We're Doomed!

"The trouble is, you think you have time."    - Confuscious

I'm really worried about global warming.

Yeah, I know, who isn't right?

Well, far too many climate change deniers aren't worried, but I'm not worried about them either.  Happily they're the minority and therefore not really the problem.

See, I don't think that we're going to beat this.  It isn't because we don't have the scientific knowledge or the technical expertise to make the necessary changes.  What makes climate change such an insidious threat is three things:

1. Everybody thinks it's a future problem.

Most people think that climate change is something that's coming in the next decade or two.  Climate change is here now.  Signs of it are everywhere if you only look.  The polar ice caps are receding.  Glaciers are melting.  Average global temperatures are increasing year by year.  Extreme weather events like tornadoes, hurricanes, violent thunderstorms and prolonged droughts are becoming more and more frequent.  It's no longer a question of avoiding the consequences of climate change.  It has now become a question of minimizing the damage.  And yet, still, the nations of the world do nothing substantive beyond setting carbon emission targets for the next decade or two, and then consistently missing them.

2. Everybody thinks it's somebody else's problem

The U.S.A. says that India and China aren't doing their part to reduce carbon emissions.  China and India blame the U.S.A. and each other.  Everybody vilifies Canada for our carbon rich extraction of bitumen from the Athabaska tar sands (and rightly so).  Developing countries argue that they should be exempt from carbon limitations, at least until their economies come closer to parity with those of the developed nations.  In short, everybody points the finger at someone else and cries "They're the problem, not me."

3. The people who understand the scope and urgency of the problem are not the people who make policy

Climate scientists have been sounding the alarm for years.  They show us the evidence that climate change is an existential threat.  They urge us to reduce carbon emissions now and give us grim projections of the consequences should we fail to do so,  But they can only inform and warn.  They have no power to affect the drastic changes that are needed to avoid disaster.  That falls to the government leaders and politicians who, unfortunately, consistently prioritize their own short-term goals over the long-term good.  Every politician knows that implementing the necessary changes will mean higher taxes, personal inconvenience and, therefore, a loss of voters.  Yes, you and I are also at fault, my friend because our self-serving leaders only give us that which they perceive that we want, and most of us would balk at the kinds of personal sacrifice and increased costs that real change involves.

And so the human race sleepwalks lemming-like onward toward the precipice, unwilling and unable to change course or to stop. 

Mad As Hell

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a recession. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Jobs are going to India. Cops are being gunned down in the street. Terrorists are running wild and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had three suicide bombers and sixty-three people were gunned down on the street, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. 

We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my smart phone and my reality TV and my Pokémon Go and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' 

Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the recession and the inflation and the ISIS and the terrorists in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. In November, I want you to go to the polls and tell them: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!'

I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the Mexicans and the terrorists and the trade agreements. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!'

I am, of course, paraphrasing the words of the character Howard Beale; a news announcer from the 1976 movie Network, who was fired because his ratings dwindled, and managed to rebuild his following and keep his job by first announcing that he was going to kill himself on live TV and later giving tirades like the one above.  I am also paraphrasing Donald Trump almost every time he opens his mouth.  Like Howard Beale, Trump has managed to parlay peoples' fear, insecurity and frustration into an unlikely, but surprisingly large, following.  Like Beale, everybody laughed at Trump at first.  They're not laughing anymore.


We do live in troubled times and it is, perhaps, tempting to place our trust in someone who claims that he knows how to fix everything.  It happened in Germany in 1933.  Germany was suffering in the throes of the Great Depression.  Many Germans were unemployed.  The Deutschmark was practically worthless.  A man named Adolph Hitler said that he had the solution to the country's woes.  He promised the people that he would make Germany great again.  "Deutschland muss leben!" he shouted.  And he blamed the economic woes that troubled the land on the "others"; the rich, Jewish bankers who prospered at the expense of the common German people.  His uncommon oratory skills and his fiery, charismatic persona won over much of the German population and propelled him to the head of the Nazi party.  And he did it by playing to peoples' fears and legitimate frustrations.


I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is anything like Adolph Hitler; only that he is borrowing much the same formula that helped Hitler to achieve power.  I do suggest that it behoves those who look on Trump as a straight-talking savior who will make America great again to remember that Howard Beale was indeed "mad as hell".  He was insane.


George Bernard Shaw once quipped that democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve.  American voters may want to keep those words in mind come November.

Just Canada

On June 10, 1968, then prime minister Pierre Trudeau gave a speech in which he made the following declaration:

"No one in the society should be entitled to superfluous or luxury goods until the essentials of life are made available to everyone ... Thanks to (Canada's) abundant natural wealth and to the techniques of the industrial era, it no longer seems necessary to trample on one another in the scramble for riches."

Then he went on to expound upon how he felt that a "Just Society", which shares its wealth and its opportunities equally, should operate.

"The Just Society will be one in which all of our people will have the means and the motivation to participate. The Just Society will be one in which personal and political freedom will be more securely ensured than it has ever been in the past. The Just Society will be one in which the rights of
minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities. The Just Society will one in which those regions and groups which have not fully shared in the country’s affluence will be given a better opportunity. The Just Society will be one where such urban problems as housing and pollution will be attacked through the application of new knowledge and new techniques. The Just Society will be one in which our Indian and Inuit population will be encouraged to assume the full rights of citizenship through policies which will give them both greater responsibility for their own future and more meaningful equality of opportunity. The Just Society will be a united Canada, united because all of its citizens will be actively involved in the development of a country where equality of opportunity is ensured and individuals are permitted to fulfill themselves in the fashion they judge best…

…On the never-ending road to perfect justice we will, in other words, succeed in creating the most humane and compassionate society possible."

I hate to be a Negative Nellie but on this, Canada`s 146th birthday, I fear that, if Mr. Trudeau could see what the country that he lead for 15 years has become today, a mere 13 years after his death, he would turn in his grave.   The present Conservative government has arguably done much to regress Canada, and move it farther away from being the Just Society that Trudeau envisioned.  Let's compare some of the highlights from Mr. Trudeau's vision to today's realities.

