CNN.com - Flash floods kill at least six in Texas - May 1, 2004 This is a painful story to read.
I wonder how many people die every year just because they are driving in bad weather? Coming from a part of the country where people die every winter when their cars break down in the cold, it seems to me that the only type of "weather warning" I ever hear about for drivers is when visibility is down to nothing -- ie, that a snowstorm is so bad that RCMP are advising people not to drive. I think we need a broader effort here -- some kind of alert system or set protocol for drivers to follow when they are caught in some kinds of weather. I've seen some advisory stuff for drivers caught by a tornado -- get into a culvert, for example -- but I haven't heard any other protocols for other bad weather situations. I don't know anything about flash floods, but maybe in Texas the protocol would be that during a storm drivers should stop at a high ground location and stay there, and that police or highway workers should patrol these areas to transport these stranded drivers to the nearest motel or school. Here, maybe we should have a procedure that tells people to cancel non-essential evening or night trips when its below, say, 35 below unless they are driving with a "buddy" car, and asks farmers to leave their yard lights on and their porch doors unlocked during such conditions.
My sister could have died one December night when her car ran out of gas, just a few miles from the city -- the first farm she walked to was locked up tight, nobody home; thank god there was someone home at the second farm, because she wouldn't have made it to the third.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Comments
I've been getting some comments on my blog recently, which is rather disconcerting -- its surprising to realize that other people are reading my opinions, warts and all. Though I write my posts as though I am talking to someone, I didn't think I was really talking to anyone except myself.
I started this blog as a birthday gift to me -- turning 55, I wanted to do something new and a little challenging. Mainly, I wanted to sound off about my increasingly-opinionated views, And its fun to see my words "in print". And I had been reading the blogs listed on the right, who have become a left-wing community on the net, and I wanted to be a part of their effort, however small and unsung.
So now I'm getting some comments, and I'm feeling like I need to be better -- improve the quality, quantity and variety of my posts -- just to make sure they have something interesting to read. And I'm getting a lot of negative comments from one fellow in partictular -- it surprises me that he keeps reading a blog he hates, because personally the blogs I like to read regularly are from posters with whom I usually agree so I had just assumed that everyone else felt the same way.
Anyway, its a learning experience for sure. Comment away!
I started this blog as a birthday gift to me -- turning 55, I wanted to do something new and a little challenging. Mainly, I wanted to sound off about my increasingly-opinionated views, And its fun to see my words "in print". And I had been reading the blogs listed on the right, who have become a left-wing community on the net, and I wanted to be a part of their effort, however small and unsung.
So now I'm getting some comments, and I'm feeling like I need to be better -- improve the quality, quantity and variety of my posts -- just to make sure they have something interesting to read. And I'm getting a lot of negative comments from one fellow in partictular -- it surprises me that he keeps reading a blog he hates, because personally the blogs I like to read regularly are from posters with whom I usually agree so I had just assumed that everyone else felt the same way.
Anyway, its a learning experience for sure. Comment away!
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Nortel, how could you?
"Controversial Bonus Plan 'a waste of . . . money' ": The Globe and Mail reports "Nortel Networks Corp.'s controversial bonus plan has design flaws that gave senior management an incentive to play accounting games and manipulate profits, investors and governance experts say."
Honesty in academic work is one of the areas I am involved in at the university where I work, and it can be very difficult sometimes to figure out the ethical course of action. And in a workplace, good employees look to their Board to signal the direction the company should take, and then the employees try to follow this course. So I do wonder whether, by setting up this type of bonus plan, the Nortel board was signalling that employees should puff up earnings. But still, even if this is what the board wanted, the employees cannot justify cheating because "I was only following orders". Since when, I would ask them, has it ever been OK to lie, regardless of the bonus plan?
Its just so sad, really -- Nortel was such a "Canadian success story" for so long, and so many people were proud of them and believed in them even when the bottom fell out a few years ago. And Nortel took that belief and trust, and just threw it away, ground it into the dirt like an old cigarette butt.
Honesty in academic work is one of the areas I am involved in at the university where I work, and it can be very difficult sometimes to figure out the ethical course of action. And in a workplace, good employees look to their Board to signal the direction the company should take, and then the employees try to follow this course. So I do wonder whether, by setting up this type of bonus plan, the Nortel board was signalling that employees should puff up earnings. But still, even if this is what the board wanted, the employees cannot justify cheating because "I was only following orders". Since when, I would ask them, has it ever been OK to lie, regardless of the bonus plan?
