Marginally less annoying

George Stroumboulopoulos' Palin interviews are posted and I found her marginally less annoying now. And I don't think she winked once. There's a little more humility peeking through, not much mind you, but a little:

Great line of the day

Steve V writes about the basic problem with the Coalition:

While our system allows a coalition, while a coalition is entirely justified, particularly given the circumstances, if the public largely views it as a power grab, or a deal with separatists, or a refutation of election results, it will never have the necessary moral authority to govern. The basic idea of a party, which just garnered it's lowest public support total in history taking the helm strikes many as somehow unfair, rightly or wrongly. To plow ahead, comforted in the knowledge of justified procedure, without acknowledging whether the public will view the arrangement as "legitimate" is a recipe for disaster.

Emphasis mine.

Let's give Canada a wedgie!

Canada's Conservatives, bless their hearts! They just never met a wedge issue they didn't like!
Now they're trying to pit those of us who (still) have a job against those of us who don't -- here's Canada's own Monte Solberg bitching about how he wants all those slackers to get off his lawn. In the Conservative lexicon, anyone with a job should think that anyone without a job is just disgusting scum.
As Scott and Jan note, Employment Insurance is not welfare, as much as Conservatives like Harper and Solbert would like to portray it this way. And us employed people would totally support spending the entire EI fund on unemployed people -- a boat we all could be in one day.
Hey, bring it on! I want those surplus billions injected into the economy and the sooner the better!
What neither the Conservative government nor the Liberals before them want us to realize is that the Employment Insurance fund isn't government money at all. It's our money, yours and mine. And disbursements from the EI surplus are not noblesse oblige either -- all of us who have paid into EI for years and years are entitled to it.
I suspect Solberg has heard a whisper that the Cons are actually thinking about enacting the Coalition promise to abandon the two-week waiting period for EI benefits, and as a true blue Conservative, apparently he thinks its outrageous that people should be able to continue to pay their mortgages and feed their families while they're looking for work.
Keep it up, guys -- attitudes like this will ensure that Canadians won't vote for you again.

The American Okee-doke

In an interesting post about FDR and Obama, Lance Mannion also describes the American Okee-doke

From the beginning the Press has conspired in perpetuating what the sadly departed and sorely missed George Carlin called the American Okee-doke, the pretty lies and comforting half-truths that our corporate overseers use to keep us in line by getting us to accept the illusion that all is well in this great Republic of ours, feeding us, as Carlin says in his last concert for HBO , "just enough bullshit to hold things together." Those lies and half-truths include the following:

Land of the Free, home of the brave; all men are created equal; Justice is blind; the Press is free; your vote counts; business is honest; the police are on your side; God is watching you; your standard of living will never decline; and everything is going to be just fine.

"It's all bullshit, folks," says Carlin, almost as his goodbye, "And it's bad for you."

I suppose the Canadian version might be here.

Great line of the day

From Zbigniew Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough:

"You have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on it's almost embarrassing to listen to you."

Though the thing is, Joe was just parroting what every American pundit still says about how Arafat had turned down a great deal.

I agree

This is why I read Eschaton -- he frequently says what I think, too:

I really think the Senate Dems are going to make themselves look ridiculous if they try to avoid seating Burris. Whatever one thinks of Blago, he's still the governor, and he hasn't even been indicted or impeached. If there's no suggestion that this specific appointment is tainted, then I really don't see what the problem is.
All stupid, really.

UPDATE What Digby says:

I realize that it's bizarre that a disgraced governor could legally appoint a senator when he's accused of trying to sell the senate seat in the first place. But I just don't see a good political or legal basis for rejecting him. And neither do many legal beagles who, unlike myself, have the standing to weigh in on such important matters. It appears that my understanding of the law and the constitutional principles involved here are pretty mainstream.

If you love dogs, you'll love this movie

We went to see Marley and Me today -- what a great movie. One review said it was about a marriage as much as it is about a dog, and that's true. Its the best work I've ever seen Owen Wilson do, not to mention Jennifer Aniston.
But Marley is the star. Now I've bought the book to read too.
It didn't surprise me at all to read, in John Grogan's blog, that he had adopted one of the puppies in the movie, now called Woodson. And also not surprising, when they found out that Woodson had serious hip problems, they kept him anyway.

"Just bring him back," one of the breeders said, "and we'll swap him out for a new puppy, your pick of the next litter." I have to admit the offer was tempting, like turning in a lemon automobile for a gleaming new model. But dogs are not commodities to be discarded when they break, and I assumed that if Woodson were returned, he would be euthanized.
My wife and I thought about it overnight before realizing there was really nothing to consider. Woodson was part of our family now. I got on the floor with our special-needs dog and placed my lips against his snout. "You're not going anywhere, Woodsy," I whispered. "We're in this together."
And we are. With the help of an excellent orthopedic specialist at the University of Pennsylvania veterinary school, we have Woodson on a special diet and a regimen of cartilage builders and medicines. We lift him into the car for rides and up the stairs for bed. Surgery might be in his future, but for now he's comfortable and enjoys his life as a pampered house pooch.
Woodson will never go hunting or hiking or even on long walks, and that's OK. Some dogs are put on this Earth just to love you.