"No one in the society should be entitled to superfluous or luxury goods until the essentials of life are made available to everyone."  Proponents of free market capitalism, like the Stephen Harper government, propose that, if they cater to the interest of big business, the wealth generated by that business will "trickle down" to the citizenry in the form of jobs, wages and benefits.  Sadly, this has not been proven in practice.  For over 3 decades, Canada's wealthiest families have been getting wealthier, while the quality of life for the middle class and the poverty-stricken has stagnated or even deteriorated.  And the problem has only worsened since the 2008/2009 financial crisis which was itself triggered by the greed of corporate America.  Thousands are homeless and have to rely on food bank hampers to survive, while the richest among us enjoy extravagant luxuries undreamed of by most.  According to a UNICEF report, Canada ranked only 17th out of 29 of the world's wealthiest nations in combating child poverty and promoting general well-being for children.

"The Just Society will be one in which all of our people will have the means and the motivation to participate."  Voting is, arguably, the most basic and fundamental means of participating for the average citizen.  It is now a matter of record that thousands of would-be voters, most of whom had expressed their intention not to support the Conservative party during pre-election interviews and polls, were misdirected by automated "robocalls" which falsely told them that their polling stations had been changed.  As a result, these people went to the wrong locations to vote and, in many cases, missed their chance to cast their ballots as a result.

One would think that a responsible government, upon learning that this sort of election fraud had been perpetrated, would do everything within its power to find out who had perpetrated the fraud, bring them to justice and put in place measures to ensure that such a thing could not happen again.  Not the Harper government, however.  At first, they attempted to casually dismiss the entire issue, suggesting that the calls were isolated and affected only one or two communities.  When it became evident, upon further investigation, that the problem was much larger and more wide-spread than the Conservatives would have the population believe and six individuals who had received misleading calls went to court asking that the election results in their ridings be overturned as a result, the Harper government and its lawyers employed every tactic at their disposal to block the proceedings and discredit the complainants.

Thanks to funding and support from a non-profit citizens advocacy group known as the Council of Canadians, the case was finally heard in court.  Although the judge who heard the case found no conclusive evidence that any member of the Conservative party was involved in the robocall scandal, he did state the entire affair "strikes at the integrity of the electoral process" and noted that whoever did orchestrate the calls must have "had access to a database of voter information maintained by a political party", the Conservative party of Canada.  So thousands of voters who had indicated that they would not vote Conservative were duped out of casting their ballots by someone who had access to the Conservative party`s voter information database.  Draw your own conclusions.

Incredibly, the Conservative party see these findings as some sort of vindication and, as a result seven Conservative MPs are now seeking $355,000 from the complainants who brought the case to court to cover their legal costs.  Far from encouraging and assisting these citizens in exercising their right to participate in the democratic process, the Harper government has done everything in its power to impede and to undermine them at every turn.

"The Just Society will be one in which personal and political freedom will be more securely ensured than it has ever been in the past."  Although the Harper government seems unwilling to spend any time or money investigating attacks on its citizens' democratic right to vote, it was happy to commit an extra two billion dollars over five years to build and expand prisons so that more people could be thrown in jail, even as statistics showed that the crime rate across the country is falling.  Further, they have imposed draconian minimum sentences for relatively minor offenses such as possession of marijuana and they have proposed legislation to keep those found not criminally responsible for violent crimes due to reasons of mental defect locked up in prisons as opposed to detaining them in institutions where their mental health problems can be more effectively addressed, despite objections from psychiatrists and other mental health experts.  As for citizens abroad, the Conservatives have shown a consistent indifference to the pleas of Canadians who have been imprisoned in foreign countries, the Omar Khadr case being the most high-profile example of this.

"The Just Society will be one in which the rights of minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities."    The Harper government introduced Bill C-31 which targets refugee claimants, giving the Immigration Minister the power to imprison them, deny them the ability to reunite with family members and strip them of secure legal status.  Refugees have also been made ineligible for receiving basic health care benefits.  Harper's Conservatives also scrapped the Court Challenges Program, which granted legal and financial assistance to minority groups who wanted to challenge government actions that violated their constitutional rights.  Canadian minorities have found the Conservative government to be completely unsympathetic to their needs and concerns.

"The Just Society will be one in which our Indian and Inuit population will be encouraged to assume the full rights of citizenship through policies which will give them both greater responsibility for their own future and more meaningful equality of opportunity".  The Harper government abandoned the 2006 Kelowna Accord which included programs to address aboriginal issues including health, addiction, and youth suicide, among others.  Their C-45 omnibus bill circumvented the Indian Act which was created to protect aboriginal rights, as well as weakening environmental controls, especially with regard to industrial access to waterways.  This lead to the creation of the Idle No More movement.

Under Stephen Harper, Canada has abandoned any pretence at environmental stewardship.  She has focused on punishing, rather than rehabilitating those convicted of breaking the law.  She has closed her doors to refugees seeking asylum and respite from other, less prosperous and/or democratic  countries, and denied basic health care to those who have already taken refuge inside of her borders.  Her government, contrary to its original promise of increased  openness and transparency, has become the most secretive, clandestine government in Canada`s history, hiding policy changes that affect every single Canadian inside of massive "omnibus" budgets, making deals and passing bills with minimal consultation with either Canadian citizens or even Parliament, and gutting institutions like Statistics Canada, so that Canadians find it harder than ever to understand what kind of quality of life they enjoy and how that quality of life compares with those of other nations.  When uncomfortable questions were asked, they prorogued Parliament, shutting down any further discussion.  When Canadians' democratic right to vote was undermined, they first dismissed the issue, then tried to obstruct those who would investigate what happened and, finally, punished ordinary citizens who came forward in defence of their rights.

Canadians spent 141 years building a society that was world renowned for its tolerance, fairness, compassion, generosity, environmental responsibility and commitment to peace.  In just six years, Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have eroded many of the rights and freedoms that Canadians hold dear and soiled Canada`s reputation and status on the international stage.  I can only cling to my belief that Stephen Harper and his Conservatives do not, in fact, represent the majority of Canadians and to the hope that, come the next federal election, my fellow citizens will take back their country and set her back on the path to once again becoming a Just Society.

