Not Stephen, Not Stephan - but Stephon

Jesus. Christ.

The celtics are worse than the Yankees.

RENTER!

So, for the record, the Celtics back-up point guard is better than almost every other point guard in the league. Great.

Tough on Crime? What bollocks

This is why I can't stand the Conservative government. In our streets

Assuming for a second that this isn't entirely reactionary to what has always been a problem, but has just recently become more notorious because of some tragic results in BC. It is a tragedy.

For the record, a drive by shooting is a lot of things - the least of which is an offence which is committed with a fire-arm. Didn't they fix this last year? I have excerpted the section below.

1) The minimum penalty for attempted murder (you know, an attempt to take a life) is five years. That is one more year than the minimum for drive-bys.

2) If the intent of a drive by isn't to murder someone, those people in BC have REALLY LOUSY AIM. Regardless, 85(1)(c) of the code notes:

"...whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm."

So, for all other "use" offences for firearms. For example, if you rob a dude with your fist, the penalty is X. If you rob a dude with a firearm, the penalty is X+1 year.

So, these gang bangers are going to be dissuaded from their drive by's by the prospect of an extra three years? Puh-lease.

239. (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence and liable:
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Long week- the Climate Changed

And Arod has already hit a home run. Yippee. It is almost golfing time.

So, I was at an interesting session this morning. A group of people responsible for about 90 percent of Canada's emissions meets twice a month. They drink blood and dance around a totem.

Anyway, the discussion turned to "border adjustments" - a form of tariff/equivalency that could be applied to Canadian products that would enter the US (or other jurisdictions) and vice-versa. The focus of the discussion was basically - If the US administration wants to screw with Canada, they will. If they inadvertently screw with Canada, there is little we can do about it. If they inadvertently vertently (yes, read it again) screw with Canada, there is even less we can do about it. Basically, the cost of climate change regulations around the world is going to be the next non-tariff barrier if anything is ever developed in the US.

The irony - which I *LOVE* today - is that if Canada had a carbon tax, we think that it would be covered by the international tax treaties. The basis of the treaties is that you can't be taxed twice for the same profit.

But, an adjustment to compensate Canadian industries who have to pay for regulation costs domestically, would not enjoy the same protection.

Oh Stephane, you were so far ahead of your time.

Obama's Visit

The coverage of this has been overbearing, at best.

I have two things to say

1) The Daily Show is going to have a field day with the headline "Obama goes to Canada and has Beaver Tail." Reminds us of Clinton's last visit.

2) Does anyone really think that this was a massive victory for the government? Seriously, if Steve wasn't PM, does anyone think that it would have been any different. Really.

Actually, it could have been better - Chretien would have made him hop a fence to go get a snack and run away from the detail.

I am glad they have a personal relationship. I am massively confused by any allusions made by current government ministers that Obama would be a large C conservative voter if he lived in Canada. Maybe if the only other option was a more conservative party.

In other news, I have renewed my love for Walker, Texas Ranger.

Water, Energy, Gaia and Me

For a Liberal, I certainly hate a lot of liberal causes.

For example- I have been screaming about water for years. Canada has lots of it, the rest of the world does not.

A few facts before we get into the protectionist Maude Barlow's of the world.

1) There are more people in the world now than there was before. In ten years, there will be even more. They are all thirsty.

2) Water can't be destroyed the way you think. Pooping into the water and flushing it down the toilet doesn't waste it. Running a hose doesn't waste it. Diverting it to Las Vegas to water golf courses doesn't waste it. It evaporates and takes a different form. It is a chemical substance. Like energy, it will always find its way back into the 'total' ecosystem in some way shape or form. It just might not be easily accessible as water vapour in the atmosphere.

3) Contrary to popular belief, we can make more of it.


That said, I am sick and tired of Robert Kennedy Jr. This aloof jag off thinks he is his dad - but in reality he is just another un-elected dauphin that brings entitlement into a debate that isn't really all that substantive.

His latest crusade: Saving the Colorado River.

While I will always agree that as a species we need to waste less stuff (power, water, food) I do not buy any of the presuppositions on which his latest cause is based. For starters, conserving water in the Pacific states will not make more snow land in the Rockies. More importantly, in a desert, rushing waters will eventually evaporate. Thirdly, Las Vegas recycles far more water than you would think.

