$10 billion
$10,000,000,000
That's a lot of money when you think about it. That's about $300 for every Canadian, or $650 per taxpayer. Geez, I sure could use $650 right now. How about you? What would you spend it on? Or would you pay down some of your own debt, or invest it and make it grow? RRSP contribution would be nice. Then you write off some of your income against it and save even more money.
You see how this works now?
And $10 billion is THIS year's "surplus". From the Liberal government who told you last election there wasn't enough for tax cuts.
Well, simply put. Fuck 'em. It's my fucking money and I want it back right fucking now. And why are they calling it THEIR surplus, like they OWN the fucking money. Oh yeah, it's real hard to slave me into automatically taking money off of my paycheques to pay for their stupid programs that don't work; to use MY money to pay for buying votes; scandals galore, the list goes on.
Oh and people say, we should pay down the debt. Well, excuse me, I wasn't a fucking taxpayer when the debt got cranked up during the 70's and 80's, so why the fuck do I gotta wait around until I get my goddamn money back? Give it to me now so I can spend it at businesses which will create better jobs and more taxpayers. THEN you can use those extra taxpayers to pay down the fucking debt.
And it's not a gov't surplus. It's what they owe us this year ... at least! On top of all the bloody waste and mismanagement in the bureaucracy, as pointed out by our Auditor General every single year, there's probably another $20 billion (at least!) kicking around. Then there's the $40 billion EI surplus. Uh, hello? The gov't is obviously taking in way too much. But do we see a reduction on our ..er.. reductions? Fuck no. They think it's their money.
How much money does the fucking government need to not solve society's problems? Apparently, in a country of 33 million, they need $200 billion to figure it out.
Tax cuts now! Give the gov't less money and let them figure out how to reorganize themselves, because well, they keep taking more and more from you, and they don't give two shits how you have to adjust your life.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "The Five People You Meet In Heaven"
Directed by Lloyd Cramer, starring Jon Voight, who plays Eddie, and 83 year old WWII vet and likeable maintenance worker at Ruby Pier Amusement Park.
Based on the book by Mitch Albom, the movie is very long, but worth it. I don't want to give away any plot lines, but the title obviously indicates what the movie is really about. Jon Voight is an excellent actor and doesn't disappoint showing a range of emotions. You are taken through the life story of Eddie in his initiation into heaven where he is guided by 5 people in his life who have died. The movie seems a bit drawn at times, but as I said, totally worth it in the end. I mean, we are talking about viewing a man's entire life and how he has influenced so many people -- that we are all connected, that your actions and words affect your surroundings, which influence other people, and so on, so the length is understandable.
Interestingly, my friend wanted to see a war movie, and I wanted a religious one. This certainly had both. The longest scenes were Eddie's time as a soldier and P.O.W. and how it greatly affected his life from that point on. The 5 people he meets help him heal and forgive, pointing out that while we are on earth we do have a chance to do the same thing--to love and not to hate, to forgive and not to grudge, and to realize that we were all a "somebody".
The music score was perfect, never seemed intruding, and most of the scenes were beautiful, yet somewhat intentionally surreal, yet I don't think that was the desired effect, so a bit of a drawback. I grew weary of seeing the amusement park, and I wished it showed a few more scenes of children playing and laughing to give it more of that fun feel, but again, perhaps this annoying feeling was intentional, as you then truly sympathized with Eddie having worked there all his life.
While I kept watching, at certain milestone scenes I'd say, "Excellent movie", but it was the ending that really hit home. I mean, big time. I won't spoil it for you, the long wait, like I said, is totally worth it. I knew there was a reason to see this movie and confirmed a lot of things for me at my age and reflecting back on it over the last few years. What will be interesting is to see how it affects your life and what you learn from it. You do affect people positively or negatively everyday. Take your pick and find peace my friends, while there's still time.
Because of the high emotion ending, I can go from a 5 scale down, with the downsides being the movie's length, bad bluescreening, and some draggy moments...
Snaky gives "The Five People You Meet In Heaven", 4.23 fists out of 5. Keep water nearby to get the lumps out of your throat and watch it with a female, even if you are one.
And if I were to compare this movie to the predictable overhyped drivel of "The Notebook", "Five People" is a WAY better movie if you not only want some sappy love, but want and expect much more from a good feel-good story.
Based on the book by Mitch Albom, the movie is very long, but worth it. I don't want to give away any plot lines, but the title obviously indicates what the movie is really about. Jon Voight is an excellent actor and doesn't disappoint showing a range of emotions. You are taken through the life story of Eddie in his initiation into heaven where he is guided by 5 people in his life who have died. The movie seems a bit drawn at times, but as I said, totally worth it in the end. I mean, we are talking about viewing a man's entire life and how he has influenced so many people -- that we are all connected, that your actions and words affect your surroundings, which influence other people, and so on, so the length is understandable.
Interestingly, my friend wanted to see a war movie, and I wanted a religious one. This certainly had both. The longest scenes were Eddie's time as a soldier and P.O.W. and how it greatly affected his life from that point on. The 5 people he meets help him heal and forgive, pointing out that while we are on earth we do have a chance to do the same thing--to love and not to hate, to forgive and not to grudge, and to realize that we were all a "somebody".
The music score was perfect, never seemed intruding, and most of the scenes were beautiful, yet somewhat intentionally surreal, yet I don't think that was the desired effect, so a bit of a drawback. I grew weary of seeing the amusement park, and I wished it showed a few more scenes of children playing and laughing to give it more of that fun feel, but again, perhaps this annoying feeling was intentional, as you then truly sympathized with Eddie having worked there all his life.
While I kept watching, at certain milestone scenes I'd say, "Excellent movie", but it was the ending that really hit home. I mean, big time. I won't spoil it for you, the long wait, like I said, is totally worth it. I knew there was a reason to see this movie and confirmed a lot of things for me at my age and reflecting back on it over the last few years. What will be interesting is to see how it affects your life and what you learn from it. You do affect people positively or negatively everyday. Take your pick and find peace my friends, while there's still time.
Because of the high emotion ending, I can go from a 5 scale down, with the downsides being the movie's length, bad bluescreening, and some draggy moments...
Snaky gives "The Five People You Meet In Heaven", 4.23 fists out of 5. Keep water nearby to get the lumps out of your throat and watch it with a female, even if you are one.
And if I were to compare this movie to the predictable overhyped drivel of "The Notebook", "Five People" is a WAY better movie if you not only want some sappy love, but want and expect much more from a good feel-good story.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
The new Rob Thomas album...
Despite a friend's strong recommendation, this album is crap, unoriginal, and uninspiring. After one listen through, I thought, "Where's the band?" proving that when you have a perfectly great band as Rob does with Matchbox Twenty, you go and get all gung-ho with your big ego from being front-man and lead songwriter with talented musicians that a few years ago recorded one of the best albums out there, get reduced to an overproduced, directionless has-been.
I was really looking forward to the next Matchbox 20 album, Rob spoiled that ideal. The edginess you found on Matchbox's last album is completely gone. The piercing gutty guitars, super groovy walking bass lines, anthemic choruses and choirs, powerful lyrics, all supported by dynamic, sharp, and smashing drums really made that album awesome. You'd think Rob would learn something from it. Did he? Nope.
Gone are all those great things I mentioned. What's left? It sounds like NKOTB trying to be Menudo at times. You remember Menudo don't you? Yeah, Ricky Martin when he had no pubic. It's like Rob was trying to reinvent what he did with Santana, but just fails miserably. The vocals are forced around poor arrangements and bad idealess production centered on "cool beats" from a soulless drum machine with rhythms sounding like they were downloaded for your cellphone.
Needless to say, this album, which I don't know the name of, 'cause well, it's not memorable, is one disappointing effort. There's some not bad songs, but I don't remember how they go.
Snaky gives Rob Thomas' new album 1.52 fists out of 5.
I was really looking forward to the next Matchbox 20 album, Rob spoiled that ideal. The edginess you found on Matchbox's last album is completely gone. The piercing gutty guitars, super groovy walking bass lines, anthemic choruses and choirs, powerful lyrics, all supported by dynamic, sharp, and smashing drums really made that album awesome. You'd think Rob would learn something from it. Did he? Nope.
Gone are all those great things I mentioned. What's left? It sounds like NKOTB trying to be Menudo at times. You remember Menudo don't you? Yeah, Ricky Martin when he had no pubic. It's like Rob was trying to reinvent what he did with Santana, but just fails miserably. The vocals are forced around poor arrangements and bad idealess production centered on "cool beats" from a soulless drum machine with rhythms sounding like they were downloaded for your cellphone.
Needless to say, this album, which I don't know the name of, 'cause well, it's not memorable, is one disappointing effort. There's some not bad songs, but I don't remember how they go.
Snaky gives Rob Thomas' new album 1.52 fists out of 5.
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "Wedding Crashers"
So there I was on the lounge patio with some friends at Edmonton's ritziest, the Hotel Macdonald. Two weddings were on. Was I dressed for such an occassion? Nope. I had my black leather jacket, brown 70's shoes, messy hair, dark faded jeans, and a brown striped untucked shirt. We had a few glasses of pino when it was time to head off.
But as I walked down the deco'd hallway on the east side, wedding guests passed me in their suits, tuxes, and with hotties in their shiny dresses. They stared, wondering, who's this guy?
But then there it was -- the big black Yamaha grand piano tucked into the corner where the hallway did a 90, and it sat there quietly asking me, "Play me! Play me!" So I pulled it away from the wall, sat down on the perfectly provided bench, and started my little jazz/blues on the ivories.
Wedding people began gathering around. I got requests. Played "Piano Man" and everyone sang along, even the father of the bride. Then after some more crooning, I bid them adieu, "I have to go." But they pleaded for me to stay and I replied, "I'd love to stay, but I have another wedding to crash!" Hearing laughter as I walked away I then put my arm around the father and said, "Congratulations sir, she's a beautiful girl." He said "Thanks!" and off I went.