There Will Never Be An Arrow

The Canadian Conservative government's decision to choose Grumman Northrop's F-35 joint strike fighter as the (recently reinstated as "Royal") Canadian Air Force's next-generation combat aircraft has been controversial, to say the least.  Many have criticized the aircraft as being too costly and, more importantly, unsuited to the Canadian air force's needs.  Combine that with the the ongoing technical problems that Northrop is having with the aircraft, it's apparent failure to meet projected performance specifications thus far and the fact that production and delivery are well behind schedule and there is arguably cause for concern.  So it didn't come as much of a surprise when I read in the news this past week that a Canadian group has suggested that an alternative aircraft should be considered.  What did come as a surprise is that the proposed alternative was the CF-105 Avro Arrow.

In case you're one of the approximately three people on the planet who have never heard of the Avro Arrow, I'll recap very briefly here by explaining that the Arrow was a next-generation long-range interceptor designed and built for the Royal Canadian Air Force by the now-defunct Avro Aircraft Company back in the nineteen-fifties.  It was generations ahead of its time and boasted performance not thought possible during that era so, after pouring millions of dollars into R&D and successfully building five viable, flying prototypes, the Conservative government of the day took the next logical step (in their minds, at least) and canceled the program entirely, masterfully decimating an industry, writing off all the money spent on the program to that date, to say nothing of the potential revenue from sales to foreign interests, destroying Avro Aircraft along with the jobs of all of its employees and opening the sluice gates for Canada's best and brightest engineers and technicians to be flushed southward across the Canadian/American border where they were immediately scooped up by American organizations such as Rockwell, Boeing and NASA.

All that notwithstanding, and as big an aviation buff and admirer of the Avro Arrow as I am, my initial reaction was still to chuckle when I first read the headline announcing the suggestion to reinstate it.  I mean, seriously?  Return to 1959 aviation technology?  Sure it was advanced for its time, but the electronics ran on vacuum tubes for crying out loud!  Surely this was the pipe dream of some Arrow fan-boy club.

As I read the article, I learned that my so-called "fan-boy club" included a company called Bourdeau Industries and the likes of retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie, one of Canada's top soldiers, and the group wasn't by any means suggesting that Canada rebuild the Arrow as it was (we couldn't anyway, since all plans, blueprints, drawings and technical documentation were destroyed along with the five aircraft that were built).  No, they were suggesting a new, modern aircraft, based on the Arrow design; a 21st-century Arrow, if you will.  As I read on, my chuckling stopped and gradually morphed into an unbroken chant of "DO-IT-DO-IT-DO-IT-DO-IT-DO-IT...." 

Now, as much as I would love to see the Arrow rise out of its own ashes, like the proverbial Phoenix, I know that it will never, ever happen in a million, billion years.  Why not?  One word; politics.  If Stephen Harper's Conservative government were to actually entertain the idea, it would be tantamount to simultaneously admitting that:

a) Their 1950's Conservative forefathers made a huge mistake in canceling the Arrow program, and...
b) Their support of the F-35 program has been so misguided that a cold war era design is a better fit.

Of course, they might have an interesting "out" if they were to point out that John Diefenbacher's Progressive Conservative party has no direct relationship to Canada's modern Conservative party (which is apparently no longer "progressive").  They could declare that that they, the "New Conservatives" are much more forward-thinking than the "Old Conservatives" and, as such, are bold enough to correct the mistakes of their misguided ancestors, but the Harper government has never been known for that kind of lateral thinking.  So it didn't surprise me at all that their response was that the proposal was "not a viable option" because, apparently, the Arrow wouldn't meet the technical specifications required by the RCAF.

Well, let's look at that claim a little more closely.  I was completely unable to find what the RCAF's technical specifications are (I suppose that the government could credibly offer national security concerns as a reason for not making such information public) so let's go with the next best thing and compare the known performance specs of the two aircraft, side-by-side. 

	Avro Arrow (Source: Arrow Digital Archives)	Grumman Northrop F-35 (Source: GlobalSecurity)
Wingspan	50 ft.	35 ft.
Length	85.5 ft.	50.5 - 51 ft.
Weight (Empty)	43,960 lbs	22,500 - 26,500 lbs.
Weight (Max. Take-off)	62,430 lbs.	50,000 - 60,000 lbs.
Engine(s)	Flown: 2 Pratt & Whitney J-75 turbofans rated at 23,450 lbs. thrust each Planned: 2 Orenda Iroquois PS.13 turbojets rated at 26,000 lbs. each	1 F135 Pratt & Whitney turbofan  or 1 F136 GE turbofan Both rated at 35,000 - 40,000 lbs thrust
Cruising Speed	701 mph (mach 1.06)	Unknown
Max. Speed	1,312 mph (mach 1.98)	1,200 mph (mach 1.5 - 1.8)
Climbing Speed (0 - 50,000 ft)	4 min., 24 sec.	Unknown
Operational Ceiling	58,500	Unknown

Those are the basics.  I could give a lot more technical details but I won't bore you with them.  The above comparison doesn't tell us much, especially since several of the F-35's specs are either classified or just undetermined.  The F-35 is a smaller and lighter aircraft than the Arrow, making it a smaller target for enemies, but then the Arrow wasn't designed to be a dogfighter; it was meant to intercept bombers.  Also, the Arrow's large size and weight can probably be mostly attributed to the lack of solid-state electronics in its time.  I'm sure a redesigned, modern Arrow could be significantly smaller and lighter.

Individually, the Arrow's engines put out less thrust than the F-35's, even if you compare the never-tried Orenda Iroquois engine.  However, the Arrow featured two engines whose combined thrust would exceed that of the F-35's single power plant, and that manifests itself in the Arrow's superior maximum speed, even using the inferior J-75 engines which were installed in the prototypes.  Also, it has long been argued that Canadian military aircraft need the security of a second engine in case one fails, due to the extreme conditions in the northern latitudes in which they are often required to operate.

In fairness, it should be noted that the F-35 is designed to be a stealth aircraft whereas the Arrow was decidedly not.  However, stealth properties are much more useful for attack aircraft which need to cross enemy borders without being detected and Canada has traditionally played the role of defender, not aggressor.  Again, the Arrow wasn't designed to go and bomb other nations; it was designed to keep them from bombing us.

None of the above addresses the additional prestige, jobs, talent and economic stimulus that would come from reviving a home-grown aircraft industry as opposed to buying something built outside of Canadian borders.

The Arrow program was canceled, ostensibly due to cost overruns, according to the federal government of the day, although there has been much speculation that this wasn't the true reason.  However, if we accept that at face value, our present-day Conservatives should be hard-pressed to support the F-35 purchase, given that both Canada's auditor general and parliamentary budget officer have projected the cost of that aircraft to be almost twice the original figure reported by the federal government.

