A Voice for Freedom

I'm going to say it again: I want Stockwell Day back. Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Conservative Lite, has not only promised to leave the Canada Health Act in place, but also to continue with the attempt to achieve Kyoto targets.

God, I hope he's lying.

Okay, so he's promised to put a greater emphasis on the military (saying that Canada has been "reduced…to a powerless lecturer of others"), and to fix Canada-US relations, but all the brownie points he gets for those statements go out the window when we hear that he's planning to continue the government blockade of private healthcare. At least Klein's still fighting for health-related sanity here in Alberta, but that's far from enough.

As for Kyoto…are you frickin' kidding me?? The Kyoto Accord is a sham, plain and simple. Its enactment was based on assumptions that are either misleading or downright wrong, and the document itself is full of logic holes you could fit a 747 through.

Harper, where are you? Come back to us! If the Conservatives keep going in this direction, they're just going to take over where the Liberals left off.

Hey, Republican Party: I think it's time to go international.

"What's going on here?" That was President Bush's reaction last week when the proposed new rules for crossings at the Mexican and Canadian borders came across his desk. Bush says that tightening the border restrictions on incoming travelers from other NAFTA countries will "disrupt the honest flow of traffic".
Just when I was thinking my approval of the president couldn't go any higher, he surprises me again. Hopefully, he'll have the guts to veto the legislation when it shows up in Congress.

I've crossed the 49th parallel a few times. Normally, you spend less time crossing the border than you do waiting for a drive-through order at Tim Hortons. They ask you if you're carrying tobacco, liquor, or firearms, and they send you on your merry way. Last time I went home, I wasn't asked for ID at either crossing. Maybe that's dangerous; maybe it's an invitation for undesirables to come traipsing across the border whenever they so desire. But let's face it: there's about 200 miles worth of border between Alberta and Montana, and five guardposts – all of them at least 25 miles from the nearest police station. If someone wants in, they're getting in. Meanwhile, the toughening of border legislation would serve to punish the honest 99% for the actions of the malevolent few. That's not what we're about in this country, or in Canada. At least, it's not supposed to be.

Back in the summer of 2002, my father and I were pulled off the road a few miles short of the Hoover Dam and could have had our vehicle searched. In January 2003, I found myself at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and unable to go inside as millions of people have since it arrived from France (a strange thought today, that) in 1885. I understand that certain precautions are necessary, but too many and we're letting terrorism win by allowing it to change our lives. What does it say about us when some officials are trying to punish 430 million people (the combined population of Canada, Mexico, and the United States) for the actions of a handful of head cases?

It's not just American politicians trying to muddy things up at the border, of course. Whenever something truly idiotic happens in North America, you can bet the Liberal Party of Canada and its deputy despot, Anne "Landslide Annie" McLellan (given her sarcastic nickname for her tradition of unbelievably narrow election wins), are involved. The reaction from Ottawa goes something along these lines: if America tightens its security, so will we; if they want to talk moderation, so do we. Sounds like kindergarten jungle-gym logic to me.

1.2 billion USD worth of goods crosses the Canadian-US border every day. Close to 16 million Canadians entered the States last year. Granted, many of the Ontarians are certifiable wingnuts, but trust me: they are, as Douglas Adams might have said, "mostly harmless". There's certainly no cause for alarmist ramblings or for restricting the flow of legitimate traffic. In the long run, the economic damage that would result from creating long lineups at the border – not to mention the would-be tourists who might decide to stay on their side of the border when they discover that they'll need to pay for a passport – will be far worse than that caused by any gun-toting maniac who, to tell the truth, would be able to get through anyway.

Whatever happened to "tear down this wall"?

Just wanted to let everyone know, posting may be a little sporadic for the next few weeks - we're coming up on final exams and papers here, and this is going to have to lose its spot as my priority when I feel the urge to write something. I will keep posting, but probably not as often.

Regular service will return by May 10. We apologize for any inconvenience.

