back and ask “What is really going on?” And make sure they’re Barbie-doll gorgeous so that people barely listen because they’re taken by how much that anchor’s face doesn’t move….


Those who investigate absolutely threaten the status quo. The rocks under which resides reality are not cemented down; they are easily turned, so access to the rocks must be prevented. Enter in “The-media-is-in-crisis,” and “There’s no money for investigation.” It amazes me, though, how there is endless money for pursuit of celebridiots. Why is there $40,000 for a photo of the Jolie-Pitt twins and unlimited funds for hundreds of ‘journalists’ to follow Madonna to Malawi – twice.


But there is no money at all to talk to people who observed bombs going off in the basement of WTCI and WTCII a full half an hour before the planes hit either building; none to find out what happened to the man whose legs were severed by the blasts … in the basement… half an hour before the planes hit; none to discover how a ‘terrorist’s” passport survived a plane crash, a huge explosion, an inferno and a completely pulverised building but fluttered to the ground with nary a scratch; none to understand how a 757 and its two titanium-steel engines entirely incinerated - to dust - but enough biological (human) material is left to identify, by fingerprints, the passengers on that aircraft….


Yes, I can ask those questions and write about it all – I and loads of others have. Will the media publish any of that information? No. Our own CBC Calgary’s Donna McElligott has, on many occasions, terminated callers to her show when those callers veer off into 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ talk. I clearly remember, last year, her saying to one caller, “We’re not going to go there,” as he was cut off mid sentence, thanks to Carolyn Smith’s quick finger on the “kill” button.


Unless one is willing to even consider there is an abyss, it makes no sense at all that people like Bill O’Riley should have the most-watched program on television or that Rush Limbaugh should have any access at all to the public eye or ear. Those ‘men’, two of hundreds like them, make me stand back in awe at the illogic of it all. But it is logical if one steps towards the abyss and asks “WHY?” and “HOW?” and “By who’s design?” How does Bill O’Riley speak for the US public when honest questions about 9/11, for instance, are immediately drowned, much like the debris from WTC site (which now lives at the bottom of an ocean somewhere). The media is under siege. From whence that siege originates is the question all of us should be asking.


You’ve probably heard me mention Jim Marrs. He is a prolific researcher and writer. He is a ‘last man standing’ kind of investigative journalist. He goes where angels fear to tread because their absence gives him more room. He has been cast as the weirdest of the weird, the conspiracist’s conspiracist, so no, the mainstream probably has never heard of him. He’s the conservative’s equivalent of Hustler…. His site is www.jimmarrs.com.


All his books absolutely deserve reading and two, which, if I had my way, would be required parts of journalism coursework - are Rule by Secrecy and The Terror Conspiracy. Both are doors into the abyss. Unless one is already, or, after reading, chooses to be, intellectually numb, those books withdraw the means of retreat from the abyss. I say go, but go with care.


Also have a look at the archives on the main page of www.jimmarrs.com. There are articles there contributed by all sorts of people who are, but who have yet to suffer the label, conspiracists. In particular, the third article speaks to how the current financial crisis was planned, when that planning began and why and what other previous ‘practice sessions’ this one is based on. (Catherine Austin Fitts - 2009-02-02). Our own government was involved as far back as during the brilliant sleight of hand called “The Sponsorship Scandal.”


Google Video has many short and long videos of Jim speaking at various events. I am sure most people won’t even venture in due to which organisation supports and hosts Mr. Marrs: The UFO Congress. I can feel your eyes rolling…. Anyway, here’s the link to one of his talks.

You could skip the first 14 minutes, although if you’re not familiar with the organisation, that segment provides some background. I chose this particular video because it links three “completely unrelated” subject areas and shows not only how but why and for whose purpose they are related. I am absolutely sure it will all fall well outside of comfortable and believable for you but I hope you’ll dive in anyway.


There are three films, also on line, that have been widely viewed by ‘youngsters’ (meaning those who have little political understanding or clout) and which are widely ‘discounted.’ By who? Who knows. Articles discounting the films are signed but, given my own nom de plume…. Carolyn Dunn says CBC’s comment boards are rife with political people skewing the argument so why would the internet or the rest of the media be any different?