In 1979, the CBC released a documentary film about the Avro Arrow and its eventual cancellation entitled, "There Never Was An Arrow".  Based on the Harper government's off-hand dismissal of the interesting proposal to revive the program, it's clear that there will never be an Arrow; not as long as Conservative politicians have any say in the matter, anyway.

How To Save Money Harper Style

Someone once said that a consultant is someone who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch and bills you.  Whoever said that must have had experience with consulting firms like the one recently hired by the Canadian government.

Global News reported this past week that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government is paying consulting firm Deloitte Inc. the sum of $90,000 per day to ... are you ready for this? ... advise them about how to save money.

Okay, let's get the obvious sarcastic retort out of the way.  "You want to save money?  Here's an idea; stop paying consulting firms $90,000 per day!"  Whew!  I feel better now.

The opening paragraph of the news story reads "The Harper government defended paying almost $90,000 a day to a big consulting firm for advice on how to save money, saying it can't do the job properly by itself."  Apparently not.  That has to be the most self-validating statement of all time!

All sarcasm aside, let's grant that there may be some validity to the concept of spending money in order to save money.  Ninety thousand dollars a day is an awful lot of money to spend.  That's $450,000 a week, $1.8 million a month.  What value will the Harper government be getting for this money?  What will Deloitte be doing that's worth $90,000 a day?  Writing reports?  It had better be some report!  What are the odds that Deloitte would have accepted the contract had they been offered $45,000 per day, or even $10,000 per day?  That's still pretty good revenue by most business standards.  How did the Harper government and Deloitte arrive at $90,000 per day?  Did the conservatives approach any other consulting firms?  Was there any sort of tender or competition?

Until recently, the Harper government had a knowledgeable, experienced consultant who provided many sensible suggestions for cutting waste and saving money.  Her name was Sheila Fraser.  She was Canada's Auditor General up until her recent retirement and, while she was no doubt well-paid, I suspect she didn't make anywhere near $90,000 a day.  Unfortunately, the Harper government chose to ignore pretty much everything she ever suggested.

I wonder what will happen should the ultimate irony unfold and Deloitte advises the Harper government not to throw away $30 billion for stealth fighter jets that aren't even suited to the Canadian Forces' requirements, or that there's no need to spend $4.4 billion on expanding prisons when stats show that the crime rate is diminishing, and there is no evidence that longer incarcerations are any sort of deterrent to the criminals that are out there.  Both of these projects are near and dear to the conservatives' hearts, and they've clung to them stubbornly despite strong public opposition and hard data showing both to be questionable initiatives at best.  What if their expensive new consultants agree that these are bad, financially wasteful ideas?

I started this post with a quote.  I'll end it with another from George Bernard Shaw who said "Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."  The Harper government has validated that observation as well.

Much Ado About Jack

For the past week, Canadians have been inundated by media coverage of the death of Jack Layton.

For any non-Canadians reading this who may not have any idea who Jack Layton was, he was the leader of the Canadian NDP (New Democratic Party) and, as of last May, the leader of the official opposition party in Parliament. He passed away last Monday (August 22), having succumbed to cancer.

Being a leftist pinko in my heart of hearts, I was always somewhat sympathetic to Layton's party and, by extension, to Layton himself. Even so, I think that the media frenzy surrounding the man's death and the pubic display of grief has been just a little over the top.

A lot of it has had to do with a final letter that Layton wrote, literally on his death bed, addressing his party, his caucus and Canadians at large, in which he expressed his hopes for both his political party and Canada in general. You can read the text of the letter here.

This is not to say that I count myself among that small group of Jack's most critical detractors. There has been the odd columnist, mostly obviously right-leaning editorialists, such as Christie Blatchford, writing for conservative-minded publications such as The National Post, who have dared to speak ill of the deceased (or, more correctly, the politics of the deceased). Blatchford dismissed Layton's parting letter as being "vainglorious" and "full of sophistry" and alleged that the words were not those of Layton himself, but that it was written with the help of some of his closest advisors.

Like many others, I consider Blatchford's labeling of Layton's final words as "vainglorious" to be unduly harsh. The man was dying. It's understandable that he would want his final words to carry a certain amount of gravity. "So long, it's been fun" just wouldn't cut it, somehow. Cut the man some slack.

I don't know whether Blatchford has any facts to support the allegation that Layton had help from his closest advisors in writing his letter but, even if true, so what? Political leaders often - in fact, usually - rely on advisors and speech writers to help deliver their message in exactly the way that they want. The conservatives, including Stephen Harper, also do this. Why take Jack Layton to task for it?

One of Blatchford's colleagues, Jonathan Kay, has accused the Canadian media covering Layton's death and funeral of lacking objectivity. "The entire Canadian media has given a free pass to Jack Layton's widely published deathbed political manifesto," he wrote, "which promiscuously mingled laudable paeans to love and optimism with not so laudable snipes at the Harper government . . . " I've read Layton's final letter twice now, and I see not one single mention of either Stephen Harper or his conservative government. Perhaps Kay takes exception to Layton's appeal that Canada should share its prosperity more fairly, assume a greater responsibility for protecting the environment and restore our sagging international reputation. No-where in there does Layton accuse, even indirectly, either Stephen Harper or the conservative government of lacking on any of the aforementioned initiatives. If Kay perceives that Layton is pointing a judgemental finger at the conservative government, all I can say is "If the shoe fits..."

Another of Layton's minority detractors, open-line host Dave Rutherford, tweeted "Today I said Layton should be remembered for the coalition threat and his death bed diatribe against Cons." Rutherford conveniently forgets that it took three parties, not just one, to theaten a coalition, and that the reason why those three parties chose to unite as they did was because of Stephen Harper's ham-fisted attempt to put them at a financial disadvantage in future elections; a move which he wasted no time in repeating as soon as he had his majority.

Blatchford, Kay, Rutherford and all those who shake their heads at the seemingly over-the-top national reaction to Jack Layton's passing forget that other Canadian politicians have died without sparking such a loud national expression of sympathy and regret. We must ask ourselves, why this man? I would suggest, perhaps it's that both the Canadian public and the Canadian media perceive that he was different from your average politician. There was something special about him; something that set him apart from the rest. Maybe that "something" was that he genuinely cared. That's something that people can sense, even without knowing it to be a fact.