Shoe, meet the other foot

With Ignatieff, the Liberal party has clearly changed shoes. They're now kicking Harper where it hurts -- right in the 'not a leader' meme:

“The thing that frankly concerns me is that the autumn statement so failed the test of leadership that Canadians required of the situation, that I'm not optimistic that the government will come up with a budget that meets Canada's needs,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
“But I live in hope, as it were, that Mr. Harper will rise to the demands of the hour.”

Ouch!
Far and Wide sums up the difference between Dion and Ignatieff -- attitude.
Iggy's got one.
And Harper is scared.
I think it comes down to the excellent political judgment which Iggy is showing. He has drawn a line in the sand, and Harper will cross it at his peril. With Dion, Harper could get away with turning everything into a confidence vote because Dion was scared of an election. Iggy is making it clear that he is not scared at all.
But Harper is -- he has already shown that losing the prime ministership is his very worst nightmare, the thing that he will do anything to avoid.
So if he survives another near-death experience with the budget vote at the end of January, then watch how magically, presto change-o, absolutely NOTHING ELSE will be a "confidence" vote. The Conservative agenda will be toast. And the parliamentary committees should be very entertaining this spring!

Here we go again

Apparently there is now a "secretive pro-life caucus" in our Parliament which contains "members from every party" and which is now pledging to reopen the abortion debate, in Canadian Press's words.
But really, they don't want to just "reopen the debate" -- they're trying to criminalize abortion, and force women to continue unwanted pregnancies.
They're starting the same way they have done in the States, with criminalizing so-called "late term" or "partial-birth" abortions, because these are just too icky to defend.
Listen to this inflammatory, untruthful tripe:

"Very few Canadians appreciate the fact that essentially until a child takes its first breath, it has less value than a kidney," says Bruinooge [Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge, apparently the self-proclaimed "chair" of the "pro-life caucus"].
"In Canada you can't remove your kidney and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it's delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in."
Pro-choice advocates say Canadian doctors only perform such later-term procedures if there's a serious threat to the health of the mother or if it's virtually certain the baby wouldn't survive past birth.

Of course, its not just "pro-choice advocates" who say this, it is the doctors themselves and their patients. But using adversarial terminology implies there is actually some basis for an ethical debate, I guess.
And I wonder who in the Liberal caucus are members of this group? And which New Democrats and Bloc MPs are members, too?
Its time for any MP who wants to criminalize abortion to step forward and let us see who you are.

Great line of the day

At Daily Kos, diarist Jed L reports about how Rick Warren now accusing us of being "christophobes" -- as though anyone objecting to Warren is also somehow opposing Jesus Christ himself -- egotist, isn't he? Anyway, this is how Jed sums it up:

. . . the real division isn't between those who think he should speak at the inaugural and those who don't, it's between those who would deny gay citizens the same rights and privileges as everybody else, and those who believe gay citizens deserve the same rights and privileges as everybody else.
That's the real division, and Rick Warren is on the wrong side.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

One of the fun things about the end of the year are the Best-of-the-year/ Worst-of-the-year lists that everybody is making now.
Here is Rabble's Best of list -- Danny Williams! -- and Worst of list - Sarah Palin's "hyper-confident ignorance".
And here's another walk down memory lane from Huffington Post -- The 10 Worst Media Moments Of 2008. I particularly liked this one:

I'll tell you what set my teeth on edge: every time someone made mention of Hillary Clinton playing the 'gender card.'
Let me get this straight. It's okay for Barack Obama to put his racial background to advantageous use. It's okay for John McCain to put his war-hero past to advantageous use. It's okay for John Edwards to put his Son-of-a-mill-worker-hood to advantageous use. It's okay for Rudy Guiliani to put his proximity to the September 11th attacks to advantageous use. But if Hillary Clinton attempts to leverage her femininity to her advantage, suddenly everyone has to debate the relative fairness of it? Is American politics a milieu in which the participants often forego their natural advantages in competition, out of a spirit of fairness? No? Then suggesting Hillary Clinton be tied to a different set of standards is horseshit, the end.

Kaleidoscope

Remember the kaleidoscopes we played with when we were kids?



From Drawn.ca

Absolutely furious

If I were a true-blue Conservative, the appointment of mere journalists like Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to the Senate would make me simply furious.
Well, at least he didn't appoint any separatists, like that damned Coalition would have...oh, wait...

For fun

Gilda Radner sings with a carrot:

We just loved The Muppet Show.

Thanks, Alison

Alison watches Dear Leader so you don't have to.