Why Canada Sucks, Part II

So, we're past another Victoria Day weekend. A holiday weekend commemorating the birth of thAT Queen of England who reigned when we took our first baby steps away from England, on the road to nationhood, a trip that took a mere 114 years, but that's another story. What is it about the long weekend that sets me off on another "Why Canada Sucks?" Long weekends, or, more specifically, the fact that we have too many of them.

Once upon a time, holidays celebrated something. Queen Victoria's Birthday. Our newly founded Dominion. The new year. Christ's birthday. Something.

Then something changed. Once upon that time, Canadians were an industrious people, we had to be, to carve a life, and a living out of a pretty hostile place. Then something happened, and we became a pack of useless layabouts.

Not content with celebrating real things, we started making shit up. So, in addition to our real holidays; New Years, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas, and Boxing Day, we've added; Labour Day (hey, Commies deserve a holiday, too), "Civic Holiday (because it's just too long to go from July until September without a long weekend) and "Family Day" (because, well, Premier McShithead is approximately as bright as the lily my mother gave me for Easter). And, somewhere in the middle of all that, we removed Remembrance Day, and via the late, unlamented and never to be sufficiently cursed Pierre Eliot fucking Traitordeau, renamed Dominion Day to Canada Day.

That's right, Canada is such a ridiculous place that Ontario now has an official holiday called "Family Day," commemorating Dalton McMoron's pandering to the lazy demographic, we don't celebrate the armistice of WW I, and the sacrifice of over 100 000 dead, and many more wounded, servicemen, and we actually RENAMED OUR NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

Canada Sucks.

Signs of Encroaching Middle Age

The signs of encroaching middle age are many and varied. Today we discuss exercise and entertainment.

In my youth, I used to run, and run, and run. I could do 5 miles in 27 to 30 minutes, without really pushing, and be breathing normally 30 seconds after I finished. Nowadays, I walk, and the concept of stacking 6 minute miles end to end to end is completely foreign. Hell, the very concept of breaking a 6 minute mile is foreign.

And, when I was getting ready to go, I said to myself, "Ooh, don't forget your Walkman." Walkman... WALKMAN? Jeebus, old man, when was the last time you used a Walkman (a real one, you know, with cassette tapes, 'cause that's what flashed into my head as I asked the question), 1995? And yesterday, when I was going to bed, I thought to myself, "Don't forget to turn of the VCR." VCR? Dude, that's DVD player.

Why Canada Sucks, Part 1

I stated in my posts on the Tamils that Canada sucks. There are far too many people out there who don't think this to be true, so I am beginning a series dedicated to the suckitude that is the Great White North.

When one has a subject that is so rich, so long, wide and deep, so huge in scope, such as why Canada sucks, one is faced with an enormous problem; where do I begin?. Canada has so much suckitude in its politics, law, history, culture, geography, weather, attitudes... Where do I begin? How do I attack the subject matter? I think as a series of, "This just pissed me off, so I'm going use that lens to tell you why Canada sucks" essays.

Since I started with the Tamils, I will launch with the notion of equality under the law. Short version, we ain't got it. What we've got is a law for the majority, and a whole 'nother law for the minorities. Oddly, the standard historical relationship is reversed; in Canada, legal-wise, the majority gets the shit end of the stick.

Yesterday I posed a question; if a group of white supremicists tried blockading Yonge St., or blocking traffic for little stroll down the Gardiner, would Premier McSpineless congratulate them on their 'peaceful, legal' protest, or call in the cops? I'm thinking the latter.

OTOH, if an ethnic minority flouts the law, the cops are there to ensure the lawbreakers safety. What is the difference? White supremicists are a dying breed of sad little shits, held in contempt by pretty much everyone who isn't one of them. Oh, and they're white. Tamils, marching under the banned flag, of a banned terrorist organization, which illegally raises money in Tamil communities, aren't, so they get a pass.

It's not just large groups on public display, and the politicians' fear of bad press. The rot goes deeper. So concerned are we that somewhere, some white person is getting an even break that we created a whole paralel, quasi-legal judicial system. Why do I say quasi-legal? Because it isn't investigated by police, prosecuted by the crown, or presided over by actual judges. Everyone in the chain is a political appointee. What are these bodies? The "Human Rights" Commissions.