Far from being a "death bed diatribe against the cons", I found Layton's final words to be uplifting, positive and optimistic. I wish that more politicians would promote love, hope and fairness instead of the usual empty promises of fiscal security, lower taxes and material wealth.

That having been said, I must admit that, every time I witness someone publicly weeping crocodile tears over Layton's untimely passing I'd love to ask them for whom they voted in Canada's last Federal election. All those nouveau Jack Layton fans can't possibly have voted NDP. If even half of them had done so, Canada would now be in need of a new Prime Minister, rather than just a new opposition leader.

Undriver = Unperson

A few weeks ago, I came across something rare indeed; a news story about a government initiative that actually makes sense and has the potential to make a lot of peoples' lives just a little easier. The Ontario government had announced that it was offering photo ID cards for people who don't drive.

Because most adults in North America do drive, many may not understand the impact of this announcement on those that don't. The driver's license has become the de-facto standard form of identification for most undertakings that require identification. Some form of photo ID is required if one wants to open a bank account, rent an apartment, vote, stay at a hotel, board a plane and so on, and the most commonly accepted identification is the driver's license.

But what if you don't drive? What if you're handicapped, can't afford a car or, like my wife, simply never learned to drive? Well, my friend, in that case your options get quite a bit narrower. The Canadian social insurance card doesn't work, because it doesn't include your picture. A passport is usually good, but not everybody has one of those either and even those that do don't always carry them around on their persons. Even if you do happen to have one handy, a second piece of identification is usually required because the passport doesn't give your home address. The fact is, for people who don't happen to hold a driver's license, proving that they are who they are is much harder than it should be.

Apparently Ontario's Minister of Transportation, Kathy Wynne, recognized this fact, and decided to do something about it by introducing a photo ID card for those who don't drive. What's even more amazing is that, as far as I can tell, this initiative came totally out of left field. I'm not aware that there was any kind of public lobby urging someone to do something about the situation. Those who lacked a driver's license, like my wife, apparently coped with the nuisance in silence and got by as best they could.

So I applaud Kathy Wynne for taking this refreshing initiative. I don't know who or what it was that brought the matter to her attention, but she has pleasantly surprised this somewhat jaded citizen by doing something about a problem that isn't very high profile and, after all, affects a minority of voters.

Shirley Rieck thought it was an excellent idea too. The seventy-five-year-old pensioner doesn't hold a driver's license and has encountered many of the frustrations that I've already outlined when it came to proving her identity. So she rushed right out to get one of the new Ontario photo ID cards. She brought along her birth certificate, her Ontario health card and an old age security card that included her social insurance number. They weren't enough.

Okay, let's all stop to think about this. She couldn't get the photo ID card because she lacked the appropriate ID. Or, put another way, she couldn't make it easier to prove who she is, because it was too difficult to prove who she is. Somewhere along the line, somebody forgot that people like Shirley Rieck are the very reason why this new ID card was launched in the first place! It's like that old aphorism which says that the only way to qualify for a bank loan is to prove that you don't need it.

It's not like Mrs. Rieck didn't come prepared. The list of cards and documents that she took along with her certainly sounds reasonable enough to me, and I would have thought they'd be sufficient. Unfortunately, the birth certificate wasn't acceptable because it bore her maiden name (she hadn't been married yet when she was born, you see). It also didn't show her picture and, even if it did, I'm sure it wouldn't have looked anything like her. The Ontario health card wasn't any good, because the Ministry doesn't like to ask for that, since it can be used to access confidential health information. You can volunteer it anyway but, even then, they want a second piece of ID (I guess the birth certificate and old age security card don't count, though). The news article through which I discovered all this didn't explain why the old age security card was no good.

Well, hats off anyway to Kathy Wynne. At least she tried. Unfortunately, in the end, bureaucracy won out again.

Sucks To Be Right

In last week's post, I commented on my local mayoral candidates, speculating that one of them, who hadn't done much campaigning on the advice of his doctor, was liable to "keel over and die" within his first year in office, even if he did win. Well, thanks to alert reader "Tubes", I learned that he did just that - on the day of the election, no less! Damn, it sucks being right all the time!

My first reaction on learning this news was to feel like a bit of an jackass for denigrating the poor man just before his death. My second thought was ... "What the HECK is the guy doing running for mayor if he knows he's that sick???"

My third thought was realizing that, even if this candidate, who came in second by the way, had won the election, our incumbent mayor still would have re-taken the office when the winner died, assuming that he would have been the next runner-up.

So here's a man who had only two competitors for the mayor's office, neither of which provided serious competition, and only one of which could have actually ousted him for good. How badly would you have to suck to lose under those circumstances?

I hope he isn't patting himself on the back too hard.

Halmanator For Mayor

In a couple of days, most Ontario communities will be holding municipal elections. Municipal elections are notorious for producing the smallest voter turnouts. This is probably because many deem them to be of lesser importance than federal or provincial elections, since we're not voting for a Prime Minister nor even a Premier. It's just a bunch of city councillors, some school trustees and ... oh yes ... the mayor. Who cares, right?

In many ways, the people who prevail in municipal elections affect our daily lives much more directly than does either the Prime Minister or the provincial Premier, so we really should care. Our property taxes, leaf collection, snow removal, fire and police services and access to community services, not to mention the general quality of life in our home towns, are directly affected by the decisions made by these people. Still, I can't entirely fault those who fail to vote.

Unlike federal or provincial elections, where one votes for a party moreso than for an individual, municipal elections are very much contests between individuals. There are a lot of people running and, although the local newspapers and the internet try to provide coverage, most of us don't know all the candidates or their backgrounds and researching them takes a significant amount of time and energy. Thus, sadly, many either simply don't vote, or those who do simply vote for names that they recognize, which means that the same people keep getting elected over and over again, regardless of their suitability or lack thereof.

It becomes even worse when you live in a town like mine. I have a choice of three people when it comes to choosing our next mayor. One is the current incumbent, with whom I'm not particularly impressed and whom I would love to see replaced.