These films are; (these links are all live)

Loose Change

Zeitgeist

The Great Global Warming Swindle. I have interviewed one of the experts in this film. His reply to me is on my blog: click here


As this relates to many of my readers I am aware that this stuff is potentially insulting on all counts and that many find it all offensive. I know you’re busy with life but I hope you’ll consider having a look into the abyss if for no other reason than you dared.

Friday, March 13, 2009

I just tried out this "Dr. Wicked" thing - an electronic slave master that pretty much stands over your shoulder and makes you write... yeah. Imaginary whips and all.

458
13
lab.drwicked.com


Part of the problem with writing is the "what shall I write about thing. There are days where we writers feel it's all been said or that we've said everything we have to say or that northing's really interesting enough to comment on or that nobody gives a damn anyway, so why bother getting at it?

The reality is though that there's always something to say or some thing to comment on.

yesterday, for instance, a guy who I'm 'friends" with on FaceBook posted a link to a song... something about impeaching Obama, which at first glance (without having listened to the song), really annoyed me.. I'm Canadian but all things Bush considered, I was annoyed that already there is some movement afoot to impeach this new President.

However, as I'm such a conspiracist and because I KNOW - and yes, I mean KNOW - that the current financial "crash" is totally, utterly manipulated, I continued reading further posts from my buddy....

Seems there are some other people who've become "conspiracists" which is, apparently a dirty word and not something you want to be (but then, the thought of wearing a nasty labels causes some people to retreat - most people - and when they retreat, they also don't go lifting any rocks, so to speak).

The thing is, it's all to pat. HOW did all this happen? How is it that someone so hated - Bush - was never subjected to assassination attempts? Hm? How is it that two Kennedys died and Regan was shot at but Bush? Nada. The closest gun to him was that in the hands of Cheney - who shot his own lawyer in the face... ya, that's not suspect at all.

And then, on the heals of the worst presidency in history, comes this man, who has been, for many months, cast as the messiah. Don't believe it? Go do a search on Google Images for Obama.... See what I mean?

And then this financial crisis... World wide in under six months??? With little warning? Are you seriously telling me all the great financial minds in the world couldn't see it coming?? C'mon.

There's sooo much manipulation in this 'crisis' that really, one has to choose utter blindness to believe it.

I will say that the last 8 years of Bush policies where it comes to educating people in the US have certainly left the people there without the ability to understand basic finance or to read anything more than their poorly written, owned-by-huge-corporations-with-agendas newspapers. A country full of uneducated, essentially illiterate voters does not a problem pose if you're going to manipulate some markets... If smart people can be utterly screwed over by Bernie Madoff (isn't it hilarious that his name sounds like "made off" - as in Made off with your money ahahahah!)... then there's no hope for the rest of us!

The bottom line - and I'm going to continue looking into this - is that many people believe, some who have profile in the media, that Barack Obama was chosen long before 'the people' even heard of him, to do a job. A very specific job.

There's a film out, for which there is currently only a six-minute trailer - that I'm going to watch and post, if I can.

Despite that Obama is a brilliant man and obvously well loved by "the people," there is every reason to believe that he has been bought and paid for. Without going further for now, just the fact that he was at the Bilderberger conference over the weekend of June 6th 2008 - and that he attended with Hilary Clinton - should be enough to make most people wonder... Then again, most people hear the word "conspiracy" and they immediately dismiss any further thought about what the conspiracy is or might be related to... which is exactly what our friends at the Bilderberger organsaiont and the Trilateral Commision and the CFR want. I we dismiss it all for conspiracy, they have free reign.

More on all this once I see the film.

Thanks to Steve Henry Robinson for posting it in the first place.

Steve's on Facebook...

Saturday, January 24, 2009

The End of Racisim?

What will change for Americans now that their President has more melanin in his skin?


Melanine.

For how many years have we humans allowed political, social and church policy to be dictated by the amount of melanine in skin?

When put that way, is it not outrageous?? What if those policies had been based on eye colour? Eyes, like skin, are an organ of the body; how bizarre it would be were policies - the idea of equality - based on eye colour. It is no different where it comes to skin.

In 1968, the day after Dr. ML King was killed, teacher Jane Elliott demonstrated the utterly fatal flaw of “race” based thinking. See this PBS documentary:

A Class Divided.