20,000 Chinese filled the streets of Shanghai, Beijing and other Chinese cities today in a violent anti-Japanese protest march. They threw everything from eggs to stones at the Japanese embassy and consulates, beat at least two Japanese citizens, smashed a multitude of cars and shops, and repeatedly shouted "kill the Japanese". As disgusting a display as all this was - and made even worse by the inaction of Chinese authorities and police forces - I'm not here to complain about the Chinese. No, I'm here to complain about Japan. You see, the trigger for all this is Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

When are people going to learn? We don't need more permanents on the Security Council; we need to abolish the whole system of permanent membership altogether. Look at the five permanent members we have today: the United States, Russia, France, China, and Great Britain. China and France hate the US. Britain doesn't much care for China or France these days either. Russia doesn't get along with anyone. In short, the whole thing's a mess. Now Japan wants in, just so they can fight with China and Russia all day? It's hard enough to get anything done now.

Remember the Korean War, when the United Nations actually showed some backbone, stood up, and did something for a change? That only happened because a member of the Security Council was conveniently absent. If we didn't have these four superpowers and France (the reason for the presence of which still eludes me) sitting there with the power to stop anything from happening, the UN might have in recent memory proven itself at least marginally worthwhile. As it is, the UN simply serves as a giant remora, sucking blood from all the unsuspecting sharks (and, again, France, which is more like an unsuspecting blowfish). It's something we carry about and feed because getting rid of it would be more of a nuisance than keeping it around is.

I kind of feel sorry for the UN sometimes; they always seem to reach just short of the mountaintop before a giant boulder marked "veto power" comes rolling back down over them. That said, though - and maybe I'm an idiot for saying this - I still think there's hope for them. If they add yet another country to the veto power list, however, I'm going to have to say "enough is enough" and join the "get us out of the UN" camp. There's only so far you can go in the wrong direction before there's no way back.

This is gold-medal calibre stupidity.

Chrétien's old chief organizer and bagman, Jacques Corriveau, told Justice Gomery yesterday that he has no memory of the AdScam-related meetings he's said to have had. The explanation for his selective and improbably convenient amnesia? Contagious Alzheimer's. "I have someone who's very, very close to me who suffers from Alzheimer's," he says, "and I'm living with that." Beware, everyone; this may be a potent and highly nonexistent new strain which could be cause for a severe medical alert. The good news is, this new disease is known to only attack dishonest Liberals on the day of their testimony.

Corriveau also blames his medication for his memory problems. Ridiculous, and yet unconvincing. He's been having memory problems, but he's still managed to lead a company to over $6 million in sponsorship contracts since the Liberals took power? Why don't I believe that? Oh yeah, 'cause it's a load. That's why.

Well, I suppose not everyone can be blessed with both intelligence and the complete lack of a moral compass.

Oh, and in other news, MP Pat O'Brien won't be crossing over from the Liberal camp just yet. Kind of reminds me of...what did they call those people who saw the iceberg coming and still didn't try to get off the ship? Right, "stupid". That was it.

(Note to my American readers: I know the posts have been a little top-heavy lately, geographically speaking. Sorry about that...I'll try to get back to the regular balance soon.)

So, I just spent over an hour with my car stuck in a snowbank two miles from the nearest town (of 15 inhabitants) and God knows how far from cellphone service. Thus, I am annoyed and may come off as even more acerbic than normal. Perfect time to write.

Good news today: David Kilgrour has finally jumped ship (the Liberal ship, that is, which is sinking fast - but what do you expect with all the stolen coin aboard?). He's also disavowed rumors of his intention to rejoin the Conservatives, and is currently sitting in the House as an independent. Fine with me. Some conservatives were looking forward to the idea of having him back on our side of the fence, but not me. He's gone through four elections as a Liberal and four as a Conservative, giving him a resumé of flip-flopping prowess that rivals even that of John Kerry. Maybe this time he's switching sides based on real principles, but I'm still quite happy to have him treading water on his own instead of taking up room on the suddenly-buoyed Conservative juggernaught.

There are few things in politics these days more disgusting than the death rattle sounds issuing from the mouths of the sycophantic windbags known as Paul Martin's Liberals. I'm not talking about the "no, no, we can still win the next election" cries - those are just plain funny. No, I'm talking about the attitude the Liberals seem to have that AdScam means nothing.