The second, according to an article in my local paper reviewing the three candidates, is a fifty-eight-year-old "former manager in the manufacturing sector who has worked as a consultant on local political issues and helped with a local business since closing his own home-renovating business more than a decade ago". Okay, so he has some practical business and management experience - that's good - but a spotty success record - not so good. He further promises to "re-evaluate the salaries of city employees when contract negotiations come up". Sounds good at first first blush, except that this could easily mean that he intends to freeze the salaries of city employees, some of whom actually earn their pay, while doing nothing about his own over-inflated salary or those of the city council members. He proposes to find the savings necessary to minimize municipal tax increases by possibly trimming back the number of community centres. That may sound like fiscal responsibility if you happen to agree that the city has too many community centres ... unless, of course, the one that you like to use happens to be one of those that gets shut down. Finally, the news article notes that this particular candidate "has not done much campaigning this election on the advice of his doctor". Great! So, even if I actually like him, he's liable to keel over and die on me within a year of taking office. Next!

The third candidate is a 46-year-old who is "currently on disability and has been receiving assistance through Ontario Works for the past several years" and apparently didn't even own a phone before deciding to run.

"I'm just a regular guy," he is quoted as saying. "Any person in this city could be mayor. I truly believe that and I think our mindset has been befuddled into thinking you have to have certain qualifications. That's not the case. It's all about your heart." Translation: I have no particular qualifications for the job, but please vote for me anyway. This candidate promised to freeze taxes and "only keep a portion of the mayor's annual salary." I guess he figures that even just a percentage of the mayoral salary has got to be an improvement over welfare, which is what "Ontario Works" is.

So I'm left with a choice between an incumbent whom I'd like to vote out, a business manager with a questionable track record who might not be long for this world, and a welfare bum. Given choices like these, it's easy to understand why so many don't see the point of voting. Maybe I should run for mayor next time around!

Financial Cognitive Dissonance

One of the nice things about this blog is knowing that my readers (or my regular readers, anyway) are intelligent people who don't need me to explain that cognitive dissonance refers to the stating of a given belief but acting in a manner contrary to that stated belief. That's probably why my readership is so small.

The G-20's call for austerity, the burgeoning global debt and Greece's recent financial crisis have got me thinking about money, lately. I wonder how many of us recall that paper money has no intrinsic value in and of itself. Paper money is nothing more than a fancy I.O.U.

In medieval times, people would trade goods and services for other goods and services; "you give me that ox, and I'll give you twenty chickens" or "you give me a room and a bed for the night and I'll plow ten furrows for you tomorrow".

Trading literal goods in this way was somewhat cumbersome and arbitrary. Precious metals, such as gold and silver, were far easier to carry and exchange than oxen, and their value was more easily standardized; easier yet if those precious metals were stamped into light-weight, standardized coins.

One of the earliest examples of this originated in the Bohemian city of Joachimsthal in 1518, where a silver coin known as the "Joachimsthaler" or "Thaler" (pronounced "Tahler") for short was minted in large numbers thanks to the rich silver deposits to be found near that town. In fact, the "Thaler" is the origin of the North American "Dollar's" etymology.

Eventually, the world came up with something even lighter and easier to exchange than gold and silver coins; paper money. The idea, originally, was that each dollar (for those of us living in North America) was really nothing more than a government-issued voucher for an equal value in gold; in other words, each paper dollar represented one dollar's worth of gold stored in Fort Knox or some other such place of safekeeping. Rather than lugging around heavy gold coins or bars, people simply exchanged these paper vouchers instead.

In the early seventies, then President Richard Nixon stirred the financial porridge, so to speak, when he decided to kill the gold standard; in other words, he decreed that the U.S. dollar need no longer be directly convertible to gold. Why? Well, because the United States' ill-considered conflict in Vietnam plus increased domestic spending had created these pesky fiscal and trade deficits. Nixon's solution - no problem; we'll just start printing lots more paper money and do away with that inconvenient rule that it be backed up by something of real value.

You'd think that the rest of the global financial community would cry "foul" or something but, oddly enough, they did the opposite. Gradually, country after country began to follow the United States' lead and started printing currency willy-nilly, beginning with West Germany and followed by Switzerland and, eventually, the rest of Europe and, of course, Canada. Because of all this, today international currencies are valued based on their projected future value rather than the amount of gold that they can buy; in other words, currencies today have no real intrinsic value, other than that assigned by speculators.

In an earlier post, I wondered aloud whether the amount of money that is owed by Canada alone, to say nothing of the rest of the world, actually even exists. I suggest this answers that question.

I wonder what would happen if the majority of the world's financial institutions realized that simple fact tomorrow? More interestingly, if we assume that the world's financial institutions are governed and operated by basically intelligent people who already understand this fact, then we can only conclude that they conveniently choose to disregard that knowledge, and carry on as though money were still backed up by something of value. Now wouldn't that be a fascinating example of financial cognitive dissonance?

A Black Mark on Canada

Dr. Paul Williamson, the father of a Kent State student, once wrote in a letter to his son, "Avoid revolution or expect to get shot. Mother and I will grieve, but we will gladly buy a dinner for the National Guardsman who shot you." After witnessing the anarchy that erupted during the G8 summit yesterday, I can understand his point of view.

Toronto resembled a war zone yesterday as windows were smashed and police cars were burned by a group of anarchist thugs known as the "Black Bloc". Let's not make the mistake of giving these goons the respectability of labeling them "protesters". The legitimate protesters demonstrated quietly and peacefully, as one would expect from any self-respecting Canadian. The legitimate protest parade was already "fait accompli" by the time the black-garbed, masked hoodlums began their vandalist spree. The only thing that they were protesting was peace, order and the rule of law.

Sadly, it's precisely these types of hooligans that enable our government leaders to justify the expenditure of a mind-boggling one and a half billion dollars for security. Even the harshest critics of the G8 and G20 summits can't deny that a gathering of all of the world's major leaders in a single location makes a tempting target for any fanatical whacko with an agenda of destruction to which he believes to have been ordained by The Almighty Himself.

Ridiculous fake muskokas aside, I would argue that getting the world's leaders together to talk about the many global challenges that we face today including economic, political and natural, can only be a good thing. The jaded may argue that these summits are nothing more than pointless photo ops for a group of talking heads. There may even be some truth to that point of view. But would it be better if the nations of the world simply threw up their hands and didn't even try? Would it be preferable for every nation to focus solely on its own interests rather than trying to work together to find common solutions?