Motivated and inspired? Damn straight.
Wedding Crashers, starring Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, and Christopher Walken, is a really fun movie. The first part depicts two divorce mediator attorneys who see no need for the matrimonial institution in their lives go incognito during wedding season, partying, socialising, befriending, and hooking up with every hotty available, even at ethnic weddings.
And you'd think the movie was just about all that right? Of course not. There's gotta be some plot and a change of hearts.
Vince Vaughn is superb and on the money. His adlib comedic acting style shines through and he has the funniest lines. He and Luke Wilson work seemlessly together as partners at work, and partners in crashing. But you see the inevitable breakdown and conflict coming don't you? That part of the movie was a little weak.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen more of their con artist antics at a couple weddings. I think even more laughs could have been generated there and I needed more tips.
The show appears to be a simple fun comedy, but then in the second half, it drifts off into the romantic side and Owen Wilson gets so sappy at times, I wanna puke. But Vince, being the good buddy, sticks by for wing support and falls into countless acts of physical abuse by random happenstance. These comedic parts reminded me of some of Stiffler's antics in American Pie and thankfully at least keep the movie on the comedy side of things. The second half drags on, some scenes could have been deleted.
But if you want a laugh, because there's no other comedies out right now, go see Wedding Crashers, but not with a chick. Even if you are a chick reading this, take a guy. Heck, take me again. That way, I can reminisce about my crashing days and this time, take some notes.
Snaky gives Wedding Crashers, 3.1 fists out of five.
But as I walked down the deco'd hallway on the east side, wedding guests passed me in their suits, tuxes, and with hotties in their shiny dresses. They stared, wondering, who's this guy?
But then there it was -- the big black Yamaha grand piano tucked into the corner where the hallway did a 90, and it sat there quietly asking me, "Play me! Play me!" So I pulled it away from the wall, sat down on the perfectly provided bench, and started my little jazz/blues on the ivories.
Wedding people began gathering around. I got requests. Played "Piano Man" and everyone sang along, even the father of the bride. Then after some more crooning, I bid them adieu, "I have to go." But they pleaded for me to stay and I replied, "I'd love to stay, but I have another wedding to crash!" Hearing laughter as I walked away I then put my arm around the father and said, "Congratulations sir, she's a beautiful girl." He said "Thanks!" and off I went.
Motivated and inspired? Damn straight.
Wedding Crashers, starring Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, and Christopher Walken, is a really fun movie. The first part depicts two divorce mediator attorneys who see no need for the matrimonial institution in their lives go incognito during wedding season, partying, socialising, befriending, and hooking up with every hotty available, even at ethnic weddings.
And you'd think the movie was just about all that right? Of course not. There's gotta be some plot and a change of hearts.
Vince Vaughn is superb and on the money. His adlib comedic acting style shines through and he has the funniest lines. He and Luke Wilson work seemlessly together as partners at work, and partners in crashing. But you see the inevitable breakdown and conflict coming don't you? That part of the movie was a little weak.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen more of their con artist antics at a couple weddings. I think even more laughs could have been generated there and I needed more tips.
The show appears to be a simple fun comedy, but then in the second half, it drifts off into the romantic side and Owen Wilson gets so sappy at times, I wanna puke. But Vince, being the good buddy, sticks by for wing support and falls into countless acts of physical abuse by random happenstance. These comedic parts reminded me of some of Stiffler's antics in American Pie and thankfully at least keep the movie on the comedy side of things. The second half drags on, some scenes could have been deleted.
But if you want a laugh, because there's no other comedies out right now, go see Wedding Crashers, but not with a chick. Even if you are a chick reading this, take a guy. Heck, take me again. That way, I can reminisce about my crashing days and this time, take some notes.
Snaky gives Wedding Crashers, 3.1 fists out of five.
It's the terrorists, stupid!
With the recent cowardly terrorist bombings in London, Brits were polled asking if they thought the attacks were result of British involvement in the Iraq war. A clear majority says this is true.
Well, they need to blame someone accountable. Tony Blair, you're taking the fall.
But this logic is well, ... completely illogical. With the recent terrorist attacks in Egypt, why aren't they asking that question there? Egypt's not involved in the war at all. They're an Arab nation!
And remember Bali? Oh, but some will say, "Australia's involved in the war and there were a lot of Australian tourists killed." Fits real nice doesn't it?
And Spain.
And of course, Iraq itself. These terrorists are killing innocent "fellow" Muslims all the time there. You can be certain that even if the U.S. pulled out, the new Iraq gov't, military, and police force will still be easy targets for terrorists.
Basically, terrorism is an industry unto itself. Here you have a worldwide secretive organization, with sleeper cells, that when called upon, execute a well oiled plan to kill innocent people. Money flows from donations and other shady means.
When the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and almost the White House, the U.S. was not at war with Iraq then. Neither were the Brits.
Canada didn't go to Iraq because we simply couldn't afford it financially, nor do we have the resources. We're not the big peace keeping nation either (35th on the list actually), but we still sent our men to Afghanistan.
And as more Canadian troops were just sent there to fight this terrorist haven, are people saying we'll get attacked because we're there? No. Well why not? It's the same reasoning isn't it?
It's just Iraq. So this reasoning really doesn't make any sense. Unless this is all about the battle for Iraqi oil.
But again, why was Spain, Bali, and now Egypt attacked?
Terrorism is terrorism and they'll attack where they think they can. Are there more attacks to come? You betcha. Do we know where? Intelligence tries to figure this out, but when you have young men brainwashed into thinking that by carrying out this great act, Allah will reward him with 70 virgins awaiting in heaven. "Well, my life kind of sucks compared to the Christian, and this sounds like a better deal."
So you think the suicide bomber gives a rats ass where he carries out this most horrific act?
Whether there's a war in Iraq or not, terrorists will still terrorize, threaten, and cause fear. As I said, it's an industry. So don't blame the countries like the U.S. and U.K. for fighting terrorism on different fronts, because Canada is doing it too.
It's the terrorists, stupid!
Well, they need to blame someone accountable. Tony Blair, you're taking the fall.
But this logic is well, ... completely illogical. With the recent terrorist attacks in Egypt, why aren't they asking that question there? Egypt's not involved in the war at all. They're an Arab nation!
And remember Bali? Oh, but some will say, "Australia's involved in the war and there were a lot of Australian tourists killed." Fits real nice doesn't it?
And Spain.
And of course, Iraq itself. These terrorists are killing innocent "fellow" Muslims all the time there. You can be certain that even if the U.S. pulled out, the new Iraq gov't, military, and police force will still be easy targets for terrorists.
Basically, terrorism is an industry unto itself. Here you have a worldwide secretive organization, with sleeper cells, that when called upon, execute a well oiled plan to kill innocent people. Money flows from donations and other shady means.
When the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and almost the White House, the U.S. was not at war with Iraq then. Neither were the Brits.
Canada didn't go to Iraq because we simply couldn't afford it financially, nor do we have the resources. We're not the big peace keeping nation either (35th on the list actually), but we still sent our men to Afghanistan.
And as more Canadian troops were just sent there to fight this terrorist haven, are people saying we'll get attacked because we're there? No. Well why not? It's the same reasoning isn't it?
It's just Iraq. So this reasoning really doesn't make any sense. Unless this is all about the battle for Iraqi oil.
But again, why was Spain, Bali, and now Egypt attacked?
Terrorism is terrorism and they'll attack where they think they can. Are there more attacks to come? You betcha. Do we know where? Intelligence tries to figure this out, but when you have young men brainwashed into thinking that by carrying out this great act, Allah will reward him with 70 virgins awaiting in heaven. "Well, my life kind of sucks compared to the Christian, and this sounds like a better deal."
So you think the suicide bomber gives a rats ass where he carries out this most horrific act?
Whether there's a war in Iraq or not, terrorists will still terrorize, threaten, and cause fear. As I said, it's an industry. So don't blame the countries like the U.S. and U.K. for fighting terrorism on different fronts, because Canada is doing it too.
It's the terrorists, stupid!
Friday, June 24, 2005
Slow the Summer Down
It's been a month since my last post, but I've been pondering our current society and where it's headed.
Are you working 45 hours a week like a crazy ape just to make ends meet while half your tax bill vanishes? You're tired, aren't you? Gas just hit 91.5 cents/litre. All levels of gov't still like to overspend and overtax us. Airfares just jumped due to high oil prices, which are at $60 a barrell. Housing prices are going up and up, people are getting fatter because cheaper food is fattening and healthy food is more expensive. You're in debt aren't you? Big time, actually. The air doesn't seem as clean does it?
You know, despite all this, I remain optimistic. I mean, compared to other places in the world, we do have it pretty sweet here.
But I think we're overworked. Why can't we slow down a bit? What's the rush? Oh right, the money thing. You gotta work to have money, yes, but at what price? Your health? Time with your family? Your sanity?
So this is just a friendly reminder to slow down a bit, enjoy life. We don't get much summer here, so get out there and soak it all in. Spend more time with friends and family -- the dishes can wait.
Are you working 45 hours a week like a crazy ape just to make ends meet while half your tax bill vanishes? You're tired, aren't you? Gas just hit 91.5 cents/litre. All levels of gov't still like to overspend and overtax us. Airfares just jumped due to high oil prices, which are at $60 a barrell. Housing prices are going up and up, people are getting fatter because cheaper food is fattening and healthy food is more expensive. You're in debt aren't you? Big time, actually. The air doesn't seem as clean does it?
You know, despite all this, I remain optimistic. I mean, compared to other places in the world, we do have it pretty sweet here.
But I think we're overworked. Why can't we slow down a bit? What's the rush? Oh right, the money thing. You gotta work to have money, yes, but at what price? Your health? Time with your family? Your sanity?