If you consider the party's history, it's understandable why some might think scandal has no effect on the Liberals. Broken promises, underhanded dealings, and outright theft have never brought down them down before. But it's getting out of hand these days; Martin seems to actually think it just doesn't make any difference. He's claimed that he still has the "moral authority" to govern the country. Actually, he never had the moral authority to govern, since he was never elected, but that's beside the point. He claims the scandal doesn't affect his entitlement to the throne. Martin also wants Harper to hold off on calling an election until the inquiry has finished and Justice Gomery has come out with his findings - as if Canadian citizens are too stupid to draw our own conclusions. Counting on the citizenry's stupidity has always been the crux of Liberal strategy, but this time, folks, it ain't gonna be enough.

Liberal MPs - the hardliners, at least - are spouting garbage just as rank. MP John McKay, for example, was quoted in the Sun today as saying that he doesn't think AdScam will be enough to bring down the Liberals. He's not the only one we've heard coming out with these sorts of absurdities recently, either. There's a general lack of willingness among the Liberals to believe that they could ever fall. They have ingrained in them a belief that they are the Chosen Ones, that they alone have the strength to stand against the forces of conservativism, et cetera. The idea that, no matter what they do, they could ever be tossed aside in favor of the Evil Hand of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - generally known as Stephen Harper - is unthinkable to them.

I got news for you, dimwits: you've just run out of wool. The electorate's eyes are uncovered and wide open, and we do not like what we see. So get over yourselves and start cleaning out your desks, 'cause the new boys in town are moving in.

(Note: My apologies to Joss Wheden for the blatant rip-off, but when a joke comes to you, you go with it.)

I'm getting pretty damn tired of these bastards who think it's acceptable to refer to conservatives as "fascists". Any of you liberals who might for some reason be reading this, take note of the following.

'Fascists', in all their mass incarnations, were mass-murdering, oppressive sadists. Fascists have killed millions of Human beings, and time and again proven that they have no regard for ethics or the sanctity of Human life. It was fascists who were dropping bombs around my father's orphanage in London when he was four years old, shooting at my grandfather's Lancaster over Europe, and would have attempted or succeeded in murdering millions more of other people's parents, siblings, and friends if they hadn't been stopped. And who stopped them? Not the liberals. Fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, and most recently Hussein have always been dealt with by conservatives - at the cost of many a person's blood, sweat, and tears - while liberals sit idly by.

Referring to someone as a fascist is the epitome of insults - not just to that person, but to millions of fascism's victims both living and dead. Besides, if you can't argue rationally, why are you speaking up against me at all? Anyone who uses this tactic in an argument is simply a disrespectful windbag devoid of all substantive or reasonable thought.

In talking the way I do, and writing this blog, I fully expect to be insulted, attacked, verbally skewered and called by many, many names that can never be used in front of your children. That's all fine with me. But nobody gets to call me a fascist. And only the person most completely devoid of simple Human respect, courtesy, and intellect would try.

Carpe diem. Everyone's heard the phrase, even if many don't have a clue that it means "seize the day". It's some of the best advice anyone can ever receive. Stephen Harper could definitely benefit from it these days.

A rather encouraging poll (.pdf format) was done recently which shows current support for the Liberals at 25%, compared to the Conservatives' 36.2%. The details show that support for the Conservatives has increased in every demographic and in every area of the country, more than doubling in Québec and reaching an incredible 70% in Alberta. With these numbers, the Conservatives would be nearly a sure bet to win if an election were held today. So why does Harper hesitate? He's scared, though of what I can't be sure. He seems to think that forcing an election might hurt his support. Somebody needs to stuff the guts back in him and get him up in front of the cameras calling for a vote. It's his duty to his constituents.

This is why I want Stockwell Day back. He'd have the gumption to call an election. Liberal support is only going to go down from here - every bit of testimony Gomery hears only gets worse for Martin.

I can think of few things more satisfying than my first federal election being the one where we give the Liberals the boot. Harper had better not lose us our momentum.

The Canadian Air Force has fifteen - count 'em, fifteen - "new" search and rescue helicopters, which entered service in October of 2001. Wow. Watch your military spending there, Ottawa; Canada might start getting looked at as a formidable military opponent.

By Luxembourg.

At any rate, these fifteen new choppers would be a slightly more impressive addition to our armed forces if it weren't for one tiny nagging detail: the blasted things don't work. The same part - a tail rotor half hub, which holds the tail rotor together and without which the aircraft will crash - has had to be replaced 87 times between the 15 choppers. The first replacement happened last fall. The really sad part is that replacing 87 of these things has "exhausted the Canadian Forces' supply of spare parts and required engineers to work around the clock to find a solution to the breakdowns".