It should be noted that Jane Elliot, the teacher who developed this 'experiment' exposed a bunch of 10 year olds to the fundamental stupidity of racism and by that garnered the hate and anger of the entire adult community around her.....
The kids got it. The adults? Not so much...

The term “race” is first of all utterly baseless. The genetic markers that make us human - and the mitochondrial DNA markers that link us - are not specific to skin colour. By that reality, ‘race’ is a polictical construct designed to divide, conquor and subjugate us, people of the human race.

If reliance on the colour of skin as a means of judgement and separation has finally passed out of fashion, we can only say how sad is it that such a stupid division ever existed and question ourselves as to why we allowed those who purport to lead us to take advantage of such a false premise for so long.
Comment

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Global Warming. More on how it is propagandist garbage.

So, as I'm on a roll with this issue and as I've apparently pissed off a friend by proposing that global warming is a scam, I thought that I'd write one of the interviewees in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Dr. Ian Clark is a respected researcher and lecturer at University of Ottawa and was interviewed for the film (click here for his bio). I asked him two questions:
  • Are you convinced that humans have little to do with global warming?
  • What does it hurt for the world to be monitoring their CO2 input?
Here's his reply:

Thanks for this feedback from your friends. I am more convinced than ever that human-caused climate warming is a fiction. I have been following the science for years now, and the evidence discussed in the GGWS [Great Global Warming Swindle] is solid. Moreover, the climate has been on a net cooling trend for the past 10 years.

Further, the AGW proponents have lost all scientific credibility with the fiasco over the hockey stick (featured in Gore’s film) and NASA’s Y2K error in reporting North American temperature data. Greater scrutiny of past periods where CO2 has climbed at times of great warming show clearly that other drivers are responsible and CO2 plays no role in the warming or subsequent cooling.

The reasons for speaking out against the global warming rhetoric are many. Many neutral or even skeptical people remain supportive of Kyoto-type measures to reduce CO2 thinking that reduction of emissions is good for us all and reduces pollution. This is not so, and this approach is not only flawed, but environmentally damaging. First, it distracts valuable dollars and environmental good-will away from real environmental problems of pollution, urbanization, ecosystem loss, dead zones in the oceans and many many other serious environmental problems.

Second, the measures we are adopting have huge negative impacts on the environment. Look at ethanol, the so-called green fuel, as it allegedly recycles rather than emits CO2.

Wrong.

The energetic cost in fossil fuel to produce corn and grain-based ethanol is close to or greater than the energy yielded. Therefore, it is at best a wash for energy production.

For this, we have converted food production to fuel production, raising the price of corn to unheard of levels – and corn is the principal source of carbohydrate for the global population. Corn ethanol requires intensive fertilization, as it is a C4 type plant and grows very quickly, depleting the soil of nutrients. The fertilizers are produced from natural gas, and the nitrate and ammonia released to surface waters kill fish.

The trend to green biodiesel requires tropical oils – which has accelerated tropical rainforest destruction for its production. Other CO2-reduction schemes – deep geological burial, or boutique energy sources such as solar and wind, are great ideas with the sole net effect of making money for someone. None will have any effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

CO2 has had a bad rap, undeservedly for such an important, non-polluting compound. We have much to do on the environmental front. However, don’t believe for a second that we can tweek the CO2 dial like a thermostat and adjust global temperature. Global temperature is indeed affected by a greenhouse gas – water vapour.

The water cycle dominates and CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. It has never in the past affected climate, and it certainly has not gained such a role in the past century. Global climate change is driven by solar effects. This is the science of global climate change, but you won’t hear about it from Al Gore or the CBC.

Finally, we will never reduce the climb in CO2 by the token measures that might be adopted by our mislead governments. Nor should we. It is a nutrient, and it seems that the only real, measurable effect of increased CO2 is a little greening of our planet. Considering the modifications we have done over the past centuries, a little greening is not a bad thing to have.

I originally asked for this information on the understanding that I wouldn't publish, but after reading Dr. Clark's reply to me, I asked whether I could pass it on and this is his response to that, for the record:
Indeed, please pass on my comments. If there is any certainty in the climate debate, it is that environmentalists and regular taxpayers are being swindled.


Dr. Clark wrote an excellent letter to The Hill Times, which also outlines how we are being hoodwinked by appalling science, corporate interests and misused political power. It sickens me almost as much as when I hear people say, "We can't change anything," or "I don't want to talk about it." I'm sure these are the same people who bitch and moan when their politicians do stupid shit and mostly all they do is stupid shit.