So this is just a friendly reminder to slow down a bit, enjoy life. We don't get much summer here, so get out there and soak it all in. Spend more time with friends and family -- the dishes can wait.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith"
If you haven't seen the movie yet, go see it now before you spoil it for yourself. Then when you're done watching the 2.5 hour movie, pull out your Episode IV DVD and watch that. The two movies blend very well together. Just as I expected.
Many of you know I had predicted when Episode I came out 6 years ago that Episode III would become the biggest selling movie of all time. Well, it's on its way. I also said it would be the best of the new trilogy. Well, it is.
This is a very dark and disturbing movie. You go into it knowing the outcome, but how does it all transpire? Well, many months ago I wrote my prediction on this blog site. Let's see how close I was, shall we?
Many of you know I had predicted when Episode I came out 6 years ago that Episode III would become the biggest selling movie of all time. Well, it's on its way. I also said it would be the best of the new trilogy. Well, it is.
This is a very dark and disturbing movie. You go into it knowing the outcome, but how does it all transpire? Well, many months ago I wrote my prediction on this blog site. Let's see how close I was, shall we?
In Ep. III, I predict we will see the clones obviously winning the war --
strengthening Chancellor Palpatine's power.
- Well, we see the war in space, which is awesome, and Palpatine gives himself sweeping powers to control the senate away from separatists (which he created) and thus begins the Galactic Empire. He blames this on a Jedi plot to over the Republic.
Anakin and Queen Amidala, who were secretly married, will have a couple of children (who become Luke and Leia). But the Jedi find out (Obi Wan) and shame Anakin for his marriage.
- This was obvious. But while the Jedi don't blatantly shun him for his marriage, they don't promote him to Master either, although he could sit on the council.
Amidala is then killed by Darth Tyranus and this fuels Anakin's rage and conversion to the dark side when he kills Darth Tyranus in revenge and because the Jedi basically disown Anakin.
- Nope. Darth Tyranus (Count Dooku) doesn't kill Amidala (Padme), Ani does it on his own! But I did predict Anakin killing the Count! Didn't expect Palpatine to be right there ordering him to do it. That was cool and unexpected - especially seeing Dooku's shock of betrayal.
The Jedi then secretly take Leia to Bail Organa - Viceroy and First Chairman of Alderaan and Luke will head off to Tatooine to his uncle Owen by Obi Wan. Darth Sidious then takes on an angry Anakin as his new apprentice and Anakin becomes Darth Vader, who kills many Jedi. Yoda obviously flees to his swampy planet, while Obi Wan becomes a hermit on Tatooine.
- Yep. Nailed all of that but not quite in that order. Wasn't expecting Vader to kill the Jedi younglings though. That was very disturbing, but foreshadowed in II when he even killed little sandpeople. But I definitely wasn't expecting "Order 66". That reminded me of a holocaust clip. I was absolutely devistated and shocked. I don't know if I'll recover.
So not bad with the predictions, I'd say.
Okay, here's the nitty. I just didn't find Hayden Christensen's acting convincing enough, did you? He was surrounded by superior actors who carried him - especially Ewan McGregor - great job. Who knew Anakin would take so fondly of having a child. His love for Padme was strong, yes, but so was his love of being a Jedi and being powerful. When he found out Palpatine was the Sith Lord, why wasn't that more shocking to him? He just didn't seem angry enough to convert yet. Yes he violated many Jedi orders, but who knew he'd give up and join the dark side so quickly, even after killing Mace Windu. His dedication to the Republic over the Jedi wasn't as convincing as I'd hoped.
That said, I felt that the scene of Anakin's conversion to the dark side was weak. This was the guts of the movie and the entire raison d'etre of the Star Wars series. The only explanation that can carry this up to original standards was that Darth Sidious' power of the Force was soooo strong that he was able to subliminally convert Anakin. This is backed up by the fact the Jedi, even Yoda, didn't even know that Palpatine was a Sith Lord. While the Jedi Council had suspicions of Palpatine's maneuveres, how could they not figure it out? This should have been played up a bit more in the movie and the one I'm going to have to accept in my own mind.
All in all - it was what I expected, but not what I expected. The scene and set shots were amazing. I truly felt like I was in hell on the lava planet. The many lightsaber battles were excellent. The near end of the movie had the battles you'd always dreamed of: Yoda vs. Sidious, Kenobi vs. Anakin - just unbelievable. Yoda kicks ass.
But hearing swinging Wookies bellow out like Tarzan was too cheezy. Why oh why?
But the scene on the lava planet with Anakin burning and Obi Wan telling him the ways things are is an awesome scene and excellent dialogue - right up there with Luke telling Vader to shove it in Empire Strikes Back.
Then soaking in the scene we've all been waiting for - the physical construction of Darth Vader was an absolutely frightening moment and the haunting soundtrack from John Williams gave me the chills. But even more frightening was Vader's reaction to the Emperor telling him that he was the one who killed Padme. Ouch.
But instead of hearing Hayden's voice for Vader, you get the classic James Earl Jones. Instead of seeing Hayden's boyish cockiness, you get the jet black mask, the cape, and the heavy breathing. Too bad Hayden's acting wasn't as up to snuff as Anakins abilities with the Force, because I, for one, am glad it's now all hidden away.
The final scenes of Yoda and Kenobi going into exile were seemless, especially showing Luke with his aunt and uncle on Tatooine, the two setting suns. Lucas couldn't have done it any better.
Overall, an excellent movie. Not as good as the originals, but better than the new ones. I'm not even sure kids under 10 should see it, it's that disturbing.
But I'm definitely going to see it again, and again, and again.
Snaky gives Star Wars Episode III - Revenge of the Sith a big 4.17 mechanical fists out of 5.
May the Fours be with you, always!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Belinda, Oh Belinda
Belinda Stronach, MP for Newmarket Aurora, former Conservative leadership hopeful, former CEO of Magna, just crossed the floor to the Liberal party. Paul Martin offered her a cabinet post in Human Resources Development. What's odd is that Belinda was instrumental in uniting the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. She donated money to make it happen.
So what does Snaky have to say about this? Whore. She's a blatant whore tied deeply into the eastern elite. Although I always knew she wasn't a true conservative by any means, how anyone can do this only shows she lacks real principle by supporting a corrupt party and government. This says several things about this country:
1) It's controlled by the Mafia. The Liberal sponsorship scandal revealed what many of us already knew -- that the Liberal party has had dealings with the Bonanno crime family. Yes, the Mafia itself. Its deeply rooted in Montreal and has been there since the days of Capone and the like. The Mafia is moving to protect its people during the Gomery Inquiry and is setting up patsies.
2) Belinda's dad and the Ontario elite have been moving and shaking to control the country. That's why she ran for leadership of the Conservatives in 2004. That's why she just crossed the floor. That's why she'll take a run at the leadership of the Liberals some time in the distant future, whenever Paul Martin is done (hopefully soon). Belinda's comments that Conservatives don't understand the size of this country is a slap in the face and an insult to western Canadians. She's the one who doesn't understand that Canada has 4 western provinces who are sick and tired of people like her.
3) The western "provinces" will continue to remain as colonies. We're underrepresented in the House of Commons and the Senate.
4) Proof why we need to keep the Queen as Head of State.
5) Western seperatism just got some more legs.
And I want to remind you that just last week, Belinda voted with the Conservative caucus on a non-confidence vote. That's right, she voted to defeat the Liberals. Then she joins them because Paul Martin is desperate.
"There are no grand principles at play here. Just ambition." - Stephen Harper.
Budget Vote on Thursday May 19, 2005:
So where are we at for Thursday's budget/confidence vote in the House of Commons?
(Liberals + Stronach) + (NDP - Broadbent) + Parrish (independent): 151 seats
(Conservatives - Stinson) + Bloc Quebecois + Kilgour (independent): 151 seats
Chuck Cadman (independent MP from Surrey, BC) is still undecided but will be there for the vote. So it comes down to him. He was a Reform MP from 1997, then Canadian Alliance in 2000. He ran for the nomination in his riding for the Conservatives but lost because it was stacked. So he ran as an independent and still beat out the Conservative candidate.
So what does Snaky have to say about this? Whore. She's a blatant whore tied deeply into the eastern elite. Although I always knew she wasn't a true conservative by any means, how anyone can do this only shows she lacks real principle by supporting a corrupt party and government. This says several things about this country:
1) It's controlled by the Mafia. The Liberal sponsorship scandal revealed what many of us already knew -- that the Liberal party has had dealings with the Bonanno crime family. Yes, the Mafia itself. Its deeply rooted in Montreal and has been there since the days of Capone and the like. The Mafia is moving to protect its people during the Gomery Inquiry and is setting up patsies.
2) Belinda's dad and the Ontario elite have been moving and shaking to control the country. That's why she ran for leadership of the Conservatives in 2004. That's why she just crossed the floor. That's why she'll take a run at the leadership of the Liberals some time in the distant future, whenever Paul Martin is done (hopefully soon). Belinda's comments that Conservatives don't understand the size of this country is a slap in the face and an insult to western Canadians. She's the one who doesn't understand that Canada has 4 western provinces who are sick and tired of people like her.
3) The western "provinces" will continue to remain as colonies. We're underrepresented in the House of Commons and the Senate.
4) Proof why we need to keep the Queen as Head of State.
5) Western seperatism just got some more legs.
And I want to remind you that just last week, Belinda voted with the Conservative caucus on a non-confidence vote. That's right, she voted to defeat the Liberals. Then she joins them because Paul Martin is desperate.
"There are no grand principles at play here. Just ambition." - Stephen Harper.
Budget Vote on Thursday May 19, 2005:
So where are we at for Thursday's budget/confidence vote in the House of Commons?
