Monthly Archives:
March 2006

My Favourite Spam

Most of the spam comments I receive are non-sensical, irrational, and somewhat misguided. Many of them appear as if the spammer did not know how to type, was using an invalid text format or something. But the ones that I can read, I find very enlightening. They warm my heart and I would like to share with you four of my favourites. There are more, they are all winners and I love each and everyone of you equally. Besides being very Zen, they appear to also help you win at poker or something.

Jesse Campbell

  • Very original content. I really like your site. when Opponents Make Soldier Hope: Faithful Tournament is always International Tournament to Lose Boy you should be very Faithful , Curious, Beautiful, Superb nothing comparative to Beautiful Black is feature of Profound Table

David Johnson

  • Just letting you know – your site is fantastic! when Round is Circle it will Hedge Table: Roll Do Loose – that is all that Slot is capable of when Cosmos is Soldier it will Rape Soldier , Player will Chips unconditionally Profound, Lazy, Tremendous nothing comparative to Black

Jose Freeman

  • Excellent! I enjoyed reading your material. Corner can Increase Boy: Forecast Give Give – that is all that Gnome is capable of Faithful is feature of Bad Tournament , to Kill Boy you should be very Standard Bad Mistery Rape or not

Travis Moore

  • Very interesting. keep the good work! Table will Cosmos unconditionally, to Roll Table you should be very White Chair can Double Player , Opponents can Win Chair Black is feature of Faithful Tournament

Loathsome

Stephen Harper is “loath” to co-operate with the ethics commission. The ethics commission, I don’t think I need to tell you, is in charge of ethics. When you do not co-operate with the guys who decide what is ethical then you must be acting un-ethical. Or did I misunderstand something?

Harper and the Freshmen 15Harper appears to not wish to be investigated because, as his mouth-piece says, Shapiro – the ethics czar – has been held in contempt before the House before. And because he did not investigate the Liberals. And because it may hurt. If Harper did something bad then Harper knows he did something bad. He does not need some other person to tell him what he knows he may or may not have done.

But I do have a theory as to why he does not want to co-operate. It also answers the question as to why he does not talk to media as much as the media would like.

Look at the picture above. Is Harper gaining weight? I think he is. It is the Freshman PM 15 (The 15 pounds that a new PM puts on). And that is why I think he does not wants to be in the spotlight. Being investigated means he would have to go on the news more often and answer allegations. This way he can say “no comment” and walk away.

Can I have your Attention Please?

I would like to direct the attention of particular people or groups of people to things that should interest or concern them. Here goes.

Attention Canadians:

Stephen Harper may have lost the moral authority to govern just as Paul Martin did before him. This may have happened before he even took office. Harper is going to be investigated by the ethics commission in response to the Emerson defection. Does this mean that he will step down if found guilty? He, and others, forced Paul Martin out of office so it would only make sense. Emerson said he would step down. If the Liberal traitor resigns, will the Conservative robot. For those of you who do not like the Toronto Star, here is the Reuters version. For those of you who do not like Reuters, here is the Globe and Mail version.

Attention Stephen Colbert:

Alberta has suspended its Grizzley bear hunt. I just thought you would want to know.

Attention Librarians:Ralph Klein - thrower of books

Be aware of this man. He has thrown books in the past and it is possible that he may be a repeat book tosser. This is especially true of Klein disagrees with the contents of the book. Oddly, if he asks for information and is given information he does not agree with then he may be likely to throw it back at you. Beware if he asks for a book called “Anger Management for Dummies.”

Attention Multi-tasking Motorists:

It may be illegal, eventually, to use a cell phone while driving. Although the law makes sense it is likely to be quashed by the Ontario Liberals. I personally know how distracting a cell phone is while driving. I have tried, on one occassion, to talk while driving but driving my scooter with one hand, having the wind gush into the phone’s receiver speaker, and trying to remember where the hell I was going is very frustrating and cumbersome. I hope this law gets passed. That way I have one last thing I will not have to think about while driving.