Regardless of what we may think of these summits, I think that most Canadians will agree that nothing justifies what happened in Toronto yesterday. Broken windows and burning police cars are images that we might expect from the streets of Tel Aviv, Belfast or even Paris, but not from Toronto. Canadians are better than that.

Someone Else's Final Frontier

Cartoonist Johnny Hart, creator of the popular B.C. comic strip, once quipped "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery and self-annihilation."

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama announced that he is scrapping the Constellation program, which was supposed to replace the aging space shuttle with a new orbital vehicle and return men to the moon by 2020, from which they might venture further out into the solar system. This move has caused some to speculate that the future of space exploration will not belong to America but to some other nation, very likely the Chinese.

In response, Neil Armstrong, the first human being to walk on the moon, Eugene Cernan, the last human being to walk on the moon, and Jim Lovell, one of three human beings who almost didn't make it back from the moon, wrote an open letter to the white house expressing their dismay. These are men who risked their lives in pursuit of a dream, only to see that dream shelved during their lifetimes.

We all understand that times are tough at the moment and the space program is expensive. Some might argue that the U.S. government, already mired in trillions of dollars in debt, can't afford to support a space program. Yet the Pentagon spends the estimated $108 billion that it would cost to return men to the moon by 2020 every three months or so. Obama has earmarked $600 million per year for the next five years for the design and manufacture of heavy-lift rockets required to send spacecrafts to Mars or the asteroids. Sounds good at first, until one realizes that that's about the same amount of money that it costs to purchase just four F-22 fighters. I suspect that the U.S. Air Force will likely be purchasing more than four F-22's per year over the next five years.

America never shone so brightly as she did during the Apollo years. The space program has given science invaluable new insights into the origin of the Earth, her moon and the solar system itself. It introduced new technologies and disciplines that have found useful applications outside the field of space exploration. It has subjugated no peoples and hardly killed anyone, with the exception of three unfortunate accidents. Unlike the shameful Abu Graib prison scandal and Wall Street's more recent financial implosion, the space program has done nothing to undermine America's international reputation. Quite to the contrary, the space program has been one of those American undertakings that the rest of the world has looked on with admiration. What a shame that, as Johnny Hart previously observed, America is once again forsaking her loftier dreams in favor of war, greed and short-sighted self-interest.

I'd suggest that Canada step forward, except that we'd probably just scrap the entire program and destroy all related materials after building the first five rockets.

Happy New Year

Well, 2009 is gone and I suspect that most of us are happy to bid it a fond "Good Riddance!" Here's hoping that 2010 is an improvement.

We've seen some hopeful signs in the past year. Economists and politicians tell us that the economy has turned a corner and is back on the upswing. I take that with a grain of salt, especially when I hear the unemployment numbers and remember that I myself am now contributing to that statistic. As I review my investment portfolio, however, I can't deny that the values of my various retirement investments have generally pulled out of their year-long nosedive and seem to be trending gradually upward again; an admittedly promising sign.

The United States, not to mention the rest of the world, was finally relieved of the poisonous and inept Bush administration, which was replaced by the much more promising and seemingly well-meaning Obama administration.

The H1N1 pandemic proved to be far less deadly than it might have been. Governments, working with the pharmaceutical suppliers, were able to immunize those at highest risk with impressive speed.

While the total failure of the participating nations at the Copenhagen Summit to agree on any sort of strategy to deal with global warming may be disappointing to many, at least they didn't commit the world to an ineffective plan, as Gwynne Dyer has pointed out in his writings. Doing nothing is still better than doing the wrong thing. As a Canadian, I feel compelled to add that I'm dismayed at Canada's lack of vision and leadership on this crucial global issue.

The world continues to face serious challenges. The billions spent by the developed nations in order to prop up their largest corporations have plunged these economies into debt that may take generations to repay. The countless dollars and lives wasted in the needless and ineffectual wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing to quash the threat of terrorism, as evidenced by the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. Global warming remains possibly the biggest threat to the well-being of the world today, with no solution in sight.

All is not darkness and despair, however. We've seen glimmers of hope. What we need now are leaders with the vision to place the interests of the common good before narrow, short-term self-interest presiding over citizens willing to do the same. Here's hoping it begins in 2010.

Victim of the Recession

I had just come out of a grocery store recently when a lady roughly my own age approached me in the parking lot. She was thin and somewhat frail looking. Her face was lined and care-worn and she seemed on the verge of tears.

"Excuse me, sir, could you please help me?" she said. I asked her what I could do for her.

"My name is Cheryl", she answered. "I was layed off from work. I need to go in there to buy some food. I have two daughters at home. Please, could you help me? I'm not a bum."

Indeed, this lady certainly didn't seem like your average panhandler, those unkempt, dirty men who sit against the walls of public buildings, reeking of alcohol and harassing the passers-by for spare change. She seemed credible. My heart went out to her.I handed her about eight dollars in change that I found in the pockets of my jeans. She thanked me, and I continued to my car to unload my shopping cart full of groceries. I watched her as I pulled out of the parking lot and saw that she was still approaching others. Well, eight dollars will hardly feed a mother and her two daughters.

Thinking back on it now, what I should have done was to accompany her into the grocery store, invite her to buy whatever provisions she needed, and pay for them. I've been lucky. The recession hasn't touched me ... yet. I could have easily afforded a few extra groceries for this woman and her daughters, and I could have solved her immediate problem and spared her the indignity of having to approach others for a financial handout, but I was preoccupied with my own affairs. I had a shopping cart full of groceries to load into my car. We were having family over for dinner in a few hours and I still had other things to prepare. I didn't want to take the time to do more for this unfortunate than I already had.

I believe that this recession will get worse before it gets better. Many honest, well-intentioned, hard-working people will lose their jobs and some of those will find it necessary to depend on the goodwill of strangers. Our political and business leaders have shown themselves to be woefully incapable of helping. Many of them are more a part of the problem than the solution.

The gap between the "Have's" and the "Have Not's" grows ever wider. The same parking lot where I met Cheryl was abundant with large, expensive SUVs. The owners of some of those may well have been the same people who decided to lay Cheryl off. Perhaps they collected large bonuses for doing so.