I addressed the "Human Rights" kangaroo kourts here. For more, and better, go to Ezra Levant, or Mark Steyn. They can give you the view from inside the belly of the beast. A beast that finds conservative white people to prosecute. Don't believe me? Find a case where a leftist, non-white got prosecuted. The closest I can come is the curious case of Sunera Thobani (former head of NAC, UBC women's studies professor), who, in the aftermath of 9-11, went on one of her typical screech fests, that time about what bloodthirsty bastards Americans are.

Someone complained about her speech so she prepared her in depth, highly technical legal defense, "I'm a leftwing, brown woman, you can't prosecute me for a hate crime." I paraphrase. Whatever her defense, the investigation stopped dead. Mark Steyn quoted an Imam, and was persecuted by these clowns, for the Imam's quoted words. Again, Mark Steyn; white, conservative, man, prosecuted for words not his own. Thobani; brown, socialist, woman. Investigated, given a pass on her own far more vicious words.

Even better, the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate. Don't believe me? Google "chrc conviction rate." The only cases where the defendants weren't convicted were, such as with Levant and Steyn, when those cases were dropped. The defendants had too much time, money, too big a soap box, and too big a flashlight. When they shone that flashlight under the rock, the cockroaches scurried back to the shadows.

Even worse, it's not just the quasi-judicial kangaroo kourts; the real law is biased. Sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, the geniuses in Ottawa changed the rape law so that a woman could not give consent, were she, for example, drunk. Stands to reason, then, that the man could not be required to gain consent were he also drunk, right? Bwahahahahahaha. If a man and a woman, both equally drunk, had what they believed to be consensual sex, under a literal reading of the law, they did not. It was rape. Period. I believe that one got blown up when some POS in the maritimes successfully his used extreme drunkeness as a defense for a violent rape. It's possible the numbnut crowd in Ottawa fixed the law after that. I don't know.

If they did, maybe they fixed the infanticide law, at the same time. Daddy kills baby, it's a crime of murder. Mommy kills baby, the crown can go for infanticide, for a much lower sentence. Same crime, but the woman gets off easier.

Remember Paul Bernardo? Pre-Karla Homolka he was a serial rapist. Enter Karla and he moved on to kidnapping, torture, and murder. He's serving life in a solitary confinement box (fucker got off light). She's walking the streets with a sociology degree paid for by the taxpayer. Was he truly that much more culpable? Was she just a battered woman innocent, dragged down by the devil. Reread the order above. Alone, "just" a rapist. With the woman, kidnapping, rape, murder.

Equality under the law in the demented dominion is a fairy tale. I would not, in this day and age, want to be a straight, white, conservative man in Canada. You belong to no protected group, so you get the full force of the law, while the protected groups get lighter treatment, or an outright pass. Which is one reason why CANADA SUCKS.

Tamils Take Another Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity

I was going to post this as an update to the previous post, but that one is a tad long, as is this one, so I'm putting it on its own.

Not satisfied with shutting down the Gardiner on Sunday, yesterday the Tamils shut down parts of Yonge St. and University Ave.

Okay, "ladies" and "gentlemen," I offered you some advice yesterday on winning the hearts and minds of Canadians. I suggested; shutting down the Gardiner, on Mother's Day, bad idea. I suggested you try not to fuck up Canada as badly as the pest hole you came from. I'm going to try again.

Shutting down a major egress route from downtown Toronto, during rush hour, is not winning you any friends. Seriously. If you don't believe me, read the comments at the CBC. I repeat, if you haven't got the mush brains who think the CBC is actually a news source, then you're really screwing up the PR war.

Now there is talk of you taking over a 400 series highway. Yes, let's shut down a major economic artery, at the height of a recession, to do...what? Again, what, exactly do you expect to accomplish? Even Toronto Mayor David "Dipshit" Miller has told you that the only place you might possibly affect policy is at the national level, and that would be in Ottawa. So again, what, exactly do you expect to accomplish? Or is getting the notoriously placid Canadian public pissed with you your goal? If so, why?

Oh and Premier McSpineless? For all their protests are "peaceful and legal," umm, no, they're not. They're shutting down major highways, and that is NOT legal. If you disagree, a thought experiment. A group of Neo-Nazi skinheads jump the guardrail and shut down the Gardiner. Do you stutter platitudes about peaceful protest, or do you call in the cops? If the latter, then it's a very short trip down logic lane to; the Tamil protests might be peaceful, but they sure aren't legal. Call the fucking cops, you clod.

