of Montreal - Heimdalsgate Like A Promethean Curse
I think it's pro-drugs, but it can be hard to tell.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Fox Knows Funny!
I snickered once!
Fox has a Daily Show of its own and it knows the funny! Meaning it sucks.
I don't know why I post crap that all of you are going to hate...I do like you; I just want the suffering to be equal. But if you don't want your brain filled with, what I can only call, shit, don't click the link below.
You have been warned. With love.
HHNS-Obama.mov (video/quicktime Object)
Fox has a Daily Show of its own and it knows the funny! Meaning it sucks.
I don't know why I post crap that all of you are going to hate...I do like you; I just want the suffering to be equal. But if you don't want your brain filled with, what I can only call, shit, don't click the link below.
You have been warned. With love.
HHNS-Obama.mov (video/quicktime Object)
The Blogging Tories To The Rescue
In this time of constitutional crisis, thank goodness for the The Blogging Tories. They lept in to let us all know how ignoring the law is a Conservative value They...what? No? Really? Oh.
So this is what we have...
Gay Marriage Under Attack In Michigan!
Bob Barker Was My Surrogate Dad!
Mulroney Was Greener Than The Day Was Long!
And the biggest fucktard in the country babbled something
These kids are really on the ball. By the way, Sheena? Don't click. And maybe Crazylegs should skip this crap as well. KD? Only after LOTS of coffee and a really good day when you think that everyone is sweet and wonderful and just misunderstood. Honshui, click away and bemoan your membership in the Institute that bears not naming.
So this is what we have...
Gay Marriage Under Attack In Michigan!
Bob Barker Was My Surrogate Dad!
Mulroney Was Greener Than The Day Was Long!
And the biggest fucktard in the country babbled something
These kids are really on the ball. By the way, Sheena? Don't click. And maybe Crazylegs should skip this crap as well. KD? Only after LOTS of coffee and a really good day when you think that everyone is sweet and wonderful and just misunderstood. Honshui, click away and bemoan your membership in the Institute that bears not naming.
Its All He Said, He Said
A coup d'état? A constitutional crisis? Or a nuisance?
A short primer..............Bill C288 passed today. According to the National Post : "The bill, introduced by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, would force the government to develop a plan and introduce new regulations to meet Canada's commitments to reduce pollution that causes global warming and report annually on its progress." This bill passed by a margin of 161-113.
So, in an up and down vote, we have a new law that says that "[requires] the Conservative government to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord"
Pretty cut and dried. Oh, but wait...is there some wiggle room? Luckily, we have two national papers at the ready to give us the straight dope...
From the Globe and Mail:
"The government has hinted strongly that it will simply ignore Bill C-288 – even if it is approved by the Senate and becomes law, as expected."
What? The new government of Canada is going to ignore the law of the land? The will of the people? Surely this cannot be a conservative value? What does the National Post say about this outrage?
Anyway...on to the National Post. How bad is this?
"in political terms, the bill’s passage would be an embarrassment to the Harper government, which still questions the country's ability to meet its Kyoto obligations. But the Conservatives suggested Wednesday they would all but ignore the bill if it becomes law.
Ooohh. I see. Ignoring a law that they won't put into a budget is alrighty.
Well, it is good to have that clarified for me.
A short primer..............Bill C288 passed today. According to the National Post : "The bill, introduced by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, would force the government to develop a plan and introduce new regulations to meet Canada's commitments to reduce pollution that causes global warming and report annually on its progress." This bill passed by a margin of 161-113.
So, in an up and down vote, we have a new law that says that "[requires] the Conservative government to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord"
Pretty cut and dried. Oh, but wait...is there some wiggle room? Luckily, we have two national papers at the ready to give us the straight dope...
From the Globe and Mail:
"The government has hinted strongly that it will simply ignore Bill C-288 – even if it is approved by the Senate and becomes law, as expected."
What? The new government of Canada is going to ignore the law of the land? The will of the people? Surely this cannot be a conservative value? What does the National Post say about this outrage?
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not attend."
Ouch. O.K., I guess he thought that ignoring the will of Parliament and the law of the land was inconvenient. But maybe he was busy spraying foam into the cracks in the windows at the Official Residence. Renos take time.Anyway...on to the National Post. How bad is this?
"in political terms, the bill’s passage would be an embarrassment to the Harper government, which still questions the country's ability to meet its Kyoto obligations. But the Conservatives suggested Wednesday they would all but ignore the bill if it becomes law.
They noted the legislation has not been declared a "money bill," meaning it does not require new spending and is not a confidence matter that would automatically trigger an election."