87 cracked parts in over half a year shouldn't be exhausting our supply of parts. But what can you do? The traditional wisdom with repairing Canadian Forces aircraft has been that they're usually so old, nobody makes the parts anymore, so you have to cannibalize one to fix another. We're not used to actually having the parts available for us to order, so I guess nobody thought to do it. Also, there's the issue of cost - every $5 the Armed Forces spends is another month's defense budget down the drain.

I guess Luxembourg's safe after all.

So for now, the choppers are barely flying. They've been taken off SAR duty and are being allowed to fly only two-hour training missions, most of which are being used to test the newly replaced parts. According to Major Marty Zimmer, SAR operations spokesman, the problems have not affected the military's ability to perform rescue missions. He also says he and the Air Force are going to continue to back the use of this particular helicopter model; he says they're "wonderful machines". All I can say is, apparently the rotor hubs aren't the only things that are cracked around here. This is what happens with lowest-bidder purchasing. You want a new walkway around the Parliament Buildings, go with the cheapest option. Search and rescue helicopters deserve a little more cash.

We can't expect miracles though. Money doesn't grow on trees, and we have priorities that come before the Armed Forces. I mean, seriously, are we really going to spend more on the military than on defective public healthcare, pointless government-run daycares, or putting bishops on trial for speaking from the Bible?

Crazy talk.

Apparently there's finally someone besides me that thinks it's strange for scientists to claim to be able to predict what the weather's going to be like in a century when they can't even be accurate about next Tuesday. His name is Judge A. Raymond Randolph, and he made just that comment at a federal appeals court on Friday. 12 states and some odd cities were trying to get the Environmental Protection Agency to "regulate heat-trapping greenhouse gases as air pollutants." Judge Randolph seemed to favor the EPA's decision to leave greenhouse gases alone for the time being.

Good for you, Ray. Give them an inch, and next thing you know you'll be signing your soul away on a pretty little document that says "Kyoto" in big letters at the top.

The thing I find most amazing about "global warming" is that it has always seemed to serve as a microcosm for the examination of every issue out there that is given the dubious honor of attention from media and special interest groups. By that, I mean that the entire societal issue seems to function in a way directly opposed to any form of logic. The more famous this whole idea gets, the more facts are ignored. The larger the number of scientists who disagree, the more they are ridiculed. The less people know, the more concerned they are, and the more concerned they are, the less they're interested in learning.

Let's look at some facts: we know there have been major climate changes on Earth before. Ice age, anyone? How about the lesser-known cooling off that happened some few hundred years ago, changing the agricultural system in much of Medieval Europe? And no matter how much Greenpeace might like to think so, we didn't do any of that. But now, suddenly, whenever anything happens it's our fault? What is it with liberals and self-hatred? I really feel sorry for them sometimes. White male liberals want to punish themselves with affirmative action, American liberals hate everything their country does, and now they're saying that Humans are killing an entire planet.

Does anyone else think it's amazing egotism to think we could do that anyway? Anyone who lives in California (earthquake country), Kansas (tornados), Florida (hurricanes), Quebec (ice storms), or anywhere along the Indian Ocean (tsunamis) can tell you just who has the power when it comes to Human-planetary relations. And yet we're expected to believe that we could destroy the Earth in its entirety. I don't buy it.

I'm just grateful that here in the US, we have at least some political higher-ups that aren't willing to jump on the alarmist bandwagon just yet. As the Kyoto Scam continues its march toward implementation up north, it's good to know we're safe somewhere.

The news just keeps rolling. Here are today's Gomery-related headlines from the Calgary Sun. Happy reading.
Executive says ex-PM got ad agency bucks
PQ vows repayment of tainted donations
Opposition snubs Grits on delay of election
Gag reflex
Liberals try to limit damage

And the award for doing something really, really stupid sounding goes to: Sesame Street. No joke.

The Cookie Monster has turned over a new lettuce leaf and discovered the wonderful world of healthy eating. According to Dr. Rosemarie Truglio, Sesame Street's VP of "research and education", this is part of teaching kids about "emotional and physical health". Apparently the cookie monster was a bad role model.