I close with the same admonition as before. Your country is fucked. That is why you left it. This country is not fucked. If you wish to effect change in your country, find an appropriate venue, one which might actually do some good (personally, I would suggest go the fuck back and try this shit in Colombo), but stop fucking with THIS country. Oh, and lose the Tigers' flags. Seriously, they're really bad for your image.

Tamils Take the Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity

So, the Tamils shut down the Gardiner for hours on Mother's Day in order to...what?

Would someone please be so kind as to tell me what the FUCK shutting down a major artery, in a major city, on one of the most sentimental days of the year, is going to do for their cause?

Is it going to garner them the sympathy and support of the Canadian people? Via Cathy Shaidle, go to the CBC and find out, nah, not so much. Ya gotta figure, if the comments run so hard against you at the CBC, you're doing something wrong.

Is it going to get the Canadian government to do something about the situation in Ceylon? If so, what? I see a few commenters at the offering up brainwaves like getting the UN involved. What, has the Blue Helmet brigade run out of African children to abuse? I mean, do you want Ceylonese 10 year olds trading their bodies for chocolate bars? Or that we should harshly condemn the Ceylonese govt. Yeah, that'll work. And if not, there's always a letter of concern. Or sanctions? Umm, just how much do we trade with them?

Again I ask, did they actually think that blocking a limited access, multi-lane expressway, tying up traffic for hours, using babies in strollers as human shields to keep the police back, would garner them sympathy outside of the mush brained left? Sympathy they already have, by default, due to the mush brained left's inherent mental defects? My post title refers to a comment I heard, once upon a time, about the "Palestinians," that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I think we have another group with that affliction.

Does anybody else remember, back in the mid 80's when a boatload of Tamils crashed ashore in the maritimes and demanded refugee status? My favourite story was about the guy who got in a cab in Halifax, if memory serves, and asked to be taken to Toronto. Judging by Sunday's "parade," he made it. Canadians were actually, briefly, irritated about our assinine refugee system. Which that jackass Mulroney promptly did nothing to fix.

What, exactly, did they get? More pictures of "ordinary Tamils" marching under the flag of a terrorist organization. Granted, it's a terrorist organization whose bag men Paul Martin liked to meet with, but a terrorist organization none the less. And, hey, they did get a promise from the Liberals to bring it up in parliament.

Hey, that's what they wanted, to make sure the Liberals were still the party of terrorists. Mission accomplished.

Yo, Tamils, if I might be so bold, you left your 3rd world pest hole of a country for a reason; because it sucks. The suckitude of Canada is far less severe than that of Ceylon, and I would very much like it to stay that way. To that end, I offer the following choice: (1) Behave yourself in accordance with Canadian customs, manners, traditions and laws or (2) GO THE FUCK BACK. Your country is broken, but that doesn't give you the right to break mine.

A Review of Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"

To lead off, a quick and somewhat overdue (I read the book 2 months ago) review of Ezra Levant’s recently published “Shakedown,” which chronicles his adventures with the Canadian, Alberta, and BC so called Human Rights Commissions.

It’s an excellent book, well written, engaging; a thoroughly enjoyable read. Get it, read it, and DO SOMETHING.

Hey, I said “quick,” didn’t I? For more information, visit his site. Or, read the book. Or both.

Reading the book was something of a trip down memory lane for me. I’ve long been a reader of George Jonas, who has been against the HRCs as long as I can remember, probably right from the start (I’m a bit young to be able to say for sure, he came to Canada before I was born, and the HRCs are older than I). In fact, it was through his writings that I was originally persuaded of their inherent wrongness. Time has borne him out, although the HRCs’ evil has only, in the last year, started to become apparent to Canadians as a whole.

For this story, we travel back to the mid/late nineties. The place was Alberta, and the issue was a man who sued his employer for wrongful termination. He was openly gay, and his employer was a Christian private school, which terminated him for violating the terms of his employment contract. Said contract included a morals clause, which he violated by living his chosen lifestyle.