Its just so sad, really -- Nortel was such a "Canadian success story" for so long, and so many people were proud of them and believed in them even when the bottom fell out a few years ago. And Nortel took that belief and trust, and just threw it away, ground it into the dirt like an old cigarette butt.
Waves on the beach
As I said in a comment I posted on Billmon about watching Nightline tonight, "the names and faces became like watching waves break on a forlorn sunset beach." I want to expand a little more on that comment.
I was 15 or 16 when Life magazine published its issue with the photographs of every American who had died in Vietnam. Now, I was a pretty ignorant self-centered Canadian prairie teenager at the time, and I hadn't even been particularly aware that the US was so involved in a war so far away, in a country whose name I didn't even really know how to pronounce. As I paged through that issue, looking at face after face after face, I began to realize these were just boys, only a little older than me -- why, they could have been in high school with me, they could have been my friends! It was a personal awakening --for the first time in my life, I was deeply affected by a tragedy which had nothing to do with me or my family or even my country. And it was a political awakening -- for the first time, as I struggled to understand why they were dying, I began to grasp the profound importance of politics.
Watching Nightline tonight, again there were the faces of boys and, for the first time, girls -- again there was the personal impact because so many of these smiling faces are about the age of my own son and daughter. This time, however, I thought that the perspective of 40 years of political awareness would allow a more intellectual approach, blunt the impact, temper the tragedy, immunize me from shock.
But no -- the sadness was even deeper. I know now how much those fine young people have lost, the lives they will never have, the contributions to society they will never make, the joy they will never share with families and friends, and the children who will never be born.
And I have seen the ocean tides now.
When you sit on a beach and watch the waves roll in, one and another and another and another, each individual wave seems to be just the same as the one before it. But cumulatively, there is an enormous effect, as the tide rises inextolerably and the beach is gradually overrun. When the beach is deserted, as it is in the evening, the tide is even frightening, because darkness follows the waves, and the beach itself disappears.
Are the names and faces of the dead in Iraq an evening tide for America?
I am profoundly afraid of an America which lets incompetent and unprincipled leaders pander to the bloodlust of the beltway pundits, the good ol' boys and the Joe Sixpacks by sacrificing your best and brightest in a pointless war. Is the "American way of life" so brittle, so hollow that a single horrific event can crack it? If so, America will take us all down into the darkness. It felt that way for me tonight.
I was 15 or 16 when Life magazine published its issue with the photographs of every American who had died in Vietnam. Now, I was a pretty ignorant self-centered Canadian prairie teenager at the time, and I hadn't even been particularly aware that the US was so involved in a war so far away, in a country whose name I didn't even really know how to pronounce. As I paged through that issue, looking at face after face after face, I began to realize these were just boys, only a little older than me -- why, they could have been in high school with me, they could have been my friends! It was a personal awakening --for the first time in my life, I was deeply affected by a tragedy which had nothing to do with me or my family or even my country. And it was a political awakening -- for the first time, as I struggled to understand why they were dying, I began to grasp the profound importance of politics.
Watching Nightline tonight, again there were the faces of boys and, for the first time, girls -- again there was the personal impact because so many of these smiling faces are about the age of my own son and daughter. This time, however, I thought that the perspective of 40 years of political awareness would allow a more intellectual approach, blunt the impact, temper the tragedy, immunize me from shock.
But no -- the sadness was even deeper. I know now how much those fine young people have lost, the lives they will never have, the contributions to society they will never make, the joy they will never share with families and friends, and the children who will never be born.
And I have seen the ocean tides now.
When you sit on a beach and watch the waves roll in, one and another and another and another, each individual wave seems to be just the same as the one before it. But cumulatively, there is an enormous effect, as the tide rises inextolerably and the beach is gradually overrun. When the beach is deserted, as it is in the evening, the tide is even frightening, because darkness follows the waves, and the beach itself disappears.
Are the names and faces of the dead in Iraq an evening tide for America?
I am profoundly afraid of an America which lets incompetent and unprincipled leaders pander to the bloodlust of the beltway pundits, the good ol' boys and the Joe Sixpacks by sacrificing your best and brightest in a pointless war. Is the "American way of life" so brittle, so hollow that a single horrific event can crack it? If so, America will take us all down into the darkness. It felt that way for me tonight.