Ooohh. I see. Ignoring a law that they won't put into a budget is alrighty.
Well, it is good to have that clarified for me.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Paul Berton - Sensationalism? Perhaps
On the front page of the London Free Press on Saturday, February 10, they ran a large headline about Karla Holmoka, and under that, a photo essay about Anna Nicole Smith.
Spokesman Paul Berton had this to say:
"Anna Nicole Smith was a celebrity for a new age, a personality for our time. A celebrity who was famous for being famous. A woman with no real accomplishments, but who fascinated us nonetheless. A peculiar, tormented, tragic figure whose celebrity said more about us and the society in which she lived than it did about her, her personality, her body, her husbands, her children . . .
Isn't the war in Afghanistan or global warming or lost jobs or Darfur more important than the death of a person who didn't do anything substantial with her life?
Yes, probably. But do people want to read that, or do they want to read about Smith?
And just because she didn't do anything substantial with her life, it doesn't mean knowing more about her life and death weren't important to a better understanding of the human condition. And it doesn't mean we can't actually learn as much from reading about her than we can from reading about something more weighty.
If that sounds like a poetic way to justify running her on the front-page to sell newspapers, I accept the criticism.
Yes, we likely sold more newspapers because of it. Yes, it looks tabloid-ish, and many of our readers expect a more measured response to the news of the day.
But the news is changing, readers are changing and the business is changing."
I have my (vitriolic) response to this, but I want to hear your point of view. Pick Paul apart, or, buttress his battlements. Which is a weird analogy.
Regardless, jump in--especially the lurkers. Both of you.
Spokesman Paul Berton had this to say:
"Anna Nicole Smith was a celebrity for a new age, a personality for our time. A celebrity who was famous for being famous. A woman with no real accomplishments, but who fascinated us nonetheless. A peculiar, tormented, tragic figure whose celebrity said more about us and the society in which she lived than it did about her, her personality, her body, her husbands, her children . . .
Isn't the war in Afghanistan or global warming or lost jobs or Darfur more important than the death of a person who didn't do anything substantial with her life?
Yes, probably. But do people want to read that, or do they want to read about Smith?
And just because she didn't do anything substantial with her life, it doesn't mean knowing more about her life and death weren't important to a better understanding of the human condition. And it doesn't mean we can't actually learn as much from reading about her than we can from reading about something more weighty.
If that sounds like a poetic way to justify running her on the front-page to sell newspapers, I accept the criticism.
Yes, we likely sold more newspapers because of it. Yes, it looks tabloid-ish, and many of our readers expect a more measured response to the news of the day.
But the news is changing, readers are changing and the business is changing."
I have my (vitriolic) response to this, but I want to hear your point of view. Pick Paul apart, or, buttress his battlements. Which is a weird analogy.
Regardless, jump in--especially the lurkers. Both of you.
The Police At The Grammys
I guess I expected way, way, too much. Like two songs.
And why did they not have Don Henley on to perform the music for which he is being honoured? On the whole, the lifetime achievement awards were the emodiement of the "gold watch and a handshake" blowoff. But nowhere near as bad as Ryan Seacrest ignoring Sam Moore on the red carpet. Sam Moore of Sam and Dave. Ryan now surpasses Lauryn Hill in the category of "Biggest diss to a music legend".
Oh, and here is the original Roxanne. Back when Sting could sing all the notes, and without the world-music-jazzy-fusion bridge.
YouTube - The Police - Roxanne
And why did they not have Don Henley on to perform the music for which he is being honoured? On the whole, the lifetime achievement awards were the emodiement of the "gold watch and a handshake" blowoff. But nowhere near as bad as Ryan Seacrest ignoring Sam Moore on the red carpet. Sam Moore of Sam and Dave. Ryan now surpasses Lauryn Hill in the category of "Biggest diss to a music legend".
Oh, and here is the original Roxanne. Back when Sting could sing all the notes, and without the world-music-jazzy-fusion bridge.
YouTube - The Police - Roxanne
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Piling On Is A Cheap Tactic - Enjoy!
I am sure you have at least a cursory knowledge of the bizarre love triangle involving astronaut Lisa Nowak and astronaut William Oefelein.
So a simple question: does the story have as much traction (an unintended humour) without the diaper?
So a simple question: does the story have as much traction (an unintended humour) without the diaper?
Brain Cleaner
O.K., I should not have posted anything about the freak-who-will-not-be-named, and as an apology, and as a way to free your mind of icky thoughts, I present The Dan Band and their version of Genie in a Bottle.
Watch, rinse. Repeat.
Watch, rinse. Repeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)