IIRC he lied to get his job, then flaunted his violations of the contract in order to get fired, so he could haul them into court, force them to take him back, and thus make a point. I don’t even remember if it was a “Human Rights” kangaroo court. What I do remember is that he won (point made, you're an asshole), and that I was royally pissed off at this abrogation of the schools property and freedom of assembly rights. At that time, I did not realize that Canadians have no property rights, Pierre F’ing Trudeau having chosen to leave them out of the constitution. But that’s not the point. The point is the conversation this led to.

I had a great friend at University, Steve. He and I saw eye to eye on a great many things, though not all. One thing I thought we agreed on was freedom of speech. We’d never actually broached the subject, but hell, we’d discussed just about everything under the sun and, agree or disagree, we were great pals. As he’d recently hung out his shingle as a lawyer, in Detroit, it never occurred to me that he’d believe in the hammer of state being an appropriate tool for regulating speech. Back then I simply didn’t understand the power of tribalism. Not being afflicted with that particular disease, I doubt I really do, even today.

We were chatting about this, that and the other one evening, and the aforementioned case came up. Somewhere along the way we got into whether a man may be punished for speaking unpopular opinions, such as Holocaust denial (there’d recently been a couple of high profile cases on the subject). I said no effing way. He responded with, “What gives you the right to hate me?”

Huh? Oh, yeah, Steve is Jewish. Barely (the first meal his family fed me was Polish sausages). But, seriously, wtf? I have never heard from him since, and this is a man who told me of a friend of his who had said he’d make a nice lamp. Steve is from a badly depleted line of Polish Jews, so, yes the Holocaust is a mightily sensitive subject, and I never could, would or did make a crack like that one. I simply think you have the right to air stupid opinions.

What gives me the right to hate him? That would be natural law. What gives him the right to use the hammer of state to try to prevent it? Anti-Semites, hell bigots of any sort, are nasty little shits who should be exposed, held up to public ridicule, and shunned. But this is not the purview of government; it is the purview of polite society. Only when they exit the arena of words and enter the arena of violence do you bring in the hammer of state.

What is the connection? Read the book. Or go to Mr. Levant’s website. The HRC’s are in large measure a creation of what he calls Canada’s “Official Jews,” created specifically to punish Neo-Nazi’s and other holocaust deniers. Such as Syed Soharwardy, the complainant who tortured Mr. Levant, by way of the HRCs for almost three years.

Who is Mr. Soharwardy? A Calgary based, Hamas and Hezbollah supporting, holocaust denying, radical Imam who took offense at Mr. Levant’s republication of the Jyllands Posten caricatures of Mohammed. You know, those cartoons whose initial publication sparked off globe spanning riots, which resulted in over 200 deaths.

To recap: The HRCs were created, in part due to pressure from Canadian Jewry, to be used to punish Jew hating holocaust deniers. Mr. Levant, a Jew was dragged through these kangaroo courts for 900 days by a Jew hating holocaust denier, whom Mr. Levant offended.

Can we get rid of these fucking commissions now?

And Steve, NOW do you see the danger of putting government in charge of policing thought?

Sigh, "Gay Marriage"

Aargghh, this subject just won't go away. The latest flap over Carrie Prejean, this time topless photos (real ones, by the definition I gave previously, i.e. nipple can be seen), along with Donald Trump's defense of her, and the resignation of Shanna Moakler (co-director of the Miss California USA pageant) propped up the non-controversy.

Okay, in order.

Real topless photos of a pageant girl. Yawn. But, but, but, she's a Christian; hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, HYPOCRISY. I repeat myself here, but, if liberals didn't encourage the behaviour in question, the hypocrisy charge might have a little more merit. But it's a sin, and SHE'S A CHRISTER. So what? Christians don't claim infallibility (that is reserved for liberals). As I'm not a Christian, that is all I will say on the subject. It's their club, their rules, go to them for more if you like.

Mr. Trump's defense of her pretty much amounted to (paraphrasing rather loosely), "It's the president's position too, so get over yourselves." Why aren't they beating up on Obama for opposing "gay marriage?" Oh, right, the doctrine of liberal infallibility. And, come to think of it, when Obama poses topless the press get tingles up their thighs, and they forget all but their love for the Won, and their desire to see the object of their desires succeed.