Shorter David Brooks
Sex and the Cities Considering how disasterously things are going in Iraq, I think I'll write a column about sex.
Friday, April 30, 2004
I guess he thinks he deserves a gold star
Bush and Cheney Tell 9/11 Panel of '01 Warnings
. . . Mr. Bush appeared before reporters in the Rose Garden and described the question-and-answer session with the 10 members of the bipartisan commission as 'very cordial.' He said he 'answered every question that they asked.'"
Nice to see what a chummy time Bush and Cheney had with the 9.11 commissioners. Typically, at the press conference afterwards, both he and the media were totally focused on how he felt about the experience and how many questions he answered -- no solemn reference at all to the tragedy of 9.11 itself.
And I got a chuckle out of how proud Bush was about answering all the questions. What did he think, that the commission would ask him something that Gonzales would advise him not to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination? Like -- why did you freeze and sit in the school for seven minutes after being told that the nation was under attack?
. . . Mr. Bush appeared before reporters in the Rose Garden and described the question-and-answer session with the 10 members of the bipartisan commission as 'very cordial.' He said he 'answered every question that they asked.'"
Nice to see what a chummy time Bush and Cheney had with the 9.11 commissioners. Typically, at the press conference afterwards, both he and the media were totally focused on how he felt about the experience and how many questions he answered -- no solemn reference at all to the tragedy of 9.11 itself.
And I got a chuckle out of how proud Bush was about answering all the questions. What did he think, that the commission would ask him something that Gonzales would advise him not to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination? Like -- why did you freeze and sit in the school for seven minutes after being told that the nation was under attack?
Giving Fallujah to a man with a mustache
Marines Plan Handoff To Militia in Fallujah
So they're actually doing it, they're declaring victory and leaving.
And they are putting in charge one of the generals who fought against them just a year ago. Unacknowledged in the article is the fact that once the Americans are gone, the insurgency will end anyway.
So it this one works, I wonder if the whole of Iraq will be turned over to some man with a mustache on June 30.
So they're actually doing it, they're declaring victory and leaving.
And they are putting in charge one of the generals who fought against them just a year ago. Unacknowledged in the article is the fact that once the Americans are gone, the insurgency will end anyway.
So it this one works, I wonder if the whole of Iraq will be turned over to some man with a mustache on June 30.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
The last word on the medals thing
Watch Did John Kerry throw something over a fence 30 years ago? The public needs to know" -- I particularly liked the bit on how Bush's certificate in the national guard mile high club compares to Kerry's bronze star, silver star and three purple hearts.
Media Clowns
Daily Howler hits the nail right on the head in his column today about the press corps coverage of Kerry's medals thing and the peanut butter thing, not to mention previous mentions of the botox thing, the hairstyle thing, etc etc
Their focus on trivia is an addiction --a raging, millionaire's mental illness. Their opinion leaders are multimillionaires, and they do behave like a perfumed court- like Marie Antoinette's inner circle. As they've long shown, they are impervious to serious thought, as their class has always been. And they continue to clown at a dangerous time, at a time that imperils the world."
On Hardball last night, Matthews asked Bill Mayer about the medals thing and Mayer responded "Why are you covering this?" Matthews' face showed he was taken aback at first, he thought Mayer was joking. When he realized that Mayer was serious, he didn't have any defense. Here's the somewhat-edited transcript:
MATTHEWS: Bill Maher, what do you make of this fight over whether he threw ribbons or medals in 1971, a third of a century ago?
BILL MAHER, HOST, “REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER”: Why are you covering this? Why are you taking this bait, seriously? Why are you even letting them bait you into covering this complete nonissue? This guy has medals. This guy has ribbons. The other guy didn‘t go. That‘s the whole story.
The other guy is a draft dodger. They were both rich kids in the ‘60s. One of them went to where the bullets were flying and one of them found a way not to go and then he lied about that. Stop covering the medals.
MATTHEWS: All right, I did have to cover it because he had a lot to say last night. Apparently, John Kerry wanted to go on and make clear something where he—maybe he should have shut up about it, but he wanted to make clear that he was being truthful because he said medals and ribbons mean the same to a guy who actually served in the military.
MAHER: Look, one guy went into the National Guard, which back then was a way of getting out of it. .. .