What, and a numerically-obsessed vampire is? How about a really rude guy that lives in a trash can? Nobody seems to think there's much danger of our kids growing up to be rude, homeless, blood-drinking arithmophiles. Yet a talking blue carpet who eats too many chocolate chips is a danger to the health of the next generation.

It amazes me how little faith people put in children these days. Back in the prehistoric age, when people were a whole lot more stupid than they are now, you were strange if you made it to thirteen without having kids and lucky if you got to fifteen without being run over by one large animal or another. But nowadays, people are considered stupid and unable to handle even the most basic facets of their lives until they're 18. Kids, we're told, won't know the difference between real life and a cookie-obsessed fuzzball that, let's face it, would scare the bejesus out of them if they found it under their bed at night. Just like kids can't tell the difference between real life and a video game, right?

I grew up in the video game era, and I can say with absolute sincerity that I never got the urge to shoot anyone after playing a rousing round of Goldeneye with my friends. Nor did I ever feel like eating mountains of cookies after watching Sesame Street. Nor did I have the sudden need to go down to the beach with a machine gun after seeing Saving Private Ryan. The alarmists who say that things like TV and video games have such amazing power over youths only say that because it's something they don't understand. They didn't grow up with Joanna Dark and Jack Bauer. They did, however, grow up with Elvis Presley and the first generation of pinball machines. My father, who's spent most of his life studying recreation in its various forms, remembers the days when rock & roll and pinball were things that were corrupting children and destroying society. Nowadays, what are they? Rock & roll is an important ancestor of modern rock, pop, and country music, while pinball still finds itself in every arcade in the country, next to its younger cousins, Asteroid and Street Fighter (okay, maybe not Asteroid anymore). Both are perfectly acceptable and often preferred alternatives to the evils of today: home video games and TV shows that "send the wrong message".

Try this for a message: lighten up! If you've got a kid who's stupid enough that his brain is going to get hard-wired for the mass consumption of cookies just because some talking carwash brush says they're yummy, you've got bigger problems than the cost of an extra Nestle Tollhouse package. Fact is, though, I seriously doubt too many people out there have those kids.

The children of today are the presidents and scientists and teachers of tomorrow; if we can't even believe in their ability to think for themselves, what does that say about our vision of the future? I'm not entirely sure, but it can't be anything good.

Here it is, folks: the Sun's coverage of the recently-opened Brault testimony. There were several articles on the subject today; in order of how important (read: damaging to the Liberals) I think they are, here are the links:
Bagmen, kickbacks and corruption
Exec ties Liberals to cash
Dirty details getting Gritty

And some news on what the opposition is saying:
Opposition seeing red

A poll has just been conducted which shows that the of 23 countries polled, the majority of citizens in...

21 think France has a "positive influence" in the world
14 think China has a positive influence
Only 6 think the United States' influence is positive

There are several parts of this list that make no sense. France, for example...does anyone remember any time when they've influenced world events at all, let alone in a noticeably positive way? Then there's China, the pseudo-communist dictatorship with delusions of democracy, and an economic status that looks good only when compared to its record on Human rights. Then we find the United States, down at the bottom of the list with Russia (which got the thumbs-up from only five countries). You'll notice Iraq and Afghanistan weren't polled. Interestingly enough, the South Koreans and the Poles - both of whom we've helped rescue over the years - were, and both had 52% of citizens giving us the "positive influence" card. The Philippines, apparently the only country in the world that still both learns history and knows the meaning of thankfulness, gave us a whopping 88% positive rating. Well, my thanks goes out to the Filipinos...Big Mac was right about you guys. The other two countries that gave us a positive rating were South Africa and India.

There were also statistics on how many people viewed each country negatively. America managed to take the top spot on that list, with 15 countries having a majority of people telling us off. In order, starting with the highest percentage of citizens who view the US negatively, the top five US-haters are:

Argentina (65%)
Germany (64%)
Russia (63%)
Turkey (62%)
Canada (60%)

I don't have a clue what's stuck in Argentina's craw. I'm sure it's Che's fault, though. As for Germany and Russia, I guess that speaks to the fact that resentment lasts for decades, while the appreciation we're owed by the French seems to have been washed away. Turkey's just expressing hatred for us so they can get in good with the EU, which they're desperate to join. As for Canada, well, there's so much anti-American propaganda floating around my "home" country that I'd have expected that name to be the one to top the list.