Shanna Moakler is upset about the topless photos and the "gay marriage" thing. Moakler posed for Playboy; hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, HYPOCRISY. Oh, wait, she's also a supporter of "gay marriage" and, thus, a good liberal. Doctrine of infallibility again. To the "gay marriage" thing, piss off Miss Moakler. You're 34 years old and can't accept someone holding an opinion different from yours? Grow up.

And finally we get to "gay marriage" itself. I suppose the quotes around it give away my position, i.e. against.

Now, Bill Quick a writer for whom I have profound respect, and who provides my essential daily read, is in unequivocal support. Further, he considers the vast majority of opposition to it to be simple anti-homosexual bigotry. On the second point, we are in complete agreement. On the first, not so much.

First, a couple of notes. Did you catch the bit above where I said I'm not a Christian? My opposition is informed by precisely zero holy texts. As to sexuality, I truly don't give a flying f@#$ at a rolling doughnut what you do with your private parts, providing all parties consent, and are fit to give consent (I'm looking at you, NAMBLA).

However, sorry lefties, words have meanings. Meanings such as Marriage:

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

See, that's the meaning of the word. Oh, not everywhere, I know. Just the entire white world, and more importantly, the English speaking world. You know, the places where we live and are having this discussion. And it's meant that for a long farking time; the word is about 800 years old, which is, coincidentally, the age of the English language, and words follow ideas. That is, the concept, marriage, is older than the word as defined. The very fact we have to put a modifier, "gay, in front of "marriage" should be a tip off that something is afoot.

Yes, words and even institutions change. But they evolve, they do not change because one morning some pushy asshole awoke with a bug up his ass and decided they needed a new meaning.

Ahh, institutions. He moved off of words. Well, I will return to that, because redefining marriage is more than simply changing the meaning of a word. But first a bit more on words. Take "gay" for example. Even now, the first 4 definitions of the word are:

1.	having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.

2.	bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.

3.	given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.

4.	licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.

The fifth is homosexual, yet the above 4 are not the first thing most of us think of when we hear the word, are they? Same with "queer" and, unless we're discussing the Royal Family, "queen." These words have completely changed their primary meanings. How?

Well, it wasn't by judicial fiat, and it wasn't by plebiscite. A group of people simply determined to change the words, and used them in the new way, and eventually the new meaning was adopted by all. My parents' generation mourns the loss of "gay." Me? Meh, I don't care. The word has a new meaning, and we all know what it means when we say it. Did you catch that? It has a new meaning, and we all know what it means when we say it. That is important. We're not in Wonderland, where a word means what we want it to mean when we mean it that way.

Now, the institution. The left seeks not only to redefine the word, but to remake the institution. Look, marriage is changing. I know that, any idiot can see it, and it doesn't matter whether we like it or not, it's changing, and doing so on its own. As the institution changes, so will the meaning of the word. There will always be those who will never accept the changes (see "gay" above). So what?

It comes to this. Marriage has a meaning, right now. That meaning has changed in places, and is changing here. It will happen, or not, at its own pace, as it has in Europe, and some of the more liberal American jurisdictions. Win the hearts and minds, and the legalities will follow. Legalities first, is cart before the horse, and the hearts and minds won't follow.

And while we're at it, lefties, would you be so kind as to stop using the word "invest" in place of "spend?" That one is really annoying.

"Let the Players Decide the Game"

Well, it's May, the playoffs continue, and having a go at Bobo the Clown Cole felt so good, I'm going to return to hockey. This time to those cranial nullities, whose preferred team drew a bucketload of penalties, who whinge on about letting the players decide the game. Jeebus but that pisses me off. Take, for instance, last night's Pens/Caps game, in which, I read, the Caps took 6 penalties in a row. Sure as sunrise in the east, some fan made the traditional whine on the CBC site. Let's look at it.

Games have rules. Games have arbiters of the rules. In hockey, on the ice, these arbiters are called linesmen and referees. Since the Linesmen's job is a lot more, umm, black and white, than the referees, and since their mistakes do not generally turn games and series, they take a lot less flak than the refs. Let's let them be.

Included in the referee's job is the task of monitoring play to ensure that play is generally kept within the bounds of the rules. If a player steps outside the bounds, the referee assesses a penalty of varying degrees of severity. Now, for the slow students in the back, we're going to go over that again, it's important.