(Liberals + Stronach) + (NDP - Broadbent) + Parrish (independent): 151 seats
(Conservatives - Stinson) + Bloc Quebecois + Kilgour (independent): 151 seats
Chuck Cadman (independent MP from Surrey, BC) is still undecided but will be there for the vote. So it comes down to him. He was a Reform MP from 1997, then Canadian Alliance in 2000. He ran for the nomination in his riding for the Conservatives but lost because it was stacked. So he ran as an independent and still beat out the Conservative candidate.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "The Interpreter"
Well we got Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman -- two hot actors that can steam up any movie. Sorry, but not this one.
Nicole plays Silvia Broome, a United Nation's interpreter who hails from Muboto, Africa. The movie starts with a security scare at the U.N. in New York, so everyone is evacuated. Silvia then goes back later to get her African flutes that she left behind. Going into the interpreter booth, she overhears a conversation on the U.N. floor about a potential plot to assassinate the Muboto president. But we don't actually hear what they said. We have to take her word for it, or do we? But the next day, she reports it to the U.N.
Sean Penn plays Tobin, a U.N. secret service agent who is assigned to Silvia in the investigation.
Well, I don't want to get into the details of the plot, but basically, Tobin doesn't know whether to believe her or not.
This movie could have been really good, so it was a bit disappointing. There are plot twists, but a keen mind can figure them out. I'm really tired of movies that use blatant foreshadowing. I won't give those bits away, I trust you'll notice them early on. There's so much more that could have been done with these two excellent actors. Either the dialogue doesn't utilize their talents or they just don't put enough effort into it. I'll go with the lousy dialogue. The steaminess just doesn't go anywhere.
There are times where the plot tension is really hot, but it tends to drag, then the cinematography just doesn't make the climax uberexciting.
Political plots are some of the most confusing ones, especially when an individual schemes to play both sides (see Star Wars - Attack of the Clones). This movie makes it difficult to sort everyone out and a better dialogue emphasis would have certainly helped.
Snak gives "The Interpreter" 2.76 fists out of 5.
Next review ... "Kingdom of Heaven". Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson star in this crusader blockbuster about the Christian Knights Hospitallier and Templars who are at war with the Saracens under Saladin. Ridley Scott directs (thankfully). My prediction ... it's gonna kick ass, but not as much as Braveheart.
Nicole plays Silvia Broome, a United Nation's interpreter who hails from Muboto, Africa. The movie starts with a security scare at the U.N. in New York, so everyone is evacuated. Silvia then goes back later to get her African flutes that she left behind. Going into the interpreter booth, she overhears a conversation on the U.N. floor about a potential plot to assassinate the Muboto president. But we don't actually hear what they said. We have to take her word for it, or do we? But the next day, she reports it to the U.N.
Sean Penn plays Tobin, a U.N. secret service agent who is assigned to Silvia in the investigation.
Well, I don't want to get into the details of the plot, but basically, Tobin doesn't know whether to believe her or not.
This movie could have been really good, so it was a bit disappointing. There are plot twists, but a keen mind can figure them out. I'm really tired of movies that use blatant foreshadowing. I won't give those bits away, I trust you'll notice them early on. There's so much more that could have been done with these two excellent actors. Either the dialogue doesn't utilize their talents or they just don't put enough effort into it. I'll go with the lousy dialogue. The steaminess just doesn't go anywhere.
There are times where the plot tension is really hot, but it tends to drag, then the cinematography just doesn't make the climax uberexciting.
Political plots are some of the most confusing ones, especially when an individual schemes to play both sides (see Star Wars - Attack of the Clones). This movie makes it difficult to sort everyone out and a better dialogue emphasis would have certainly helped.
Snak gives "The Interpreter" 2.76 fists out of 5.
Next review ... "Kingdom of Heaven". Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson star in this crusader blockbuster about the Christian Knights Hospitallier and Templars who are at war with the Saracens under Saladin. Ridley Scott directs (thankfully). My prediction ... it's gonna kick ass, but not as much as Braveheart.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "Sideways"
"I'm not drinking Merlot!"
This movie isn't for the boys who read Maxim, Stuff, or skateboard magazines.
This movie is for the men who read GQ, Esquire, "Barely Legal", and Wine Makers' Weekly.
This movie isn't for dads. It's for the men a year or so before they becomes dads.
So it's not a family movie.
And it isn't for women either. It's not for women because women won't ever admit that they don't understand men. Men fully submit to the fact that trying to understand a woman is the greatest mystery.
It's a real guy movie. And I emphasize "real". It's sophisticated and deep. Any man who doesn't understand the movie, is simply not a man, and should go back to the superficial and easy dumb guy movies like American Pie, Road Trip, and Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle.
I really can't think of another movie like Sideways, except for Swingers. Sideways is the sequel. For those who don't understand it, will find it slow, but those who do, will soak up every ounce of it and appreciate the finer qualities.
Ah yes. It's very smooth. The obvious metaphor between the delicacy and preference of a Pinot Noir grape and Miles' middle aged crisis is simple yet brilliant. His description of the grape to Mya on the porch is the crux of that metaphor and part of the script that put this movie at the top of the Oscars.
If you've had Pinot Noir wine, you'll know that it is a very fine rare wine. It's taste is mild and relaxing. If you've had Merlot, you'll know that it is a bolder wine and readily available.
The juxtaposition of the two characters, Jack and Miles, emphasizes their personality differences on the extremities of typical lonely middle aged men. On one hand you have Jack, the extroverted, sexually active, well dressed, party guy with everything going for him including his upcoming wedding, contrasted with Miles, the introverted, shy, bald, fat, drunk, poorly dressed, divorcee and failed writer. Despite these polarized traits, both men have a breakdown. Jack's admission about his true feelings of his fiancee show he too, like all men, have fragile egos. For the man with everything and the man with nothing, the spirit can be shattered by a woman in an instant.
Despite his cheating, Jack does marry and Miles does finally get the courage to hook up with Mya. And notice the similarity in the names? Miles and Mya - both divorcees looking to settle down again, without the pressure.
All men can go sideways from time to time. While they think some happiness lay on a detoured path that satisfies their desires and rubs their ego, they realize at some point of epiphony that this is temporary and should probably get back on the long responsible road of virtue. However, those who never taste the Merlot, and don't explore bold new things, lose a passion for life, and the long road ahead never seems to end.
This is the essence of men and we freely admit it. Women don't. There's no wine to compare them to. Okay, maybe a blush, but there's no small firey red grape that can represent a woman's ego. For that, you'd probably need an orchard the size of California.
The only drawback to the movie is that it could have been funnier. It does have its moments, but I was hoping for a few more chuckles.
But I digress. This movie is great because it makes a man stop and really think. I mean, look at how much I've talked about it already. And I could go on and on about it, but I won't. For now, I think I'll go have a glass of Shiraz. I'm not drinking Merlot.
Snaky gives "Sideways" 4.69 fists out of 5.
This movie isn't for the boys who read Maxim, Stuff, or skateboard magazines.
This movie is for the men who read GQ, Esquire, "Barely Legal", and Wine Makers' Weekly.
This movie isn't for dads. It's for the men a year or so before they becomes dads.
So it's not a family movie.
And it isn't for women either. It's not for women because women won't ever admit that they don't understand men. Men fully submit to the fact that trying to understand a woman is the greatest mystery.
It's a real guy movie. And I emphasize "real". It's sophisticated and deep. Any man who doesn't understand the movie, is simply not a man, and should go back to the superficial and easy dumb guy movies like American Pie, Road Trip, and Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle.
I really can't think of another movie like Sideways, except for Swingers. Sideways is the sequel. For those who don't understand it, will find it slow, but those who do, will soak up every ounce of it and appreciate the finer qualities.
Ah yes. It's very smooth. The obvious metaphor between the delicacy and preference of a Pinot Noir grape and Miles' middle aged crisis is simple yet brilliant. His description of the grape to Mya on the porch is the crux of that metaphor and part of the script that put this movie at the top of the Oscars.
If you've had Pinot Noir wine, you'll know that it is a very fine rare wine. It's taste is mild and relaxing. If you've had Merlot, you'll know that it is a bolder wine and readily available.
The juxtaposition of the two characters, Jack and Miles, emphasizes their personality differences on the extremities of typical lonely middle aged men. On one hand you have Jack, the extroverted, sexually active, well dressed, party guy with everything going for him including his upcoming wedding, contrasted with Miles, the introverted, shy, bald, fat, drunk, poorly dressed, divorcee and failed writer. Despite these polarized traits, both men have a breakdown. Jack's admission about his true feelings of his fiancee show he too, like all men, have fragile egos. For the man with everything and the man with nothing, the spirit can be shattered by a woman in an instant.
Despite his cheating, Jack does marry and Miles does finally get the courage to hook up with Mya. And notice the similarity in the names? Miles and Mya - both divorcees looking to settle down again, without the pressure.
All men can go sideways from time to time. While they think some happiness lay on a detoured path that satisfies their desires and rubs their ego, they realize at some point of epiphony that this is temporary and should probably get back on the long responsible road of virtue. However, those who never taste the Merlot, and don't explore bold new things, lose a passion for life, and the long road ahead never seems to end.
This is the essence of men and we freely admit it. Women don't. There's no wine to compare them to. Okay, maybe a blush, but there's no small firey red grape that can represent a woman's ego. For that, you'd probably need an orchard the size of California.
The only drawback to the movie is that it could have been funnier. It does have its moments, but I was hoping for a few more chuckles.
But I digress. This movie is great because it makes a man stop and really think. I mean, look at how much I've talked about it already. And I could go on and on about it, but I won't. For now, I think I'll go have a glass of Shiraz. I'm not drinking Merlot.
Snaky gives "Sideways" 4.69 fists out of 5.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
The German Shepherd
I don't think there could be a better short description of the new Pope, Benedict XVI. It describes his nationality, and the common religious metaphor of tending to sheep (ie. Catholics), but it also describes a vicious dog. What about Eggs Benny? Okay, maybe not.