The big conclusion of this poll that people are talking about is that the majority (58%, to be exact) of those polled want Europe to be more influential than the United States when it comes to world affairs. Lord help us if this actually comes to pass. With the exception of Tony Blair, there's not a single European leader I would trust to run a Texaco, let alone the world.

Personally, I find these results encouraging. The more corrupt, dictatorial, and/or peacenik-heaven nations out there disapprove of us, the better I feel about our leadership. What worries me is the 34% of Americans that want to have less influence than the Europeans. It's numbers like that that make me wish there was a way to kick California and all of New England (where I'm sure 33 of that 34% came from) out of the Union.

The publication ban on Jean Brault's testimony has been partially lifted. I guess that makes sense, Canada being only a partial democracy after all.

At any rate, there's some good coverage in the Globe & Mail, complete with a rather scary picture of Brault. Even if you've read the Captain's posts, it's always good to get the news from a source that might have more reliable information - if only as confirmation. The G&M isn't exactly my first choice for news (since they happen to be owned by a close buddy of Chretien), but they've been fairly impartial on this issue...I guess you can't spin everything, no matter how you might want to. Nevertheless, I'll make sure to post a link to the Sun's coverage as soon as it's available.

The Alberta Liberals want a new name, and plenty of bloggers and browsers alike have been suggesting some doozies. Here are my favorites so far:

The Alberta "This Pig Is Wearing Lipstick Now" Party
The Unprincipled Party
Kleptomaniacal Election Whores ("but we better poll real live thieving whores to see if they'd be offended")
The Alberta "These Are Not The Miscreants You're Looking For" Party
The "ssshhhhhh, keep your head down" party

And to follow, a few of my own suggestions:

The Alberta Soviet Party
The Alberta Socialist Whackos Party
The Non-Albertan Party
The Dead Party
The New Union of Terrorist Supporters (N.U.T.S.)
The Lying, Infantile, Boneheaded, Evil, Rabidly Anti-American Leftists Party (L.I.B.E.R.A.L.)
The "we'll get Alberta back in debt in 1/10 of the time Ralph took to get us out" Party
The "outlaw tobacco, smoke weed" Party
The "our campaign offices are in Ontario and we can't locate Calgary on a map of Canada" Party

Okay, this is just too good.

Jean Brault's company, the Montréal-based Groupaction, received over $40 million in AdScam contracts. The company paid kickbacks in the amount of $450,000 (plus a "legitimately given" $250,000) to the Liberal Party in return for the contracts. All that is fairly expectable. The really funny part is that Groupaction was, according to an anonymous source of Sun Media (owners of the Calgary Sun) that Groupaction was also paying kickbacks to another party. Who, you ask?

The Parti Québecois. The separatists. The people that the $250 million in sponsorship money was supposed to be fighting. Wow, these guys really are descended from the French. I suppose it's not much of a surprise that a company sleazy enough to get into bed with the Liberals would be two-timing them. It's not unexpected, and it's almost certainly not without precedent. It is, however, damn funny.

In all, $90,000 was funneled into the PQ through individual Groupaction employees. Jean Brault has been implicated in this scheme, to nobody's shock. What I can't figure out is why the Liberals thought they could trust Brault. He was, after all, paying them nearly a half million dollars under the table. I suppose that's the price of being sanctimonious, stuck-up, and selfrighteous with deep-rooted criminal tendencies. From up on their high horse (not to mention the proverbial horse's rear end), the Liberals assume that they are above the law because they're right, but that nobody else would even consider breaking the law. Sorry, I forgot stupid in my description.

We hear a lot from people who think our politics are getting more and more "Americanized" (read: bad). Election-time mudslinging is what they most often cite (though they blame conservatives and try not to remember Chretien's "Reeforrrm-Alliianss Parteee" ads). Basically, their argument is that Canadian politics are nice, decent, honest, and above-board. All I can say is: sad, sad, sad, with a large side order of naïve.