The referee monitors play to ensure that play is generally kept within the bounds of the rules. He cannot do so perfectly, for there are 12 players on the ice. These 12 players are generally quite large, and in motion, many of them quite fast motion.

In addition, the ref generally concentrates on what is happening with the puck. The puck carrier is the most frequently fowled player, and one of the ref's duties is to determine if a goal has been scored and, if so, if it was legal. Thus, the referee will miss things, and he has a partner. Even with two, they are men, and fallible, and cannot see everything that occurs.

Much of that is an aside. The basic thing to concentrate on here, and I can't stress enough how important it is, is this; the referee monitors play to ensure that play is generally kept within the bounds of the rules.

If the ref determines a player has stepped outside the bounds of the rules, he assesses a penalty.

Did you get the order there? Player breaks rules, ref gives penalty. Again, for the slow students, (1) PLAYER BREAKS RULES, (2) REF GIVES PENALTY. The first is a pre-condition of the second. Or are you saying the refs were just making shit up?

How, exactly, is it, if the ref is doing his job by assessing a penalty, that he, rather than the players, is determining the outcome of the game? If the player didn't break the fucking rules, he wouldn't be going to the sin bin. So, Washington, in taking 6 penalties in a row, determined the outcome by...wait for it...taking 6 penalties in a row.

If you think the calls were chintzy, well, were the same calls being made against both teams? If not, complain to the league, you're right, the ref tilted the ice. But...I've listened to a lot of post game bitch sessions in which both sides thought the refs were calling bullshit on their team, while the other side got away with murder. Hell, I see this in me.

When watching a game I personally do not see how anything that does not put a Detroit Red Wing in the hospital can be considered a penalty. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, there are those out there who consider the Ducks to be the dirtier team. It's possible, while watching those dirty fucks in red and white, my personal blinding, searing, red hot hatred for the Wings is overcoming my general dislike of the Ducks, colouring my perceptions and overpowering my sense of justice and fair play. But I digress.

If the calls were chintzy and made against both teams, then your beef isn't with the refs, it's with the league. Specifically with the Board of Governors (i.e. the owners) who set the standards for rules enforcement, and Colin Campbell, the league's chief disciplinarian, who oversees the enforcement.

Perez Hilton is an Asshole

Now, this whole thing got started because a lefty asked a righty a loaded question. Was it intended that way? Did Hilton know Prejean was a Christian and lay a trap? Or did he expect the Californian contestant to agree with his position, and lob her a softball? I neither know, nor care.

If the former, he is revealed as an asshole. Of course, that's not exactly a scoop, is it. OTOH, if the latter, it raises an interesting question; was he tilting the field to his preferred candidate? And if this is the case, is this whole flap just his way of distracting people from that? If so, he is revealed as an asshole. Of course, that's still not exactly a scoop.

So, what do we have? Ultimately, we have a dickhead, wholly unqualified to judge a beauty pageant (see previous post), asking a question that was bound to raise controversy one way or the other, generating a lovely little controversy and getting himself a bunch of press, and website hits. Hmm. Could it be that it was just a rules 4 5 play?

I don't know. All I'm pretty sure about, from both this controversy, and having visited Hilton's site (no link, you want to see it, go look for yourself, and don't forget your brain bleach), is the accuracy of my post head.

The question, so far unmentioned, which I have been consciously avoiding, "Do you think "gay" marriage should be legal?" I will weigh in, but not just yet.

Standards of Beauty

In a previous post I introduced a set of questions. The one I will address here is, based upon my choice of title, standards of beauty.

Ladies, a question. Why did you allow gay men to become the arbiters of feminine beauty? Seriously, I want to know. Letting Penis Hilton judge a beauty pageant is like me asking Rosie O'Doughnuts for advice on how to be a real hunk, unobtainable as that goal may be. Now, I can't speak for all men, but I'm pretty sure the average guy isn't seeking out the nearest dyke for advice on how to look good for his lady. If he were, Sears Roebuck would see one hell of a run on plaid shirts and coveralls, and the barber's would be limited to mullets. And, I suspect, there would be a lot of cold and lonely nights. Women, on the other hand...