Some Catholics, particularly liberal women, aren't so happy about Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Supreme Pontiff. They don't think there's going to be any progressive change in the church with Benny in St. Peter's chair.
I say ... so what!
Catholicism has rigid doctrines such as no pre-marital sex, no abortions, no gay marriage, no women in the clergy, etc. Pope John Paul II stuck by them and his right hand man, Cardinal Ratzinger, did too. IN fact, Ratzy was known as the "Rotweiller" when it came to this. But why shouldn't they? Who else is going to advocate these things to 1.1 billion people (if not more)?
What if no one had pre-marital sex? There would certainly be very few abortions.
"We should just forget about all those people with the crazy extreme right-wing conservative opinions."
Oh come on already. I live in Canada, I hear that typical liberal mantra on a daily, if not, hourly basis. It's tiring, and most of all it's insulting and intolerant to those who do have the belief, faith, and prinicples of Catholicism -- whether you agree or disagree with them. It's like telling an estout Muslim to start drinking beer. It doesn't wash with them, nor does gay marriage and many other "conservative" similarities.
I can even tolerate with the no women in the clergy thing. I mean, look at how some of these priests get hot and bothered with young boys. Ah, but they didn't follow the no pre-marital sex rule. In fact, priests can't get married, so they shouldn't be having sex at all. End of point.
But I think once you allow women in the clergy, which I agree with, then why can't they all get married? Speaking of marriage, with gay marriage, the Holy See's doctrine is that a gay couple is not God's will. God's will in this sense would side with nature where a man and a woman in love, created by God, is the only means by which procreation, the most wonderful of things, can occur. This is true. Once the Catholic church allows gay marriage, they can kiss the no pre-marital sex rule goodbye. A domino effect occurs. Who knows where it will lead. Polygamy? Oh, that's just around the corner folks. Will you tolerate that?
But the whole gay marriage thing was decided a long time ago when atheist and agnostic heterosexual couples got married. The church had no business here because God wasn't on the invite list.
However, like many things, the gov't should then stay completely out of the debate altogether and let individuals and individual churches to decide. But gov't likes to control marriage and what rights you can have (when you already have by just existing by the way). So why bother?
The answer is simple. Taxes. The gov't likes to control who pays taxes.
The church was one of the first institutions to implement a tithe - a 10% flat tax on everyone. Then they got you to pay so you have your deceased loved ones be moved from purgatory to heaven. Sounds like how the government says you have to pay taxes or the country will fall apart with no central control - you know, because of the separtists and child welfare.
So you're thinking, what does yippin' about the gov't have to do with the new Pope? Well, for those liberals who want the church and Pope to change relieving control over its followers should take a good hard look at their own government and demand the exact same thing - less dependence and control from the government. While I commend their efforts on one hand, they should look at the other side, otherwise their demands and beliefs are wholly (Holy?) fruitless.
However, like the government, don't expect the German Shepherd to obey you.
Some Catholics, particularly liberal women, aren't so happy about Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Supreme Pontiff. They don't think there's going to be any progressive change in the church with Benny in St. Peter's chair.
I say ... so what!
Catholicism has rigid doctrines such as no pre-marital sex, no abortions, no gay marriage, no women in the clergy, etc. Pope John Paul II stuck by them and his right hand man, Cardinal Ratzinger, did too. IN fact, Ratzy was known as the "Rotweiller" when it came to this. But why shouldn't they? Who else is going to advocate these things to 1.1 billion people (if not more)?
What if no one had pre-marital sex? There would certainly be very few abortions.
"We should just forget about all those people with the crazy extreme right-wing conservative opinions."
Oh come on already. I live in Canada, I hear that typical liberal mantra on a daily, if not, hourly basis. It's tiring, and most of all it's insulting and intolerant to those who do have the belief, faith, and prinicples of Catholicism -- whether you agree or disagree with them. It's like telling an estout Muslim to start drinking beer. It doesn't wash with them, nor does gay marriage and many other "conservative" similarities.
I can even tolerate with the no women in the clergy thing. I mean, look at how some of these priests get hot and bothered with young boys. Ah, but they didn't follow the no pre-marital sex rule. In fact, priests can't get married, so they shouldn't be having sex at all. End of point.
But I think once you allow women in the clergy, which I agree with, then why can't they all get married? Speaking of marriage, with gay marriage, the Holy See's doctrine is that a gay couple is not God's will. God's will in this sense would side with nature where a man and a woman in love, created by God, is the only means by which procreation, the most wonderful of things, can occur. This is true. Once the Catholic church allows gay marriage, they can kiss the no pre-marital sex rule goodbye. A domino effect occurs. Who knows where it will lead. Polygamy? Oh, that's just around the corner folks. Will you tolerate that?
But the whole gay marriage thing was decided a long time ago when atheist and agnostic heterosexual couples got married. The church had no business here because God wasn't on the invite list.
However, like many things, the gov't should then stay completely out of the debate altogether and let individuals and individual churches to decide. But gov't likes to control marriage and what rights you can have (when you already have by just existing by the way). So why bother?
The answer is simple. Taxes. The gov't likes to control who pays taxes.
The church was one of the first institutions to implement a tithe - a 10% flat tax on everyone. Then they got you to pay so you have your deceased loved ones be moved from purgatory to heaven. Sounds like how the government says you have to pay taxes or the country will fall apart with no central control - you know, because of the separtists and child welfare.
So you're thinking, what does yippin' about the gov't have to do with the new Pope? Well, for those liberals who want the church and Pope to change relieving control over its followers should take a good hard look at their own government and demand the exact same thing - less dependence and control from the government. While I commend their efforts on one hand, they should look at the other side, otherwise their demands and beliefs are wholly (Holy?) fruitless.
However, like the government, don't expect the German Shepherd to obey you.
Movies & TV suck
We wanted to go see a movie yesterday. But there was fuck all in the theatres, so we didn't go.
Only good shows on TV now:
"CSI"
"Trailer Park Boys"
"Mythbusters"
"Question Period in the House of Commons" on CPAC (ooh, it's getting really nasty - true reality TV)
What happened to the greatest comedy ever - "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on Showcase?
And now that there's no hockey, can someone please tell me why the CBC is still on the air? And don't say North of 60, or the umpteenth Anne Murray special.
Thank God summer is around the corner.
Only good shows on TV now:
"CSI"
"Trailer Park Boys"
"Mythbusters"
"Question Period in the House of Commons" on CPAC (ooh, it's getting really nasty - true reality TV)
What happened to the greatest comedy ever - "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on Showcase?
And now that there's no hockey, can someone please tell me why the CBC is still on the air? And don't say North of 60, or the umpteenth Anne Murray special.
Thank God summer is around the corner.
More Kyoto Accord...
Read the following article and you'll see the proof of why I've been stating that the Kyoto Protocol is a sham, will not curb global warming, and is a UN scheme to create an international socialist system. Sad thing is, Canada just bought in big time - a whole $10 billion dollars worth. And the guy behind it all is Maurice Strong, who's been linked to the U.N. Oil for Food - Iraq scandal. And did I mention that Maurice Strong had Paul Martin as his assitant at Power Corp for many years?
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover042105.htm
The world is not what is seems. Don't believe the hype. There are other ways and means to control pollution. The Kyoto accord does none of this. It has NOT been scientifically proven that recent global warming is caused by humans. Even my climatology professor said so. The earth was much warmer than it is today many years ago. We should be concerned about POLLUTION and SMOG not natural GREENHOUSE GASES!!!
Canadians will pay on average $30/month for the useless Kyoto protocol to buy international emission credits.
It's amazing that the entire U.S. Senate, Democrat and Republican, voted unanimously to not sign on to the Kyoto protocol. Australia didn't sign on either. But Canada did! Why? Ask Maurice Strong's buddy, Paul Martin.
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover042105.htm
The world is not what is seems. Don't believe the hype. There are other ways and means to control pollution. The Kyoto accord does none of this. It has NOT been scientifically proven that recent global warming is caused by humans. Even my climatology professor said so. The earth was much warmer than it is today many years ago. We should be concerned about POLLUTION and SMOG not natural GREENHOUSE GASES!!!
Canadians will pay on average $30/month for the useless Kyoto protocol to buy international emission credits.
It's amazing that the entire U.S. Senate, Democrat and Republican, voted unanimously to not sign on to the Kyoto protocol. Australia didn't sign on either. But Canada did! Why? Ask Maurice Strong's buddy, Paul Martin.
Monday, April 18, 2005
One Tonne of Bulsh*t
Yeah, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout. Did you know that the Liberal gov't just spent $10 BILLION dollars on trying to meet the Kyoto Accord targets? $10 billion! First it was a few million, then a few hundred million, then 1 billion, then 5 billion, now 10 billion. Stop the insanity! Looks like another boondoggle, but this one is the biggest in history! Just imagine what that money could have really done for this country rather than buying off to other countries for Kyoto credits (read: international socialism). With about 15 million taxpayers in Canada, that money could have been a simple income tax cut, or forgive some student debt, or invest it and have it grow for a few years.
So you're thinking - "But Snaky, global warming is affecting our future - our children's future." Well of course it will. But the earth has been a lot warmer in the past and a lot colder and a lot warmer, etc. Well listen up, the Kyoto Accord will do NOTHING to circumvent Mother Nature, or smog.
Why? Let's explode some of the myths regarding "Global Warming" shall we? Please visit this website 'Envirotruth.org'
Here are a few myths:
The Liberal government has doled out more than $26 million in a dubious two-year advertising blitz to convince Canadians to cut pollution - including an $85,000 commercial fee for comedian Rick Mercer, Sun Media has learned.
Simply put, global warming caused by humans is still not a proven scientific fact - it's a myth. A big $10 billion myth. This "One Tonne Challenge" is one tonne of bullsh*t. Don't buy into it. Oh wait, you already have.