Canadian politics are mostly like American politics, save the fact that ours are, on the whole, a lot funnier. The Groupaction case is a perfect example. It's also a perfect example of why nobody should ever trust the Liberals or the PQ again (people rarely trust advertising agencies anyway, so I didn't bother to include them). We already knew the Liberals were going to be at risk for an Extinction Level Event over this, but if the PQ gets into hot water, we may see an increase in conservative support in Québec. Good news all around.

Normally, I make it a point not to discuss the same issue two days in a row. This time, though, we're dealing with what could be some of the most important Canadian political news in years, so I'm going to break my own rule.

First of all, you might want to visit "Captain's Quarters" again, as more of Jean Brault's testimony has been added. There's also some interesting and rather disturbing news on what may happen to Canadian bloggers and webmasters who provide links to the site in question. Remember, this blog is written and published in the United States and not subject to Canadian law.

News continues to roll in from both sides of the border about "Captain Ed"'s breaking of the publication ban on Brault's testimony. It's taking an impressive amount of time to load his blog these days - due, I expect, to the fact that his traffic has increased more than tenfold since he blew the lid on Brault's testimony on Saturday. The highest number I heard was 400,000 hits in one day.

All this solidifies one important and little-known point about the Human condition: people like to know things. It's not a particularly new idea, but it was apparently lost on inquiry officials and Liberal higher-ups alike. They expected us to sit around blindfolded while the most important part of the Gomery inquiry was going on. Then they thought that if they were forced into a snap election, they could call one before the ban was lifted and force-feed us another five years of corruption and stupidity no matter how damning Brault's revelations were.

That alone should be enough to cost them the next election.

And it just may. It's been suggested by at least one source I've seen that Brault's testimony may be enough to bring down the federal Liberals for the next three decades. The Alberta Liberals, meanwhile, are considering changing their name to distance themselves from their sleazeball federal cousins. It's easy to see other provincial parties following suit. What we may be seeing here, if we're lucky, is the downfall of the entire Liberal network. If that happens, the NDP will no doubt reinvent itself to fill the void, but it will likely take some time before even staunch Liberal supporters will see the New Democrats as anything but socialist head cases. In short, if Brault's info is as bad for the Liberals as it sounds, we may be seeing the most drastic change in the Canadian political landscape in 138 years.

There's an opportunity coming, and it's one we can't afford to miss. And so, to Stephen Harper, I have but one piece of advice: Set 'em up, knock 'em down.

An American blog has broken the publication ban and outed part of Brault's Gomery commission testimony. All I'll say is, it's easy to see why the Liberals are scared. This is everything we've been waiting for, and there's apparently more to come. Unfortunately, Canadian publications cannot have any part in disseminating the information; in fact, a Canadian news site has already been threatened with legal action for simply providing a link to the blog in question. However, this is not a Canadian site, is it? Technically, this is an American website, written and hosted within the United States. Therefore, here's the link!

I love sticking it to people who try to squelch freedom of the press.

An inquiry official named Francois Perreault has voiced his extreme shock that someone would break the publication ban. Someone needs to tell him that the fifteenth century was over a while ago. I, for one, am surprised only that it took as long as it did - somewhere in the neighborhood of 48 hours. The Liberals may be the preeminent closeted skeleton keepers of our time, but even they can't fight the power of one right-thinking individual with a keyboard.

Welcome to the Information Age, Liberal swindlers.

Update, April 5: Keep checking that site. The testimony continues and we're told that more information will be forthcoming in the blog.

"Big red X". It's a rather old cliché among students. But now, some schools have decided the color red is too damaging to the young student's psyche, and have begun telling their teachers to switch to a less "stressful" color.

No, I'm not kidding. The issue started at an elementary school in Connecticut (where else?), where parents began to object to red being used in grading. They say it doesn't matter if the teacher writes "great work, A+" or "what are you, braindead?"; it's more damaging in red than blue. The whole thing has begun to spread across the country.

Give me a break. The trend of people becoming more and more afraid of offending someone has been ridiculous for years, and I've been saying so for years, but even I never thought it would get this far. We're talking about a color here; a color people see every day. Never in my life have I seen a person pull a Pamplona upon sight of a red blanket. I've never noticed a fellow driver breaking into tears at a red light. And I've never been witness to kids being scared out of their wits at the sight of the red slide in the school playground outside the window next to my desk.