Okay, there are three major fora in which standards of beauty are set; fashion, show business, and pageants. All three areas are pretty much the purview of gays; they design the clothes, they do the makeup, take the pictures, they publish the magazines, they judge the results, and the women in these areas reflect it. What, exactly, would you expect a gay man to decide the ideal woman to be? Slim, muscular, small butt/hips, definitely not too curvy, but for those icky breeders, better add some breasts. I know, how about a teenaged boy with a rack? Models, actresses and beauty contestants...teenaged boys with teats.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I'm making assumptions about what gay men find attractive, based on a fairly limited experience pool (in fact, mostly I'm reverse engineering). Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure there are exceptions in Hollywood (although, I can't actually think of one), but they are exceptions, and there aren't a whole lot of curves in the modeling world, are there? And it seems the beauty contestants need to get rubberized to have curves, so I stand by my point. Oh, and as to fake boobs, I'm with Stacy McCain, and opposed to Velociman on this one. Big or small, real looks better.

Ladies, before I hear any more whining about society's horrendous standards of beauty, consider who sets them, and consider who lets the deciders decide. All the men I know like their women to have curves, and don't expect those curves to be surgically created, or enhanced.

Carrie Prejean "Nude" Photos

Okay. I wasn't going to go anywhere near the latest in the Carrie Prejean saga because, well, I didn't care enough to bother. Then the "topless" photo "scandal" broke. Now it's out there, and I feel the need to vent.

First, if she's topless, but her back is turned, and her arm covers all but about 10% of her breast, does it really count as topless? I have a pretty simple definition of topless; if I can't see nipple, it don't count.

Second, since the woman is a beauty pageant alumnus, seriously, how much more exposed can she be now, than she already was? Seriously, is this, racier than this?

Third, why is it that behaviour the left actively encourages, is scandalous when engaged in by a member of the right? Right here in my "beloved" homeland, some lefty bint ran around Guelph topless, for a week, trying to get arrested, in order to test the constitutionality of the law which made women's toplessness indecent. Eventually she was, she did, and the law was struck down, and the left celebrated this as a victory for "women't rights." Now they're upset about 10% of Carrie Prejean's right breast? Riiiiight.

I know, it's about the hypocrisy. Again, riiiiight. Ted "the Lifeguard" Kennedy, champion of women's rights, kills Mary Jo Kopechne, no hypocrisy there, just 300 more years in the Senate, but let a beauty queen expose 10% of her right breast? Burn the witch.

Fourth, although she didn't win the pageant, she is now one of the most famous women in America. Let's see, beautiful? Check. Famous? Check. Rich? Not yet, but if you don't think she will be shortly, I'd better get a tip jar installed so you can deposit the down payment on a bridge I've got for sale.

Crapola. And it's all I'm going to say about it. It does, however, give rise to other issues, namely, standards of beauty, "gay marriage" and the ongoing rape of language by people who can't win an argument on its merits. But those will be covered in follow up posts.

Bob Cole REALLY should retire

Last night I watched part of the Pittsburgh/Washington hockey game. Good game; fast, exciting, hard hitting, everything a hockey game ought to be. Even the refereeing was decent. The game even had the added bonus of my utter lack of emotional attachment to either team. Since I really didn't have a dog in the hunt, I didn't much care about the outcome, and could just sit back and enjoy the game. Except for Bob friggin' Cole.

Now, before I go on a tear, I will say this in his defense. He's not the worst hockey play by play guy I've ever heard. That particular honour goes to Paul Romanuk, a play by play guy so incredibly awful that a bar slut I knew, once upon a time, who knew absolutely nothing about hockey, upon listening to him for about 3 minutes, commented on what an idiot he was.

So, having established my belief that Cole is not the absolute worst there ever was, allow me to proceed.

Set aside from the nerve grating nasal whine he uses for a voice, and set aside the encroaching senility, which led him to state, 10 years ago, that Bobby Hull scored the cup winner (Bobby Hull left the NHL in 1972, it was his son Brett who didn't score the non-goal that decided the 1999 cup).

Instead, consider the job of play by play man. It is, as I understand it, to describe the action on the ice. At his side is the colour commentator, whose job, as I understand it, is to fill in air time with asides, tangential to the action, but for the entertainment of the audience. To, you know, colour the experience.

The play by play man's job is not:

To tell us that Washington is looking to go up 2 games to 0, or to tell us Pittsburgh is looking for a split. Bob, I think we can take it as a given that both teams want to win the frigging game. They are highly proud, highly paid professionals, and it is, after all, the playoffs, numbnuts.