So you're thinking - "But Snaky, global warming is affecting our future - our children's future." Well of course it will. But the earth has been a lot warmer in the past and a lot colder and a lot warmer, etc. Well listen up, the Kyoto Accord will do NOTHING to circumvent Mother Nature, or smog.
Why? Let's explode some of the myths regarding "Global Warming" shall we? Please visit this website 'Envirotruth.org'
Here are a few myths:
"The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in
temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions."
So despite these myths, what's the Liberal's plan? Rick Mercer. That's the plan. You've seen the ads. "Come on Canada! Take the One Tonne Challenge." One Tonne my ass. Seriously, I've probably gassed out one tonne of you-know-what from you-know-where in my lifetime."Many people support the Kyoto Accord because they believe it is a clean air treaty that will reduce pollution. It is not. Kyoto is a treaty designed to
reduce human production of so-called 'greenhouse gases' (GHG), the recent increase of which has been associated with unnatural global warming by some scientists.Greenhouse gases include water vapor (99% of all the GHG in the atmosphere), methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Only about 2% of all GHG are produced by human activity; the rest is produced by nature. The first time frame of the Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized countries (including Canada and the United States) to reduce their overall emissions of GHG so that their yearly average between 2008 and 2012 will be an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels (targets vary - for example, Canada's is a 6% reduction; Australia's is an 8% increase). Since most of the developed world's production of GHG is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), this means that Kyoto is mostly about reducing CO2.
Many commentators refer to Kyoto and other treaties that address CO2 levels as
'pollution treaties', implying that CO2 is somehow a pollutant. This is incorrect. CO2 is a benign 'trace gas', constituting only about 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere. It is colourless, odourless and not toxic in any fashion.
Besides helping keep the earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age with average global temperatures 33°C lower than they are now, CO2 is a plant nutrient critical to the process of photosynthesis. "
The Liberal government has doled out more than $26 million in a dubious two-year advertising blitz to convince Canadians to cut pollution - including an $85,000 commercial fee for comedian Rick Mercer, Sun Media has learned.
Simply put, global warming caused by humans is still not a proven scientific fact - it's a myth. A big $10 billion myth. This "One Tonne Challenge" is one tonne of bullsh*t. Don't buy into it. Oh wait, you already have.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Liberal Corruption is biggest scandal in Canadian History
HOLY CORRUPTION!
Not like it's really a surprise. We all knew it, but didn't have the proof. The details of what happened are shocking and disgusting. Now that for the first time ever, I don't get anything back on my taxes this year, I'm even more angry. Why? Because my tax dollars in the past went back to the Liberal Party and to the separatists. You heard me! THE SEPARATISTS!
Now that the publication ban has been mostly lifted, we're now getting through the iceberg and finding out who in the Liberal party was behind all this.
Basically, before and during the 1995 Quebec referendum period, the Liberal government handed out grants to advertising firms, like GroupAction in Quebec, often for no work returned, or money and jobs handed to cronies, likely the Montreal mafia (that's right, I said the mafia!), to Jean Chretien's brother, and other scum bags.
We're talking millions of dollars.
Then the firms turn around and donate back a bajillion to the Liberal Party, as well as to the provincial Parti Quebecois! (See... there's the connection). Why do they donate? So they can continue to get contracts?
But it was federal Liberal Party henchmen in Quebec who threatened GroupAction to donate back to the Liberals in the first place or they wouldn't receive the federal advertising contracts. The federal Liberals in Quebec were $3 million in the hole and needed the money for the upcoming federal elections.
Paul Martin, our current Prime Minister, was the Quebec deputy of the Liberal caucus at the time. So this money WOULD have gone to his campaigns directly in 1993, 1997, and 2000.
I don't care if he's mad as hell and is getting to the bottom of it now. He should have put a stop to it 10 years ago.
Taxpayers should get their money back. The Liberal party owes it. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are the biggest political crooks in Canadian history.
It's time this hegemony ended.
Yes, I want my money back, but more importantly I want my country back.
Not like it's really a surprise. We all knew it, but didn't have the proof. The details of what happened are shocking and disgusting. Now that for the first time ever, I don't get anything back on my taxes this year, I'm even more angry. Why? Because my tax dollars in the past went back to the Liberal Party and to the separatists. You heard me! THE SEPARATISTS!
Now that the publication ban has been mostly lifted, we're now getting through the iceberg and finding out who in the Liberal party was behind all this.
Basically, before and during the 1995 Quebec referendum period, the Liberal government handed out grants to advertising firms, like GroupAction in Quebec, often for no work returned, or money and jobs handed to cronies, likely the Montreal mafia (that's right, I said the mafia!), to Jean Chretien's brother, and other scum bags.
We're talking millions of dollars.
Then the firms turn around and donate back a bajillion to the Liberal Party, as well as to the provincial Parti Quebecois! (See... there's the connection). Why do they donate? So they can continue to get contracts?
But it was federal Liberal Party henchmen in Quebec who threatened GroupAction to donate back to the Liberals in the first place or they wouldn't receive the federal advertising contracts. The federal Liberals in Quebec were $3 million in the hole and needed the money for the upcoming federal elections.
Paul Martin, our current Prime Minister, was the Quebec deputy of the Liberal caucus at the time. So this money WOULD have gone to his campaigns directly in 1993, 1997, and 2000.
I don't care if he's mad as hell and is getting to the bottom of it now. He should have put a stop to it 10 years ago.
Taxpayers should get their money back. The Liberal party owes it. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are the biggest political crooks in Canadian history.
It's time this hegemony ended.
Yes, I want my money back, but more importantly I want my country back.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Remembering Pope John Paul II
I'm not a Catholic, nor do I ever want to be. The history of the Catholic church is brutal, and to me, in its holy hippocracy actually went against what Jesus Christ was trying to preach in the first place. Jesus spoke out and was crucified. But those who spoke out against the church were tortured and killed. It was a repressive regime upon Europe for many centuries. It stayed quiet during the holocaust. The history of the papacy is no better. Many popes were political pawns, some were dictators, and there's even one who was a gay pedophile. Not pretty is it?
So you're thinking, how is this a way to remember John Paul II? Call it contrast. In my opinion, Pope John Paul II was the greatest man of both the 20th and 21 centuries. He was a deeply spiritual man. His faith enabled him to endure nazism, communism, a tumor, getting shot, and Parkinson's disease. His courage was a symbol for the Polish people especially during the fall of communism. While Sinead O'Connor may disagree, he was highly regarded by leaders of all religions for his openness, tolerance, and warmth.
I remember when I was young and my parents really never explained religion to me. I didn't even know which religion I belonged to, or what made Jesus so great. I thought the Pope was the leader of all of Christianity, when in actual fact, he's only the leader of the Catholics. However, in Pope John Paul's case, I'd say he WAS the leader of all of Christianity, including mine.
I remember when he got shot. I remember the newspaper headlines after the Pope forgave his assailant: "Why Forgive?". What I didn't remember until seeing an old news clip on TV recently was the Pope actually visiting this guy and hugging him. Wow. Who could do that? The Pope could.
I remember when he came to Edmonton. This town was in a frenzy. I didn't know why. Years later, I figured it out and now regret not seeing him.
You've probably already heard how many times he travelled the globe, how many miles, how many people he spoke to, who he met with, etc. He had many "firsts" for a Pope, like the first to step into a mosque. He also moderized the Vatican with regards to communication channels, technology, and openness. He and Ronald Reagan shared a unique bond. Both were leaders in bringing down communism. With balance and grace, he also carefully warned all the U.S. presidents against excessive capitalism and immorality.
What irks me is all the pinko pundits out there right now who questioned his stance against abortion, same-sex marriage, ordaining women, and other things. They say he was too conservative. Oh give me a break already. Whenever these people get a chance to spew their opinion they do it. In this regard, Pope John Paul II was a man who stuck by his prinicples. I don't care if you disagree with them, you should respect them regardless. Could you imagine if he didn't? The entire Catholic Church and other Christian religions would crumble. But that's what some of these pundits want. They're socialists - they believe the government sets the standards for society and many of these governments have been going against what the Pope believes.
Pope John Paul II negated all the historical wrongs of the Church. To say he wasn't modern, is ignorant. He was the greatest of men. When he began his papacy, he was a mover and a shaker, always on the go. He accomplished so much. Even in the last few years, even with severe Parkinson's, he still raised a hand to wave, still said something. I believe it was divinity that allowed him to be with us through Easter this year. It will be a special one no one will forget. Like Christ, as his body deteriorated, his soul grew even more powerful than ever.
I've watched and read stories of people who've met him and how completely humbled they were by his presence -- how he would embrace them and tell them that they are blessed. With his courage, his dignity, and his love, he touched everyone on the globe. He was a beacon of peace and hope. His legacy and his spirit shall be a part of me forever.
I prayed for the Pope in his dying days. I cried when he died. God had a shepard on earth, and now He has a good friend in heaven.
God, make room, John Paul II has risen.
So you're thinking, how is this a way to remember John Paul II? Call it contrast. In my opinion, Pope John Paul II was the greatest man of both the 20th and 21 centuries. He was a deeply spiritual man. His faith enabled him to endure nazism, communism, a tumor, getting shot, and Parkinson's disease. His courage was a symbol for the Polish people especially during the fall of communism. While Sinead O'Connor may disagree, he was highly regarded by leaders of all religions for his openness, tolerance, and warmth.
I remember when I was young and my parents really never explained religion to me. I didn't even know which religion I belonged to, or what made Jesus so great. I thought the Pope was the leader of all of Christianity, when in actual fact, he's only the leader of the Catholics. However, in Pope John Paul's case, I'd say he WAS the leader of all of Christianity, including mine.