Someone should sit down with the parents who are lodging these complaints and inform them gently that it may not be the color of the marks on their kids' papers that's scaring them. Maybe it's the amount of said marks. And maybe what the parents need to do is step back, remove their big fat noses and color samples from teachers' grading practices, and let the schools do their best to teach the kids how to do better on their assignments so as not to see red so often. Pardon the pun.

Or maybe I should just go climb a very tall tree and sit up there to wait the whole thing out. Just so long as it's not a redwood - they're probably the next thing to go.

The following letter appeared today in the Calgary Sun:

"Thank you Roy Clancy for a fantastic column ('Eyes on the road,' March 30). Alberta could progress and become one of the leading provinces in Canada if only we could move beyond the slights of the past. As a younger Albertan (born and raised), I often feel the residue of anger from the Trudeau era afflicts my parent's generation (not my parents in particular), propelling Alberta into the role of whiny little brother. This same thinking will likely compel people to disagree and call me naive, but I retain hope that some Albertans take heed of Clancy's arguments and show the rest of Canada not all of us fit the stereotypes he mentioned."

Apparently no one reads Santa Anna anymore.

I'm referring, of course, to the Mexican general's famous statement that "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." Forgiving the feds for the crimes they have perpetrated against Alberta over the past hundred years will not solve anything while they continue to treat us as second-class citizenry. The problem is that no one slight against Alberta has ever been enough to really deliver the knockout blow to our last dregs of loyalty. It's all of it put together that can make many of us (estimates range from 25 to 50 percent) realize that it's not worth it to stay. If each generation forgets what's been done to their parents, we won't get anywhere.

Instead, we need to keep the list going. All you Albertans out there: remember the Wheat Board, remember the NEP, remember the equalization payments, and tell your kids to remember the Kyoto Accord, and the senator-elect issue, and the same-sex marriage debate. By the time Alberta hits her 150th, maybe our descendents will finally be annoyed enough by the whole list to get the heck out. We can only hope.

If you want to hear more about Alberta's grievances and the pro-separation argument, I've written a 6-page essay on the subject, entitled "100 Years is Long Enough". Check it out here (.pdf format).

I thought Edmonton was the haven for lead-brained lefties in Alberta. Turns out, Calgary's got some liberal whackos among its higher-ups, too; Aldermen Diane Colley-Urquhart and Druh Farrell have been spouting some unbelievable nonsense lately (that's right, aldermen...you'll find no politically-correct moronspeak here).

Colley-Urquhart thinks we need more members of "visible minorities" working for the city. Great, more affirmative action craziness. When will people learn that all policies like that do is handcuff the guys doing the hiring? If the most qualified person is white, let that person get hired! It's not rocket science. Notice, by the way: Ald. Colley-Urquhart is white, and she didn't seem to have a problem when she won her seat on the City Council.

Meanwhile, in an even more amazing bout of stupidity, Ald. Farrell wants the city to start handing out doggy bags to crack addicts. Starting today, the City of Ottawa will be handing out free crack pipe kits in an effort to curtail the spread of Hepatitis C, and Farrell thinks we should spread the inane practice to Calgary. Apparently Hep-C is a major health issue for drug users. And if you're doing drugs, you're obviously very concerned with the state of your health, right? My God, are we really going to start treating addicts like victims now? I'm not talking about people trying to get clean; they deserve help. I'm talking about the people who are destroying their lives and the lives of the people around them and just don't give a damn. The people out on the streets, buying and selling and shooting up under the nose of a city government that only wants to help them do all that healthily. Let me make one thing clear, my friends: crossing a street is something you can either do safely or dangerously. Same with flying, same with cleaning a gun, same with lifting a heavy load. Doing drugs is not safe, and cannot be made safe. And if that's the decision that someone makes, that person can bloody well accept the consequences thereof. I won't have my tax dollars buying drug paraphernalia just to make sure that some brain-fryer doesn't die of Hep-C before he gets the chance to kill himself with cocaine.

You see, that's the primary difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think that government exists to protect all people from themselves. Conservatives know that government exists to protect the good people from the bad. We'll be called uncaring bastards and a whole lot worse for it, but the truth of the matter is, we understand that our government is not there to help people who break the law - like drug users and prostitutes - but rather, it's there to stop them. And it's high time ours got started.