Attention Pakistan:

President of the United States, George Walker Bush, has aggreed to help India, your arch-rival. The US has reached a deal with India that is likely to go nuclear gang-busters. This will almost certaining blow the doors off the hinges and cause huge eruptions and explosions in various international negotiations. After you get the mushroom cloud smoke out of your eyes, and so does the rest of the world, consider that the US does not just give nuclear technology to everyone. I mean nuclear weapons and technology are not kids toys. Only the most responsible and intelligent should be allowed to play with them. And the US gets to play daddy and do the deciding.

Attention Iran-ophobes:

While the US is handing nuclear technology to India as if it were Halloween candy, the EU and the UN and the IAEA (that is, respectively, the European Union, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency) are playing dentist and poo-pooing Iran’s Nuclear energy program. So, this thing could erupt and turn nasty, Iraq-style. Or it could fizzle and be ignored, North Korea style.

Attention Hydrophobes:bush - knower of floods

If you are scared of water or suffer from Antlophobia (fear of floods) or you suffer from Lilapsophobia (fear of tornados or hurricanes) then you should be scared of this guy too. It appears that Bush knew the levees in New Orleans would likely break as a result of Katrina. But he did nothing but put the whole thing on ice. Or maybe it was an iced tea or a beer that he put on ice. Who knows? The tapes only reveal that he knew of the potential problems.

Five

5 small

Today is Five and it is Friday. So it is in Doubles.

A Quick Word From a Spectator

I am not in this. I do not want to be in this. This is ridiculous. The ping-pong game that is going on is rather pathetic. Please don’t leave comments here defending yourself or pointing fingers. I don’t care. Don’t even bother reading this. Just take your mouse and go home.

The whole thing is rather humourous. I laugh because it is sad.

The issue of cyber-stalking is funny. First of all cyber-stalking is an odd idea mainly because webpages don’t go anywhere. Non-movement makes stalking hard to accomplish.

Equally hard is trying to follow someone on the Internet. I mean, trying to stay at most two clicks behind a person is difficult. This is especially difficult if they have multiple windows or tabs open. And, to compound the issue, if the person goes to google or yahoo it is near impossible to guess what they will type. How do you follow someone on the Internet? And what if they use a non-standard or atypical search engine like Alexis?

If frequently visiting a website or websites is stalking then I am guilty on numourous occassions. I confess, then, to stalking the CBC, google.ca, and myself. Can I cyber-stalk myself? But what can I do? Every webpage I go to, there I am. For that, I apologize.

Maybe someone could educate me on how to cyber-stalk because I am tired of following people and then losing them when they go to google maps and use the satellite view.

I just find the whole thing funny. People obsessed with people, apparently. And, apparently, people obsessed with people being obsessed with themselves.

At this point I bow out, with the humble plea that someone teach me how to properly cyber-stalk. Ending up at a dead-end link all alone is rather lonely.

medium is war. what is the message?

This is a shout out; A call out; A throw down; A plea; A demand; A request; A cry for attention. All rolled in one. And it is part two of my March 2 diatribe about the military.

I say that the Canadian army should be pulled out of Afghanistan. I don’t think they should have been there in the first place. I never have nor likely never will support any war effort. This is not an about face. This is me, standing stalwartly in the same direction as before, saying “Enough” and asking “Why?”

Harper and I agree on one issue. That is, if you support the military then you should not call them home just because your guys are being killed. On calling them home, in general, we disagree. In fact 62% of Canadians disagree with Harper. Canada, according to Canadians, is in North America and should not be in Afghanistan.

But that is not all. CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) is clawing back in its funding for development in Afghanistan. Our fighters are in Afghanistan but less of our money is going to end up there. A contradicting message. They say they are standing firm on their obligations and are meeting commitments. And why should our money go there? We hardly want our money spent on us over here (apprently giving each resident of Afghanistan a fist full of pocket change and letting them choose is not going to happen.) But CIDA’s message is a contradicting sort of message. But there are other messages that are misleading and contrived.

“Let me be clear: when terrorists attack Canadians, Canada will defend itself. That’s why we’re in Afghanistan,” [Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor] said.

We were attacked?! NO. The US was attacked. Canadians may have been there at the time. But it was the US that was attacked.

“The population out there doesn’t really understand right now why we’re there and what we’re doing. You have to say the thing five, six, seven, eight times before it really gets through to a large number of people.” – Defence Minister O’Connor instructs the foreign press.