I remember when he got shot. I remember the newspaper headlines after the Pope forgave his assailant: "Why Forgive?". What I didn't remember until seeing an old news clip on TV recently was the Pope actually visiting this guy and hugging him. Wow. Who could do that? The Pope could.
I remember when he came to Edmonton. This town was in a frenzy. I didn't know why. Years later, I figured it out and now regret not seeing him.
You've probably already heard how many times he travelled the globe, how many miles, how many people he spoke to, who he met with, etc. He had many "firsts" for a Pope, like the first to step into a mosque. He also moderized the Vatican with regards to communication channels, technology, and openness. He and Ronald Reagan shared a unique bond. Both were leaders in bringing down communism. With balance and grace, he also carefully warned all the U.S. presidents against excessive capitalism and immorality.
What irks me is all the pinko pundits out there right now who questioned his stance against abortion, same-sex marriage, ordaining women, and other things. They say he was too conservative. Oh give me a break already. Whenever these people get a chance to spew their opinion they do it. In this regard, Pope John Paul II was a man who stuck by his prinicples. I don't care if you disagree with them, you should respect them regardless. Could you imagine if he didn't? The entire Catholic Church and other Christian religions would crumble. But that's what some of these pundits want. They're socialists - they believe the government sets the standards for society and many of these governments have been going against what the Pope believes.
Pope John Paul II negated all the historical wrongs of the Church. To say he wasn't modern, is ignorant. He was the greatest of men. When he began his papacy, he was a mover and a shaker, always on the go. He accomplished so much. Even in the last few years, even with severe Parkinson's, he still raised a hand to wave, still said something. I believe it was divinity that allowed him to be with us through Easter this year. It will be a special one no one will forget. Like Christ, as his body deteriorated, his soul grew even more powerful than ever.
I've watched and read stories of people who've met him and how completely humbled they were by his presence -- how he would embrace them and tell them that they are blessed. With his courage, his dignity, and his love, he touched everyone on the globe. He was a beacon of peace and hope. His legacy and his spirit shall be a part of me forever.
I prayed for the Pope in his dying days. I cried when he died. God had a shepard on earth, and now He has a good friend in heaven.
God, make room, John Paul II has risen.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Terry Schaivo
She died this morning after 13 days without food or water because the courts ruled to take her feeding tube away.
American law has failed. The law is supposed to protect people from injustice. And the greatest injustice has just occurred. She died a painful death - perhaps the most painful of all - starvation.
If Terry Shaivo truly said to her husband that if she were ever in a vegetative state to simply die, I doubt she meant that during the last 13 days. A brain damaged person with no food or water lived for 13 days! To me, it's obvious she was struggling for her life as this is about the normal length for non-brain damaged people.
However, I had a recent experience where my pet cat just decided to not drink water or eat food. I tried to feed him but it was obvious he didn't want to live any more. I probably waited a couple days too long to put him down. So the question remains for Terry is: Was she dying prior to the feeding tube being removed? Because she'd been in that state for a couple years, I'd say 'No' she wasn't dying.
Maybe pets have it easy. When they get put down, they inject them with an overdose of anasthesia. If you've never had a general anasthesia before you simply don't know how wonderfully painless it is. Quite amazing really. I had a double dose when I had my wisdom teeth pulled. You feel a gentle rush coming up to your head and quietly, you close your eyes. It's really the best way to die, rather than suffer the immense pain of starvation. For those who die in their sleep, I guess they're lucky.
The Right To Die issue is a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn for the law to agree that a person has a right to die due to medical pain if they have stated so in a living will? If you had terminal cancer and it was very painful, do you have the right to choose to die? According to American law, you don't. As far as I know though, Terry did not have a living will, just her husband's word. Was it her choice? Her parents would say 'Definitely not.' But perhaps the time has come to draw the line, so the law doesn't fail again.
Many of you know, I'm a God fearing/loving person. But let's leave God out of this one for a moment. Say you're in an uncurable pain every moment and you simply don't want to live anymore. Do you have the right to choose to die?
Now, where do we draw the line between physical pain and mental pain? Maybe the person's physical pain isn't as bad as it is, and they use it as an excuse to relieve them from the mental pain they're feeling. So now is it suicide?
Suicide, in some cultures, is considered a noble act. Some, it is not. So who's right? What if all the bad people in the world decided to kill themselves for the benefit of mankind? Well, that won't happen. But what about suicide or kamikaze bombers?
I've heard of people who knew when their time had come and they go visit family and friends once last time, then the next day they're gone. I don't know about this. Then I hear they drank themselves to death or something - I guess its induced death then.
Survival is an animal instinct and humans are no different. While your body may be about to die, humans have had the tendancy to hang on and struggle for life no matter what. Death can be painful, and our instinct is to pull away from pain. It's a remarkable capability we have. Life wouldn't exist if it wasn't worth it to be alive.
Okay, so now let's bring God back into the issue. God, to me, is the energy force of everything - especially this instinct of life I mentioned. For this, we humans also need emotional, mental, and physical energy to live a good life. For Terry, she had loving parents who gave her that emotional energy at her bed side and they say she communicated it back to them. The feeding tube provided her physical energy. How a person feeds themsevles is irrelevant to the debate. The Pope is being fed in a similar manner right now. Now mentally, who knows what's going on in her mind, so I think it's best to assume that she had mental capabilities -- even if she was in a vegetative state.
The fact of the matter is that her husband was about to run out of the medical money to sustain her and he gave up trying for more. Interestingly, now that the money is gone, he came out saying that she wanted to die. May God have mercy on this man when his hour approaches, because for Terry in her last 13 days, the law knew no mercy as she was obviously struggling for her life.
The issue is simply: respect the life you are given and of the lives of others well.
Terry Schaivo is a hero, not because she's a martyr, but because she struggled to prove the most important thing -- life.
American law has failed. The law is supposed to protect people from injustice. And the greatest injustice has just occurred. She died a painful death - perhaps the most painful of all - starvation.
If Terry Shaivo truly said to her husband that if she were ever in a vegetative state to simply die, I doubt she meant that during the last 13 days. A brain damaged person with no food or water lived for 13 days! To me, it's obvious she was struggling for her life as this is about the normal length for non-brain damaged people.
However, I had a recent experience where my pet cat just decided to not drink water or eat food. I tried to feed him but it was obvious he didn't want to live any more. I probably waited a couple days too long to put him down. So the question remains for Terry is: Was she dying prior to the feeding tube being removed? Because she'd been in that state for a couple years, I'd say 'No' she wasn't dying.
Maybe pets have it easy. When they get put down, they inject them with an overdose of anasthesia. If you've never had a general anasthesia before you simply don't know how wonderfully painless it is. Quite amazing really. I had a double dose when I had my wisdom teeth pulled. You feel a gentle rush coming up to your head and quietly, you close your eyes. It's really the best way to die, rather than suffer the immense pain of starvation. For those who die in their sleep, I guess they're lucky.
The Right To Die issue is a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn for the law to agree that a person has a right to die due to medical pain if they have stated so in a living will? If you had terminal cancer and it was very painful, do you have the right to choose to die? According to American law, you don't. As far as I know though, Terry did not have a living will, just her husband's word. Was it her choice? Her parents would say 'Definitely not.' But perhaps the time has come to draw the line, so the law doesn't fail again.
Many of you know, I'm a God fearing/loving person. But let's leave God out of this one for a moment. Say you're in an uncurable pain every moment and you simply don't want to live anymore. Do you have the right to choose to die?
Now, where do we draw the line between physical pain and mental pain? Maybe the person's physical pain isn't as bad as it is, and they use it as an excuse to relieve them from the mental pain they're feeling. So now is it suicide?
Suicide, in some cultures, is considered a noble act. Some, it is not. So who's right? What if all the bad people in the world decided to kill themselves for the benefit of mankind? Well, that won't happen. But what about suicide or kamikaze bombers?
I've heard of people who knew when their time had come and they go visit family and friends once last time, then the next day they're gone. I don't know about this. Then I hear they drank themselves to death or something - I guess its induced death then.
Survival is an animal instinct and humans are no different. While your body may be about to die, humans have had the tendancy to hang on and struggle for life no matter what. Death can be painful, and our instinct is to pull away from pain. It's a remarkable capability we have. Life wouldn't exist if it wasn't worth it to be alive.
Okay, so now let's bring God back into the issue. God, to me, is the energy force of everything - especially this instinct of life I mentioned. For this, we humans also need emotional, mental, and physical energy to live a good life. For Terry, she had loving parents who gave her that emotional energy at her bed side and they say she communicated it back to them. The feeding tube provided her physical energy. How a person feeds themsevles is irrelevant to the debate. The Pope is being fed in a similar manner right now. Now mentally, who knows what's going on in her mind, so I think it's best to assume that she had mental capabilities -- even if she was in a vegetative state.
The fact of the matter is that her husband was about to run out of the medical money to sustain her and he gave up trying for more. Interestingly, now that the money is gone, he came out saying that she wanted to die. May God have mercy on this man when his hour approaches, because for Terry in her last 13 days, the law knew no mercy as she was obviously struggling for her life.
The issue is simply: respect the life you are given and of the lives of others well.
Terry Schaivo is a hero, not because she's a martyr, but because she struggled to prove the most important thing -- life.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "Following"
You like da black n white? Good. 'Cause it's better. Colour is so distracting isn't it? And how many characters do you need anyway? Well, only a few for this movie, and it works - to a point.
Think of this concept. You're a 20 something broke and bored writer living in a small flat in London. You need ideas for your writing, so you decide to start following people randomly examining their day-to-day proceedings. Then one day, one person you follow catches you and calls you on it. You deny. But your pathetic, so you fess up and tell the whole truth to this stranger. Then he tells you what he's been up to.