Anyway, have a look and a listen. The educated dissenting voices are growing louder and will certainly be at full howl after the inauguration of the new US president who actually believes in real science.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Al Gore. Liar for Profit or Just Uninformed?

The times, they are a changin' and it's time that some of the ridiculous mythology that has permeated the last 8 years is laid to rest.

Re: Global Warming. The myth that humans have anything to do with global warming and that CO2 contributes to global warming are both demonstrably wrong, as is the myth that Gore has any clue what he's talking about. Then again, he's part of the machine and certainly made a ton of payola with his little road show.

Check out The Great Global Warming Swindle

9/11 (and Oklahoma City and the Bay of Tonkin and Pearl Harbour) were terrorist attacks; that there was ever anyone called Jesus Christ; that religion makes any sense. Bollocks.

Check out Zeitgeist

The year is 2009. Information is readily available and easily accessible. It's time that we - the great unwashed - take back our countries, our political systems and our lives from those who seek to control us via lies and fear.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Christmas and Christians

Um, so, those of you who celebrate this holiday because you believe in all the christian hype, I have a news flash for you: some of your brethren are seriously bad advertising, y'know?

Like, why do grumpy people go to malls? It totally isn't my fault that you lot have decided the only way to celebrate the alleged "birth" of your sun god is to spend a lot of money. If you're pissed off about spending it, either don't do it, or have a lot of wine before you do it, but don't bust me over it. I didn't make you go to the mall with your over-tired, bored kids, for whom you're buying crap they don't need so that they shut up and leave you alone...

Um, and those of you who are in such a damned hurry to get to the mall to spend your hard-earned credit limit (because I KNOW you are not spending your own money), yeah, you still have to signal your lane changes and yes, you do have to turn into the correct lane and you are absolutely an idiot for thinking that the rules don't apply to your ass, and no, you don't get to be pissed off because you're a crappy, angry driver and I just honked at you. Get a grip!

And in case it isn't evident, I cannot stand this ridiculous, consumeristic orgy that is supposed to be the banner holiday for your peace and love movement. If the tempers and drama in my family are any indication, christianity and these stupid christian holidays should be abolished because the participants are criminally insane.

Sunday, December 07, 2008

And so it begins... again

Recently, I've posted several times, here and on a variety of other sites including CBC, that Dion must go and must go quickly: absolutely before the 26th January. It seems that this departure is in the works big time.

According to CP, Ignatieff will be installed as the new Liberal leader and without even a race of any type! Fabulous.

Bob Rae has made the fatal mistake of going out 'campaigning' for the coalition, which is a dead horse. By pretending to take over the leadership of this ationally unpopular coalition, he effectively elimited himself from the Liberal leadership race.

I just want to know: Don't these people read CBC? FaceBook? Their local paper's letters to the editor? If Rae had read any of those, he would have quickly seen that Ignatieff' staying well out of the fray and not making a single comment was the best plan.

NOW this is going to be interesting. Ignatieff is no dummy. He must realise that there is no future for this coalition and that continuing it will be death for the Liberals.

If Ignatieff speaks out against the coalition, speaks for stabiliy and for not going forward with any non-confidence vote, he will have begun rebuilding the Liberal party's image, which looks like the Canadian flag in Dion's YouTube the other night... barely in view at this point.

Support for the Conservatives Mounting

Just reading an article on CBC on line today, where I found this: "News websites and social networking sites have been key outlets for Canadians wishing to weigh in on the debate over the coalition agreement.

On Thursday, a public opinion survey suggested that the Conservatives had won the initial public relations battle surrounding the impasse.

An EKOS poll for the CBC, conducted over two days this past week, found that 44 per cent of respondents would support the Conservatives "if an election were held tomorrow." That's up from the 37.6 per cent support the Tories received in the federal election held in mid-October."

I'm telling you, people, you better be sure a Harper-led Conservative majority is what you want because this prorogue is giving him the time to have it coalesce. And, the most incompetant leader ever just won' shut up, making matters worse and worse: Dion is now claiming that Harper "ran away" from Parliament, which may or may not be true but Dion's not the person to be pointing it out because he looks like a scared rabbit most of the time.