To tell us that there are 4 minutes remaining. And that the score is 4 to 2. Now, Bobo, I know you've been calling games for the CBC since the late Jurassic. In that time, I'm pretty sure someone has made you aware of the fact that the CBC puts a banner across the top of the screen giving the team names, the score, the time remaining, and, if there is one, remaining penalty time. Come to think of it, that banner, whether above or below the action, is pretty standard for all sports. Since that is written right there in bold, STOP FRIGGING TELLING US.

To tell us that the players are changing. Look, dummy, a shift change is only germaine to the action if it affects the play. Telling us that a player 150' from the action is getting off the ice is not a detail we need to know.

To tell us what you think is about to happen. Every time, for example, you tell us that so and so is going to clear the puck, when he fails to do so and you need to correct yourself, it makes you sound like a bloody fool, so stop doing it.

To torture the language. For example, Bob, clearing is an act of removal. You can clear away, clear out, clear off, etc. And you could even apply any of these to certain hockey situations. You cannot, however, clear in. Semantically it doesn't work, and in hockey terms, it is incoherent. So and so cleared the puck in? Seriously? You think that statement has logical content? Arrgh.

Thank heaven the CBC has Jim Hughson to do the games I actually care about. I don't know about y'all, but I sure would be interested to know what ol' Bobo the senile play by play man has on the powers that be at the CBC.

SiteMeter

Okay, as noted in an update below, following Stacy McCain's advice, I installed SiteMeter. Today I got my SiteMeter statistics report and, although it's nothing spectacular, it turns out that there are actually people out there reading this thing.

Oh, dear.

You know, it was a whole lot easier writing when I lived in a lovely cloud of blissful ignorance, a happy little fantasy world in which no one was paying any attention to me. Now I know differently.

Will this affect my writing? I hope not. I try to write as if I have an audience, even when I don't believe I have one.

Will this affect my output? I expect so. My first few weeks had some very sparse periods. I wrote, not when inspiration hit, but when time and inspiration colluded to get me to typing. Now I think I'll have to be working a little harder at it.

Oh, dear.

So, the Liberals have crowned their new leader. Yippee.

To be honest, I haven't paid much attention to the Liberals, since we don't really need them any more, what with the governing Conservatives general refusal to behave like "conservatives." In fact, so disgusted was I with, primarily, massive deficit financing and, secondarily, the absolute refusal to repeal the thought crimes clause of the Human Rights legislation that I figured to sit out the next election. As the saying goes, why vote for a Liberal light, false conservative, when you can have the real thing? Since I am constitutionally incapable of voting Liberal, what with my silly beliefs about liberty and such, I was just going to take a pass. Then...

Then I saw excerpts from Dion's and Ignatieff's speeches. I can't really comment on what Dion was saying, because, well, I have no frigging clue what he was saying. Is he coherent in French? 'Cause he sure ain't coherent in English. But that's not important right now. Or ever. I mean, seriously, it's Stephane Dion I'm talking about.

As to Ignatieff. Now they begin rebuilding what he calls the single most important institution in Canadian life. Excuse me, wtf? Seriously, WTF'ing F? The Liberal Party is the single most important institution in Canadian life? Jayzuz, arrogant much, Mr. Ignatieff?

Mr. Harper. You may thank Count Ignatieff for one vote you would not have otherwise gotten.

National Offend A Feminist Week

The Other McCain: National Offend A Feminist Week

It's The Other McCains' offend a feminist week. I'm too new at this blogging thing to try embedding anything, and most of the jokes that I can think of would not only offend feminists, but offend me, too.

I don't want simply to link to some other guy who's done something that would piss them off for me, (although Neal Boortz has a nice optical illusion here).

I also don't want just to slap together a bunch of quotes from better writers than I, although Kipling did give us a good one with, "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."

Hmmm.

Has anybody ever said the following?

"If God did not intend for women to be barefoot and pregnant, why was each and every one of them born naked, with a uterus?"

If no one has, consider me your source. Oh, and, since I'm Canadian, I think this just became International Offend a Feminist Week.

Update:

At Stacy McCain's suggestion, I have signed up for Technorati and SiteMeter. Thanks, Mr. McCain.