Oh yes, it's an intriguing movie. Have you seen "Momento"? Same good shit on a different pile. It's got one plot line, but once again, you're given bits of the future, the past, all rolled up into one and they're spit upon you cleverly. But that's the thing with only having a few characters in a weaving time plot, you can't make it too complicated. People are only so smart you know!
So the key to figuring out where ... um .. er ... I mean WHEN you are is to notice the lead character's hair. That's right, I said hair dammit!
Are there plot twists? It wouldn't be good if there weren't any right? So yeah, there's plot twists alright, but you can't help but feel for the pathetic 20-something writer. One of the plot twists I figured out, but not the others.
However, that said, those other plot twists weren't presented as shockingly as plot twists usually are. I didn't go, "Holy crap, he sees dead people!" I was more like, "Well, isn't that cleverly typical, no?" So because of that, it drops a whole point.
Would I recommend this little greyscale British mind fuck? Of course! Would I watch it again? Nah. Would I watch Momento again? Of course!
Snakaramadingdong gives "Following" a 3.72 fits outta 5. Hey, did you know this film got a bunch of awards and shit? Well it didn't. Just a bunch of nominations.
Think of this concept. You're a 20 something broke and bored writer living in a small flat in London. You need ideas for your writing, so you decide to start following people randomly examining their day-to-day proceedings. Then one day, one person you follow catches you and calls you on it. You deny. But your pathetic, so you fess up and tell the whole truth to this stranger. Then he tells you what he's been up to.
Oh yes, it's an intriguing movie. Have you seen "Momento"? Same good shit on a different pile. It's got one plot line, but once again, you're given bits of the future, the past, all rolled up into one and they're spit upon you cleverly. But that's the thing with only having a few characters in a weaving time plot, you can't make it too complicated. People are only so smart you know!
So the key to figuring out where ... um .. er ... I mean WHEN you are is to notice the lead character's hair. That's right, I said hair dammit!
Are there plot twists? It wouldn't be good if there weren't any right? So yeah, there's plot twists alright, but you can't help but feel for the pathetic 20-something writer. One of the plot twists I figured out, but not the others.
However, that said, those other plot twists weren't presented as shockingly as plot twists usually are. I didn't go, "Holy crap, he sees dead people!" I was more like, "Well, isn't that cleverly typical, no?" So because of that, it drops a whole point.
Would I recommend this little greyscale British mind fuck? Of course! Would I watch it again? Nah. Would I watch Momento again? Of course!
Snakaramadingdong gives "Following" a 3.72 fits outta 5. Hey, did you know this film got a bunch of awards and shit? Well it didn't. Just a bunch of nominations.
Monday, March 21, 2005
A Comfortable Conservatism
The Conservative Party met in Montreal over the weekend for their "first" policy convention. I say "first" because the old Reform Party used to have these every two years and then the Canadian Alliance had one which brought forth some of the old Reform ideas, only not as well thought out. The old Progressive Conservative Party was a bit too top down for my liking and the Reform/CA party was too bottom up. With the mix of these parties now, we have a bit of both and I think it's actually where most Canadians sit as well. While I'm not big on linear political spectrums, this party sits closer to the centre on social issues, but has maintained its economic policy on the centre-right, while also not going too far on the democratic end.
I watched a bit of the convention on TV. I must admit, this new Conservative Party is basically EXACTLY where I like it to be on policy. Here's why...
1. No youth wing. As a former campus Reform Club president we fought hard to maintain the status quo. One youthful MP, Rob Anders, who actually helped me build the club to the largest one in the country, said, "Don't segregate the youth to a sandbox." I couldn't agree more. The youth wing of the old PC party was a party but they weren't treated as regular members. Equality doesn't mean creating all these wings of a party. Once you have a youth wing, you'll have all these other wings, which at this time in the party's growth, it doesn't need factions - it needs unity. This was maintained. Youth have and always will stay involved with the party. In fact, the Conservative caucus is the youngest in Canadian history. Yay on no youth wing.
2. No recall. I've never really agreed with this. If the MP is that bad, the party, media, and constituency association have means to remove an MP is so terrible. Why a party who wants to form government wants to allow recall isn't a smart move. By-elections are expensive.
3. Equal ridings. I'm siding with Peter Mackay and the old PC idea on this one. Each riding, no matter how many members, is allowed to send 10 delegates to a convention. Each riding has one MP, so this makes sense to me. One member - one vote (OMOV) is dangerous in signing up truck loads of people from one region to dominate. It's a national party that needs to act like one. It did.
4. Traditional marriage. I'm a firm believer that a stable male-female marriage for a family is the building block of society. The Conservatives proved they were actually conservatives this weekend. A gay marriage is certainly not a traditional one, but if homosexuals want to get married, go ahead - doesn't affect me none.
5. Abortion. The Party voted down a resolution to prevent late term abortions. While I agree with that idea, for a party to delve into these sticky issues circumvents the democratic principles of free votes - which if a bill like this came forward, likely a private member's bill, would simply be a free vote amongst all MPs - which is the way most votes should be anyway.
Overall, I'm pleased with the direction of the party. Paul Martin's Liberals voted a couple weeks ago to legalize prostitution, but when asked by the media, Martin said he wouldn't legalize it. What was the point of the Liberal convention then? Dither dither dither.
I think Canadians can now find palatable policies in the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper who has stymied the pundits by keeping this conservative movement together. Centre-right Canadians can now stop voting for a directionless gov't such as the Liberals, who have a leader that disagrees with his own party's policies and have no guts to cut taxes and waste.
I watched a bit of the convention on TV. I must admit, this new Conservative Party is basically EXACTLY where I like it to be on policy. Here's why...
1. No youth wing. As a former campus Reform Club president we fought hard to maintain the status quo. One youthful MP, Rob Anders, who actually helped me build the club to the largest one in the country, said, "Don't segregate the youth to a sandbox." I couldn't agree more. The youth wing of the old PC party was a party but they weren't treated as regular members. Equality doesn't mean creating all these wings of a party. Once you have a youth wing, you'll have all these other wings, which at this time in the party's growth, it doesn't need factions - it needs unity. This was maintained. Youth have and always will stay involved with the party. In fact, the Conservative caucus is the youngest in Canadian history. Yay on no youth wing.
2. No recall. I've never really agreed with this. If the MP is that bad, the party, media, and constituency association have means to remove an MP is so terrible. Why a party who wants to form government wants to allow recall isn't a smart move. By-elections are expensive.
3. Equal ridings. I'm siding with Peter Mackay and the old PC idea on this one. Each riding, no matter how many members, is allowed to send 10 delegates to a convention. Each riding has one MP, so this makes sense to me. One member - one vote (OMOV) is dangerous in signing up truck loads of people from one region to dominate. It's a national party that needs to act like one. It did.
4. Traditional marriage. I'm a firm believer that a stable male-female marriage for a family is the building block of society. The Conservatives proved they were actually conservatives this weekend. A gay marriage is certainly not a traditional one, but if homosexuals want to get married, go ahead - doesn't affect me none.
5. Abortion. The Party voted down a resolution to prevent late term abortions. While I agree with that idea, for a party to delve into these sticky issues circumvents the democratic principles of free votes - which if a bill like this came forward, likely a private member's bill, would simply be a free vote amongst all MPs - which is the way most votes should be anyway.
Overall, I'm pleased with the direction of the party. Paul Martin's Liberals voted a couple weeks ago to legalize prostitution, but when asked by the media, Martin said he wouldn't legalize it. What was the point of the Liberal convention then? Dither dither dither.
I think Canadians can now find palatable policies in the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper who has stymied the pundits by keeping this conservative movement together. Centre-right Canadians can now stop voting for a directionless gov't such as the Liberals, who have a leader that disagrees with his own party's policies and have no guts to cut taxes and waste.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "Ladder 49"
So you're new to the troop/ fraternity/ team/ squad/ corps/ tribe/ company/ school/ department/ ward/ engine/ ladder/ terrorist group/ gang/ mafia/ etc ...
Goofy things then happen. Teasing, pranks and mild hazing of the rookie takes place. Then he gets his first crack at the big time and makes it. They celebrate. He sees a new rookie who was just like him and puts him through the "intiation" to keep the tradition going. He meets a woman who becomes his wife and mother to his children. He toils for years learning the ropes. He sees his best buddies get hurt and die. They get mad and frustrated with each other but the leader keeps it all together - that's why he's the leader and they're not.
The team then takes on a big job -- like bombing Germany, no wait, like taking a mass exodus of patients, no wait, like playing against the toughest team in the league, no wait, like conducting covert ops against a gang, well you get the idea. And when it looks likes the end for this lead character/hero/protagonist ... (well, I don't wanna give it away!)
Snak gives Ladder 49 a big ol' 2.94 fists out of 5. Although a typical formula movie, not bad, but not great, it did make me reflect on my life and how little money these firefighters make. Women will cry. Men won't. Okay, now I gotta get back to office work and get the new guy to make coffee. Cheers.
Goofy things then happen. Teasing, pranks and mild hazing of the rookie takes place. Then he gets his first crack at the big time and makes it. They celebrate. He sees a new rookie who was just like him and puts him through the "intiation" to keep the tradition going. He meets a woman who becomes his wife and mother to his children. He toils for years learning the ropes. He sees his best buddies get hurt and die. They get mad and frustrated with each other but the leader keeps it all together - that's why he's the leader and they're not.
The team then takes on a big job -- like bombing Germany, no wait, like taking a mass exodus of patients, no wait, like playing against the toughest team in the league, no wait, like conducting covert ops against a gang, well you get the idea. And when it looks likes the end for this lead character/hero/protagonist ... (well, I don't wanna give it away!)
Snak gives Ladder 49 a big ol' 2.94 fists out of 5. Although a typical formula movie, not bad, but not great, it did make me reflect on my life and how little money these firefighters make. Women will cry. Men won't. Okay, now I gotta get back to office work and get the new guy to make coffee. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)