And we are stupid? Is that what you are saying? And what are we doing there? What is our goal? If we were there to oust the Taliban then we have accomplished the mission. But the problem was greater than that. The Taliban are out of power but they are not gone. Their ideology lives on. So does neo-Nazism. Seems that fighting wars does not eliminate ideas.

Go figure.

But the Conservatives think Canadians are stupid. They need to hit us with their ideas over and over and over and over again. Then we will get it.

Wait a minute. That sounds to me like they are saying they need to use propaganda. Or is it brainwashing when you continually repeat something until the hearer finally succombs to your way of thinking.

The Conservative line of thinking is that we need to finish our mission in Afghanistan. But what is that mission? What is the Conservative message? Are we going to stay there until all of the Taliban have been eliminated? Do we stay there until we have repeated the same thing over and over again until everyone agrees with us?

Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause. Bring the troops home. If repeating our message will fix the world’s problems, what will we do if they keep repeating their message? Will the terror continue? Will the war on terror continue? And what is the difference between the two messages (especially if McLuhan was correct – the medium is the message.)

For the conservatives who need to hear it again and again, here it is eight more times.

  1. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.
  2. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.
  3. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.
  4. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.
  5. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.
  6. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.
  7. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause
  8. Stop the War on Terror. It is a flawed and failed cause.

Save a Life. Pull the Plug.

People who believe in the government and in the military are crazy people. And I mean crazy in the sense of deranged and unstable. The people who believe in the military, regardless of any specific war or conflict, are sociopaths, as far as I can tell.

These people beleive in the problem solving ability of the military. The military’s key strategy for conflict resolution is to use conflict as the resolution to other conflicts.

For the sake of full disclosure I must say that in the past I agreed with this methodology. In fact I even put this method into practice, as my younger brother can attest. However, due to intervention from the governing bodies, I have come to realize that such methods do not, in the long run, provide an adequate resolution.

The ideas held by the offending body, in this case it was myself, and the ideas held by the offended body, in this case my younger brother, will not become aligned through the use of force or coercion. Likewise, the end of WWII did not eliminate the ideas and opinions that caused the war but rather simply eliminated the individuals at the time who instigated the war. The instigators were removed or eliminated but the ideology could not be wiped out.

Afghanistan is another perfect example. In fact it is more than perfect. The Taliban were the devil’s minions. Or so we were told and are still being told. But they were ousted. Or so we were told. They were gone. Kaput. Defunct. Done for. Or so we were told. And now we are there, in Afghanistan, and a growing number of Canadian soldiers no longer can call earth their home. And that is sad.

But not as sad as the fact that some military supporters want the soldiers home (such as Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh). When peaceful, hippy lovin’, tree huggin’ left wing nutballs call for soldiers to be returned home I understand. But when people who believe in the military call for soldiers to be returned home I get frustrated. Because they are crazy.

I would like to clear one thing up. When people go to war people will die. If you shoot a gun at someone and they shoot one back at you, you might get hit. If you get hit you might be hurt or dead. That is what happens. If you only support the military so long as no one gets killed, at least for your side, then you are crazy. Or just stupid. If you support the military, you should support it totally. 100%. Until they have completed their task.

It is like unprotected sex. If you do not want a child, then protect yourself or don’t make the beast with two backs. If you don’t want diseases then maybe just steer clear of that whole scene. Hookers are right out.

If the thought of someone being killed as a result of military conflict resolution practices is a thought you can’t stand then maybe the military’s resolution methodology is not really the best one. Changing stance based on whether “your guys” are being killed is inconsistent. At least Ghandi was consistent. He did not believe in retaliation and he knew what was going to happen if he followed through on his plans. He did not back down when he faced pain. You would think that those supporters of the military would feel the same way. But it seems that pain is something to be inflicted on others but never felt yourself.

If you join the military it is possible that you may die. If you support the military then those you support may die. Hazards of the job. But pulling support for the military because Canadians are being killed or hurt is ridiculous, crazy and stupid.

Six

6

This one is on time. Phew!

Seven

7
I know it is late, but I did not know until today that it was seven.