MATTHEWS: Well, he did say in a recent press conference with everyone watching—apparently, 30 million people watched this press conference recently—the president was asked if he ever made any mistakes, and he said he hadn‘t made any.
MAHER: He was drunk until he was 40. That‘s not a mistake?. . .
MATTHEWS: Well, why is he going up in the polls? We got a Pew Research poll. We could show you any poll. They all show him moving up, where he was behind. So what is President Bush doing the last month that‘s so good and what‘s so bad, I guess you would have to say, about John Kerry‘s performance the last month or so? What‘s going on?
MAHER: Well, for one thing, he‘s getting the media to cover this nonsense about John Kerry‘s medals. So Joe Public, as President Bush would call him, sits home and goes, well, gosh, there was a controversy with Bush‘s military history and now there‘s a controversy with John Kerry‘s military history. I don‘t know who to vote for. It‘s nonsense. It is nonsense. One guy actually has honor and integrity, although I will admit that John Kerry certainly is not burdened with charisma, and the other guy only has the words honor and integrity. He‘s never connected them to anything. And he never connects anything
MATTHEWS: What can John Kerry do? Life is unfair, as Jack Kennedy once said, but what happens when you have got a guy like George Bush who may be a swell, who may have gotten breaks to get into Yale, breaks certainly to get into the National Guard, all his life were breaks, maybe to make a ton of money with a baseball team? But he comes off, fairly or not, as sort of a regular guy, whereas John Kerry, who was the balls-out guy, went to war, did the job for the country, won the three—earned, you would have to say, the three Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star, the Silver Star, saved lives, killed the enemy, he comes off as kind of cold. And then the American people are like thermometers. If the guy is warm, they like him. If he‘s cold, they don‘t. Is that fair?
MAHER: And, also, this is something I said before, but I think it bears repeating in this instance to your question. The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing combined with the stupidity of our people.
George Bush has $180 million to spend. With that kind of money, he could convince Americans to drink paint, and he probably will.
. . . I‘m just saying, with enough money, you can convince people of anything. And that is what George Bush does. He is one of the most cynical presidents we‘ve ever had, I believe, because with that kind of money, he plays on people‘s fears, he plays on people‘s ignorance, and he plays on people‘s shortsightedness . . . you know, in the days before television, people didn‘t judge presidents on whether he was sunny or warm or likable. They judged on whether he was the best man for the job. I would like to bring that criteria back now that we‘re at war.
MATTHEWS: It must be great not to have to be fair and balanced, Bill.
Thank you very much, Bill Maher. Good luck.
Notice that Matthews really does know the difference between the Bush record and the Kerry record, but then recoils from where this leads by talking about how people "like" Bush -- actually, millions of Americans distrust him and dislike him intensely, which is why democratic turnout at the primaries was over the top. Then right at the end, he gave Maher a little dig, implying that RNC talking points need to be given airtime so that the media can prove it is "fair and balanced".
Their focus on trivia is an addiction --a raging, millionaire's mental illness. Their opinion leaders are multimillionaires, and they do behave like a perfumed court- like Marie Antoinette's inner circle. As they've long shown, they are impervious to serious thought, as their class has always been. And they continue to clown at a dangerous time, at a time that imperils the world."
On Hardball last night, Matthews asked Bill Mayer about the medals thing and Mayer responded "Why are you covering this?" Matthews' face showed he was taken aback at first, he thought Mayer was joking. When he realized that Mayer was serious, he didn't have any defense. Here's the somewhat-edited transcript:
MATTHEWS: Bill Maher, what do you make of this fight over whether he threw ribbons or medals in 1971, a third of a century ago?
BILL MAHER, HOST, “REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER”: Why are you covering this? Why are you taking this bait, seriously? Why are you even letting them bait you into covering this complete nonissue? This guy has medals. This guy has ribbons. The other guy didn‘t go. That‘s the whole story.
The other guy is a draft dodger. They were both rich kids in the ‘60s. One of them went to where the bullets were flying and one of them found a way not to go and then he lied about that. Stop covering the medals.
MATTHEWS: All right, I did have to cover it because he had a lot to say last night. Apparently, John Kerry wanted to go on and make clear something where he—maybe he should have shut up about it, but he wanted to make clear that he was being truthful because he said medals and ribbons mean the same to a guy who actually served in the military.