M. Dion will go down in history as the man who almost single handedly gave a majority government by providing a bloodless coup that the other party hardly needed to participate in.

Comments from across the country HERE.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

AHAHA!!! More

Oh man, this stuff is happening fast!

Not three hours after the PM's address on the steps of Parliament, the coalition is already blowing apart!

CBC just said that it is already crashing and burning and that the coalition shouldn't have done this to start with.

JUST REMEMBER. YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!

Prorogued!

Wow. That was fantastic!

The opposition parties - all of them - Just handed Harper's Conservatives a majority government, whether after January 26th, if there is a non confidence vote then, or at the next election.

Duceppe, predictably, came out swinging with his own brand of brilliant, but fantastically spun slagging! That was awesome! If you can understand French, listen to what he says in French! Awesome. He's a great speaker but he was speaking like a really pissed off 15 year old.

As for the other two guys, no matter what they say and do - NO matter - they have put themselves in a position of losing face, creditility and voters. Neither of them can recover from this, no matter what they say and do next.

If they come out swinging, considering that Canadians are so pissed off about all this anyway, they're going to further anger anyone who might have voted for them and they're going to lose voters no matter what: they're going to lose anyone who thinks they made a really bad move and they're going to lose others because they have caused the parties they lead to be mocked big time. Guess where those voter are going... Right. Conservatives.

If the opposition parties campaign during this progrogation, they're going to set themselves up for serious, serious defeat. Duceppe's angry tirade is going to have a negative effect even on staunch separatists, no question, because Harper made a very good - and important - point today: he has not been attacking separatists; he has rightly pointed out that the Bloq does not act on behalf of all Canadians -and Duceppe confirmed that in his address today - but that they have an agenda that is Quebec centred (as it should be and iI have NO quarrel with their madate: Quebec - and Canada to a certain extent - needs the Bloq whether English Canada likes it or not).

And if the Liberal Party thought it was in trouble before this morning, man, that was fun and games compared to what's coming next. Mr. Ignatieff should get his butt out of there right bloody now. There is NO point in wasting his expertise on that party at the moment. Let Bob Rae have the leadership of what is now a leaderless, shit-distrubing party in utter shambles. Dion, who is perhaps brilliant but has zero skills as a leader, attempted to steal a job for which he is decidedly not qualified and has got himself nothing less than a spectacular backfire.

Mr. Layton better have another job lined up because there is NO recovery from this mess. None. No matter how he turns, he cannot recover. He got into bed with Dion, who has always been out of focus, and well before his disasterous address last night. (It may have been an oversite on the part of his tech crew, but the implication of being litterally out of focus - and having the Canadian flag out of the shot entirely - will not lost on the Canadian public. I'm a conspriacist. Read between the lines).

All I can say is there hasn't been excitement in Canadian politics like this since the Trudeau years. Harper could not be in a better position. Whether you like him or not, he's been handed the most amazing set of circumstances. Talk about Christmas coming early! There's no possible way Harper can come out of this looking anything other than Prime Ministerial and the ONLY viable leader there is. Against the backdrop of those three other guys, who now look like idiots, he's a winner.

In January, when parliament reconvenes on the 26th, the government will bring down a budget and will have done it in record time and under serious pressure to perform. If the budget is great - which it likely will be (because, in addition to this mess, the economy can totally reverse in six weeks, as it did in the last six to eight weeks), the opposition is going to be eating crow - and lots of it. If it sucks, then we're going to redo today but with no progrogation. We'll have another election - the third in just over two years. People are going to be looking for stability and they're going to make sure they get it by electing a Conservative MAJORITY government. The perhaps Harper will stick to his own four-year rule....

And there again on January 26th 2009, the opposition will be presented with new rope to hang themselves. If they oppose the new budget and vote non confidence, any election that ensues will guarantee the Conservatives a majority and probably a big one. If they don't oppose, they're all going to look like idiots for getting this shit started in the first place. This is the definition of Catch 22.

The only thing that surprises me about all this is that Harper was able to maintain his decorum when I'm SURE he wanted to be dancing in the streets and singing out loud praises to the idiots that lead the 'opposition' for putting him in the most win-win that the Conservatives have had since I don't even know when - Mulroney's landslide. Wow! Groovey Canadian politics! Fun fun!