the Sunday supplement

Here's a comment I had posted to Hurtin' Jackalope's blog.

By the way, if no nether parts are evident I don't see how there can be any shame in shedding one's posterior undergarments. Pooh doesn't even have butt-cheeks as his legs are inexplainably attached at either side of his rotundity, in fine teddy bear fashion.


All these other comments are at The Globe And Mail, as usual.


January 21st


Peter Simms, was that your tongue I saw in your cheek or were you just happy to be leaving the first comment? It is kind of like being the first one outside to make a snow angel on a snowy recess, isn't it?
I do think however that people who choose (are forced?) to inhabit remote locations need to be a bit more self-reliant. That's why I haven't settled any Crown land recently. I couldn't be bothered to learn how to ride a snowmobile. Or starve. (Balmy winter stings natives)


All the whale I've eaten in Pusan at Chagalchi fish market has tasted a lot like beef, with deliciously crisp blubber. I understand why the Inuit and Japanese enjoy it. I don't suggest that this whale in the Thames should be slaughtered for meat but if it does happen to expire, why not eat it? After testing it for cetacean spongiform encephalitis, of course. (Ahoy, whale off Westminster Bridge!)







January 20th


Mr. Nakagawa said recently that imported beef from the U.S. may have included material from cattle backbones. Including parts of the cow - such as spines, brains and bone marrow - thought to be at high risk of containing mad-cow disease would violate terms of an agreement that last month partially lifted a two-year-old ban on the beef.
So the U.S. exporters have reputedly violated the terms of a trade agreement with Japan, and Mr. Koizumi restores the outright ban on U.S. beef. I hope whoever is Prime Minister of Canada after next week's election exhibits similar backbone regarding trade issues with the U.S. (Japan cuts off imports of U.S. beef again)


January 19th


Last time I checked the Liberals, who even in these dying days of the election campaign still form the government of Canada, were still on the left. Same-sex marriage seems a bit left-of-centre in the social issues realm, and I'm sure other policies regarding daycare and such still hover on the nether side of conservative fiscal responsibility. I have yet to hear of any Liberal pushing to privatize health care. I guess your options all depend on how far left you want to go. (Where's the left?)


I concur almost vehemently with the first post. Averaged out, it's only about thirty-five cents each for every man, woman and child alive. Proportionately China should be chipping in about $350 000 000, and India should match it. The U.S. with its huge trade imbalance still managed to scrape together $300 000 000, or about a dollar per person. One should keep in mind however that these are the pledged amounts and have yet to be collected. By the way, how much does a live chicken go for in Canada these days? ($1.9-billion pledged to fight bird flu)


Well I guess if it's a war on terror, air strikes are the way to go. I'm still wondering however why the British Air Force never waged a shock and awe air campaign over Dublin in order to root out the IRA. (Top al-Qaeda operatives said killed in U.S. strike)











January 17th


Okay, let's evaluate the Conservatives on social-moral grounds. Where should we begin? What exactly is their policy on such thorny issues as gay marriage and respect for international law, including international courts for trying war criminals and extraordinary rendition? By promising $100.00 a head per month for every child, are they not weakening moral fibre by promoting dependency on government hand-outs? Where do they stand on such delicate topics as access to education and the rights of first nations peoples? What exactly is their stand on national unity and the divisive nature of the Bloc Quebecois' presence in the federal parliament? Or are they really just power-grubbing politicians looking for the quickest, surest ways to clasp onto the ministerial portfolios and complete control of Canada's mind-numbingly pervasive bureaucracy? (Stephen Harper's Canada?)


What an excellent way to squash any opportunities for recidivism. (California executes oldest man on death row. He was 79, blind and almost deaf.)


I guess there is still significant Canadian troop strength in South Korea as well; we all know what a threat to international security that outlaw regime of Kim Jong-Pil's presents. (Party leaders stand by Afghan mission. As nice as it is to post the first comment, it is also rewarding to have them closed prematurely and end up with the last comment. This was number four!)


Social experiments aside, is Mr. Harper even remotely qualified to lead a developed nation? What is his experience on the international stage? Does he have a leadership philosophy? Where the hell does he come from, anyway? I have been following this election on-line for almost two months now and I have never once seen it mentioned where his home riding is. And who the heck are the Conservatives? I though they ceased to exist after electing only two MPs in 1993 and losing official party status. At least I know the NDP used to be the CCF and the Bloc began with Lucien Bouchard. Whatever happened to the Rhino party? Or the Libertarians, Communists or Greens, who apparently are only garnering about 8% of the popular vote? Haven't they been around for a lot longer than Mr. Harper's marginally motley collection of election-forcing, power-scrounging, floor-crossing, tax-evading smugglers? (55% would welcome a Harper majority. I'm just doing my little bit to turn the tide, that's all.)


January 16th


Hasn't anyone noticed that Ontario doesn't generally enjoy having the same party in power federally AND provincially? It went Liberal less than a year after Mulroney was elected and then NDP on his re-election. In 1995 when Chretien's government was still fresh Ontario went Tory again. It had been Tory for forty years before 1985, during which time the Liberals had been in power for at least twenty-five years. Ontario voters like to pit one level of government against the other, and it seems they will soon once again be having their cake and eating it too. (Tories enter home stretch just shy of majority: poll. I was number 34 of 161. By Friday the Globe was allowing upwards of three hundred comments on election-related stories.)