MAHER: Look, one guy went into the National Guard, which back then was a way of getting out of it. .. .
MATTHEWS: Well, he did say in a recent press conference with everyone watching—apparently, 30 million people watched this press conference recently—the president was asked if he ever made any mistakes, and he said he hadn‘t made any.
MAHER: He was drunk until he was 40. That‘s not a mistake?. . .
MATTHEWS: Well, why is he going up in the polls? We got a Pew Research poll. We could show you any poll. They all show him moving up, where he was behind. So what is President Bush doing the last month that‘s so good and what‘s so bad, I guess you would have to say, about John Kerry‘s performance the last month or so? What‘s going on?
MAHER: Well, for one thing, he‘s getting the media to cover this nonsense about John Kerry‘s medals. So Joe Public, as President Bush would call him, sits home and goes, well, gosh, there was a controversy with Bush‘s military history and now there‘s a controversy with John Kerry‘s military history. I don‘t know who to vote for. It‘s nonsense. It is nonsense. One guy actually has honor and integrity, although I will admit that John Kerry certainly is not burdened with charisma, and the other guy only has the words honor and integrity. He‘s never connected them to anything. And he never connects anything
MATTHEWS: What can John Kerry do? Life is unfair, as Jack Kennedy once said, but what happens when you have got a guy like George Bush who may be a swell, who may have gotten breaks to get into Yale, breaks certainly to get into the National Guard, all his life were breaks, maybe to make a ton of money with a baseball team? But he comes off, fairly or not, as sort of a regular guy, whereas John Kerry, who was the balls-out guy, went to war, did the job for the country, won the three—earned, you would have to say, the three Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star, the Silver Star, saved lives, killed the enemy, he comes off as kind of cold. And then the American people are like thermometers. If the guy is warm, they like him. If he‘s cold, they don‘t. Is that fair?
MAHER: And, also, this is something I said before, but I think it bears repeating in this instance to your question. The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing combined with the stupidity of our people.
George Bush has $180 million to spend. With that kind of money, he could convince Americans to drink paint, and he probably will.
. . . I‘m just saying, with enough money, you can convince people of anything. And that is what George Bush does. He is one of the most cynical presidents we‘ve ever had, I believe, because with that kind of money, he plays on people‘s fears, he plays on people‘s ignorance, and he plays on people‘s shortsightedness . . . you know, in the days before television, people didn‘t judge presidents on whether he was sunny or warm or likable. They judged on whether he was the best man for the job. I would like to bring that criteria back now that we‘re at war.
MATTHEWS: It must be great not to have to be fair and balanced, Bill.
Thank you very much, Bill Maher. Good luck.
Notice that Matthews really does know the difference between the Bush record and the Kerry record, but then recoils from where this leads by talking about how people "like" Bush -- actually, millions of Americans distrust him and dislike him intensely, which is why democratic turnout at the primaries was over the top. Then right at the end, he gave Maher a little dig, implying that RNC talking points need to be given airtime so that the media can prove it is "fair and balanced".
How comforting to blame it all on Saddam
Hussein's Agents Are Behind Attacks in Iraq, Pentagon Finds
Do they actually believe this? Its both simplistic and stupid, but the headline and the article both state this as though these are proven facts, rather than wishful thinking.
I don't doubt that the Iraq army is now active in the resistance, but I think this report is actually aimed at giving Bush and Rumsfield and Cheny a set of talking points for the increasing numbers of American journalists and citizens who are questioning the war.
Here's the key paragraph:
The report also illustrates how Hussein loyalists are manipulating dissatisfaction with the occupation and cultivating a climate of fear that did not vanish with Mr. Hussein's capture. Policy makers who have read the document say it underscores their concerns that a pervasive fear that allowed Mr. Hussein to rule his nation is, even today, deterring millions of Iraqis from supporting the American-led occupation. The pacification of Iraq cannot succeed without the consent and participation of a larger number of Iraqis, according to officials on Capitol Hill and within the administration.
So the American people can rest easy that the failure of Iraq is not the fault of anyone in Washington, or the inept management of the occupation by the Pentagon, or understaffing in the army, or torture by troops in the prisons, or the destruction of Iraq's economy, or US inability to get the electricity running, or the overall disrespect shown to the Iraq people -- no, no, its really all Hussein's fault, you see, and that's why things are going so badly!