So, I am going to sidestep the dauphin, and talk about the real problem. Can our planet help create enough water for our exploding population, and what can we do to help it?

1) We can use less water. This seems like a no-brainer, but that is really just a band-aid. It shifts the problem a few decades, maybe. We can certainly improve crop practices and have better collection methods for 'lost' water.

2) We can use the water we have more effectively. Canada has lots of water - we use a lot of it, but we can certainly share it. It isn't science fiction to see water flowing across the globe in tubes and aquifers - hell, we do that with oil and gas now.

3) We can make more water. It is very energy intensive, but we can take the molecules and make H2O. Incidentally, there are other molecules that we "have too much of" which we can draw from, including C02, CH2FCF3, CH3CHF2 and others. The irony of creating GHGs to make water by reformulating existing GHGs, is not lost on me.

How? Well, it is energy intensive, but the Saudi's have been desalinating ocean water for twenty years. Another way is to 'crack' other molecules. The energy intensity would normally create significant forms of pollution - but I am not afraid of the nuclear boogeyman the way that others are.

Ultimately, we are parched and we need something to drink. We can create more water for our growing thrist or we can continue to trick ourselves that conversation is the solution to all of the world's problems.

We need heroes

When President Obama spoke about Alex Rodriguez yesterday, he almost said what I wanted him to say. We can all be disappointed in our champions, but I find it morally repugnant that we can so quickly throw them under a bus. What kind of example does Alex Rodriguez set for our children?

He is a role model. He made a mistake an eon ago and has since apologized for it. We need more heroes to inspire greatness. I am not sure I would ever recommend anyone stand in the lime-light for fear that they will be ripped apart for their humanity.

Yes, he lied. I lied yesterday about how much I liked my breakfast. Sue me.

Yes, he did something that wasn’t exactly ethical. By that standard, President Kennedy should be castigated for any number of things he did within the bounds of the law. Or, say, Ty Cobb who was a NOTORIOUS cheater. He was so good at cheating, it was seen as a skill.

Yes. He admitted it. And now people are criticizing his apology! It sounded fake, he looked like a jackass. He wasn’t sincere.

Jesus Christ. He isn’t a professional apologist- he is a 33 year old athlete who hasn’t had a second to himself since he was 18. Sorry, but I think you are holding him to an impossibly high standard.

And we are, by the way, calling him some pretty serious names. If I called you these very names, in front of 30-40 million viewers, I would love to see you do it any better.

In a world where the imperfect do everything in their power to get ahead of the game and we tolerate a myriad of examples of incompetence for no other reason that the errors of lesser men can easily be overcome.

If Alex Rodriguez is guilty of anything it is ego. He wanted to get even better at something that he was already the best in the world at. He wanted to improve.

Just so we are clear – he wanted to be even better at something he was already the best at. And he didn’t break a single rule to do so.

His defenders say he didn’t cheat – his critics say it was because there wasn’t a rule in place to break. His critics say he lied, but his defenders say it was because he thought that people wouldn’t understand.

I think there should be exactly one test: Do we enjoy watching you perform? If we do, we should be willing to say “you can’t hit in October” and call you “May-Rod” ™ . We shouldn’t be so quick to criticize the training or single you out. There were another 103 players, some of whom may already be in the Hall of Fame- Ricky, I am looking at you.

Why do we love to tear down Alex Rodriguez? Because we are jealous. And don’t even get me started on Pete Rose – he certainly broke a rule. As a Manager. He is still the all time hits leader, and I am confident he wasn’t betting against himself.

All we are going to do is eliminate a class of heroes.

And it is a big class.

There is no professional sports franchise that doesn’t have to deal with this issue. The NFL have designed an anti-doping regime that actually encourages healthy cycles for steroid use. MLB players are singled out for their successes.

There is no doubt that this will be remembered as the steroid era of baseball. It is a shame, because there have been some unbelievable accomplishments during this era. Forever tainted by the quills of lesser men who could never hold a, pardon the pun, candlestick to the people they criticize.