Do they actually believe this? Its both simplistic and stupid, but the headline and the article both state this as though these are proven facts, rather than wishful thinking.
I don't doubt that the Iraq army is now active in the resistance, but I think this report is actually aimed at giving Bush and Rumsfield and Cheny a set of talking points for the increasing numbers of American journalists and citizens who are questioning the war.
Here's the key paragraph:
The report also illustrates how Hussein loyalists are manipulating dissatisfaction with the occupation and cultivating a climate of fear that did not vanish with Mr. Hussein's capture. Policy makers who have read the document say it underscores their concerns that a pervasive fear that allowed Mr. Hussein to rule his nation is, even today, deterring millions of Iraqis from supporting the American-led occupation. The pacification of Iraq cannot succeed without the consent and participation of a larger number of Iraqis, according to officials on Capitol Hill and within the administration.
So the American people can rest easy that the failure of Iraq is not the fault of anyone in Washington, or the inept management of the occupation by the Pentagon, or understaffing in the army, or torture by troops in the prisons, or the destruction of Iraq's economy, or US inability to get the electricity running, or the overall disrespect shown to the Iraq people -- no, no, its really all Hussein's fault, you see, and that's why things are going so badly!
A banana for the gorilla
Martin will sign U.S. missile-warning program Maybe I could be accused of a cynical approach, but personally, I have no problem with this. Its smoke and mirrors -- the missile defense system doesn't work and isn't likely to improve much in the future. But, in the meantime, it gives us an opportunity to cooperate with the Bush Administration on something that is near and dear to their hearts. Tthe 400-lb gorilla next door has to be thrown the occasional banana.
Revisionist present
Gadhafi has remade himself and revised his presence in the world. Gadhafi wraps up landmark trip Twenty years ago, Gadhafi was the Great Evil One; now he is the new golden boy of the Middle East. Maybe he has changed, I don't know -- but maybe he looked at what happened when Hussein was identified as the Great Evil One. And maybe he decided that with Hussein out of the picture, the Middle East was due for a new leader, and it might as well be him. And maybe he realized that he could take over from Egypt as the power broker in the region, and also in Africa, if he made nice with the Europeans, also with the benefit of making some money through international investment. And look how eager everyone has been to believe him now. Its an instructive transformation, but I wonder how trustworthy.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Kerry fights back
Two great posts on LiberalOasis "Beltway Dems: Shut Up" and "It has been brung" -- about how well Kerry is responding to the RNC attacks, and how his jobs message is going over in Ohio. Great stuff!
Monday, April 26, 2004
Greedy buggers
CNEWS - Canada: Three new suits against widow of Quebec pilot who crashed into tower
This is pathetic -- so one lawyer has this billiant idea to sue this poor woman, then everyone else piles on so they don't get left out of the windfall. Look guys, you build a huge tower like this in the middle of nowhere, and the risk of someone flying into it is just the risk you take, like being hit by lightening. But because she got a $1 million insurance policy, which at today's interest rates will generate an income for her of maybe $3,000 a month, you think you can squeeze more blood from this stone.
She should countersue the bunch of you, for putting the tower in a place where her husband's plane would hit it! I cannot think of a judge who wouldn't be sympathetic to her.
This is pathetic -- so one lawyer has this billiant idea to sue this poor woman, then everyone else piles on so they don't get left out of the windfall. Look guys, you build a huge tower like this in the middle of nowhere, and the risk of someone flying into it is just the risk you take, like being hit by lightening. But because she got a $1 million insurance policy, which at today's interest rates will generate an income for her of maybe $3,000 a month, you think you can squeeze more blood from this stone.
She should countersue the bunch of you, for putting the tower in a place where her husband's plane would hit it! I cannot think of a judge who wouldn't be sympathetic to her.
Thanks but really, you shouldn't have
Globe and Mail: Clark slams Harper So, let's see -- Mulroney has endorsed Harper, and Joe Clark has endorsed Martin. I'll bet both Paul and Steven are so grateful! Personally, I think both Mulroney and Clark are OK, but so many Canadians dislike both of them that the endorsements could turn out to be poison pills. For Harper, its like being endorsed by the mafia; as for Martin, I'll bet he'd rather kiss a duck than say thanks to Clark. A sincere "you really shouldn't have" is the honest response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)