Do we take Honus Wagner out of the Hall because he didn’t have to compete against African Americans? Do we take Ty Cobb out for hating African Americans? Do we take Babe Ruth out for drinking during prohibition?

The answer to all of these questions is no. And in fifty years, most of today’s heroes will be placed in the hall posthumously. Why? Because the rules of the game will change, and their crimes will not even be seen as crimes anymore.

Like, say, wearing a goalie mask – or using pine tar. Or chalk on the ball.

We need more heroes.

A video game called me fat

I am more than a little dismayed.

I have a fairly large upper-body. I have been physically active my entire life. I have a little pot. Sue me.

So, I was playing on a Wii. I used the "Wii fit" and it had to measure me using only my weight and my centre of gravity as indicators.

After a few routine tests, it said that I was bordering on obese.

This is problematic to me. All my pants still fit, afterall.

I guess I have to cut the 20 ounce steaks out of my diet.

Af-Danny-Stan, Party Discipline and Senator Duffy

There is no bigger buffoon in Ottawa than the Hon. Michael Duffy.

For him to derisively say "when two men lie down in bed together, one of them gets the shaft" on the floor of the Senate is testament to just how important it is. It was moronic, homophobic, and evidence of his intellect. Follow the story yourself

Mr. Ignatieff, however, did the right thing.

Precedent-smecedent. If, as they say, all the Quebec MPs want to vote against an issue, let them. If all the Saskatchewan MPs want to vote against something, let Ralph do it. Same in Manitoba. Even BC. Hell, let Larry Bagnell vote against it too.

The math just doesn't work for any province. The tories need less than ten votes to pass any piece of legislation - so, even if all of the Liberal MPs from the non-Ontario provinces voted against it, it would still pass.

The only exception is Ontario - and if the budget is bad for Ontario - YOU SHOULD DEFEAT IT. You know, it is a 1/3rd of the economy after all. Christ.

The real issue is "can a Premier dictate terms to an MP from his province." I say yes, but it doesn't mean that he or she is right. That is why we have debate in the House of Commons. US Governors do it ALL THE TIME.

But Danny is special. He can break you - in Newfoundland. He can make life hard for you - in Newfoundland. He spoils all his relationships eventually by acting like a bully. I love him and hate him simultaneously.

However, to suggest that Premier Danny had to instruct MPs is like saying that a kid with a poop filled diaper has to cry in order to be changed - not that we couldn't smell it. There are exactly ZERO Newfoundland MPs who actually wanted to support the budget because of the equalization provisions - they didn't need the leader of the Tali-Dan to tell them. Todd Russell is from Labrador.

My belief about separating the executive from the legislature notwithstanding, I do not believe that party discipline really has a place any more. In a fractured Parliament, I think that legislation has to be build cohesively, LIKE IN THE US CONGRESS, and that a straight thumbs up/down on an omnibus piece of legislation is never going to accomplish anything.

Further, I suggest that a piece of legislation can have monolithic support inside either of the 'big tent' parties in Canada is absurd.

Canada First, politics last

If I was an American, I would be a dove-protectionist.

I am not an American.

To that end, I should want American politics to be run by hawkish-free traders.

Of course, I don't like the hawkish part so much, until it defends my borders.

The 'stimulus' package that is currently before the U.S. Senate is problematic for countless reasons, but the bottom line is that by excluding all nations from the benefits of stimulating the US economy, they have excluded Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars heading South, East, West or even over the pole to Russia. But I understand how an integrated economy works.

I also understand that US trade is about selling their stuff, not about buying ours.

Sleeping next to an elephant is always hard, unless you also make peanuts (geo-punical, intended.)

I, for one, can't do much to end US protectionism. I can promise, however, not to give them my money. I am going to take a hard look at labels. While understanding that I am not going to make Johnson and Johnson a Canadian Company, I am going to be cognizant that making money for people who don't invest in Canada is a bad idea.

I am going to try to use Canadian products, whatever the cost.

I am going to drink Ontario wine. Gross.

What a catch

What a finish.

Once again, I have proven that you only have to watch the last five minutes to get everything you need to know.

And finally, the football season is over. We can focus on the other three sports that actually matter.