This recession didn't come about because of a lack of wealth. It came about because of greed, and the inequitable distribution of an overabundance of wealth. It is the direct result of people thinking only of their own interests, and failing to think long-term. As long as the next month-end balance sheet looks good, who cares about next year? That's someone else's problem.

Let's face it; it's not in the interest of the wealthy to share with the less fortunate, and those with money tend to influence government, so it's naive to expect a more equitable society in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I believe our best hope is for common people to help each other by sharing their resources, their time and their talent. Give a few dollars to those charitable organizations whose envelopes land in your mailbox once in a while. Lend a hand to one of the many non-profit organizations that are always looking for volunteers. Most importantly, if you bump into someone like Cheryl, show a little compassion. There, but for the grace of God, as they say, goes you.

Balsillie vs. Bettman

Time for me to sound off with my thoughts on this whole kerfuffle regarding Jim Balsillie's bid to purchase the bankrupt Phoenix Coyotes and bring them to Canada. I'll start right out by admitting that I'm Canadian, and I live in Balsillie's neck of the woods, so my opinion will obviously be biased in his favour (note the Canadian spelling of "favoUr", eh?) I'll also state, for the record, that I'm not heavily into professional sports of any kind, hockey being the only one in which I have even a mild interest. Even so, I hardly ever watch the games and I only follow the season by way of news reports and hearsay. As a sports fan (or non-fan), I really couldn't care less what happens to the Coyotes. As a Canadian, I care a great deal.

Now that that's out of the way, I can state, with a clear conscience, my opinion that Gary Bettman is a pompous, manipulative hosehead with a greatly over-exaggerated sense of self-importance.

Why in the name of Gordie Howe would the NHL Commissioner object to saving a bankrupt franchise by moving it from a place where no market exists for it (which is why the team is now bankrupt ... Duh!) to a place where there is a strong, thriving market for it? Because the strong, thriving market is in Canada, that's why. Bettman strikes me as just another arrogant Yank who can't stand the idea of America's northern neighbour doing anything better than the good old U.S. of A.

Bettman's main argument against Balsillie's acquisition of the team is that he (Balsillie) is trying to circumvent the NHL's rules in moving the Coyotes to Canada. Well, when the rules are designed to put you at a disadvantage, you sometimes have no alternative but to skirt them, if not break them outright. Seems odd that neither Bettman himself nor his vaunted rules had any objection to moving the Quebec Nordique to Colorado back in '95. Ah, but that involved moving a Canadian franchise to the U.S., and that changes the whole picture, doesn't it?

Bettman cited a concern that the NHL's Board of Governors might not approve Balsillie as a suitable franchise owner. "I don't know whether or not he could get approved," Bettman said. "That's, as I said, something I don't get a vote on. If in fact it becomes an issue for board consideration, the board of governors of the league will make that decision."

Sounds like passing the puck ... er, I mean, the buck ... to me. I'm not the obstacle here. It's that darned Board of Governors. Well, has anybody asked them? And who's on the Board of Governors, anyway? More U.S. fat cats? Hardly sounds either fair or objective to me.

It seems to me that hockey has become more about money and politics than about the game, which probably explains why people like myself, who admire the game, can't be bothered the follow the professional league.

I'm struck by the curious similarities between the Balsillie/Bettman feud and the movie, Bon Cop Bad Cop. For those not familiar with the movie, it's about a pair of detectives; Martin Ward, from Ontario, and David Bouchard, from Quebec, who become reluctant partners when they are assigned to investigate the murder of a hockey tycoon who had been instrumental in moving a Canadian team to the United States. More murders of hockey officials ensue and it soon becomes clear that the detectives are on the trail of a serial killer bent on punishing league officials guilty of moving Canadian hockey teams south of the border.

The killer's ultimate target turns out to be the league commissioner himself, one "Harry Buttman", who is on the verge of committing the ultimate sin, moving the Montreal team to the States. Although he is a target, Buttman is portrayed in the movie as arrogant, deceptive and altogether unlikeable. I found it particularly amusing that Buttman is played by Richard Howland, a midget, which I interpret as the director portraying the Hockey Commissioner as, quite literally, a small man. Ward and Bouchard end up tying him up, stuffing him into a body bag and locking him in the trunk of a car, "for his own protection", but can't help enjoying the activity. Maybe that's the kind of therapy that Mr. Bettman needs.

Before I get back on topic, I'll digress just a little further by highly recommending Bon Cop Bad Cop to those who haven't yet seen it. It's one of the most enjoyable Canadian made movies I've ever seen. It captures, better than any other movie I've seen, Canada's Anglophone/Francophone split personality, and the ever-present tension between the two cultures. It's a riveting drama liberally imbued with dashes of uniquely Canadian humour. It should be required viewing for any Americans who still picture Canadians as beer-swilling, French-speaking lumberjacks whose cops all ride around on horseback. (Well, okay, everybody in this movie happens to be fluent in French, including the English-speaking detective from Ontario, so I guess the movie doesn't do much to dispel that particular Canadian stereotype).

Getting back to reality, Jim Balsillie argues that his bid to acquire the Coyotes is about "The passion that Canadians feel for the game of hockey." Quite right. Hockey is Canada's game, much moreso than America's. Everybody knows that. It's a part of the Canadian identity. America took the Nordique from us and they took Gretzky. This is us, taking our national identity back. Don't stand in our way, Bettman. We may not stuff you in any car trunks, Canadians are much too polite for that, but some of us would be more than happy to come down there and demonstrate a proper "jersey pull" for you.

Wild Mood Swings

One of the more interesting web sites I've stumbled across is something called Wild Mood Swings (http://www.wildmoodswings.co.uk/) by Sean McManus. Wild Mood Swings is the perfect web site to visit when you're bored and you feel like surfing the web but you're not sure where you want to go. Wild Mood Swings gives you a combo box that you can use to select what sort of mood you're in. There are many different moods to choose from, from the familiar and expected (angry, happy, sad, foolish or even bored) to the more esoteric and whimsical (naked, I want my mummy, froody, politically correct and the ever-popular "totally integrated in a diversified marketplace" - I know I feel that way a lot!) Once you've chosen your mood, click a button labeled "Take me away" and Wild Mood Swings takes you to a web site appropriate to that mood.

Some of the web sites suit the selected mood. Others are chosen more to get you out of the mood that you've indicated, or at least deal with it. Select "Peaceful", for example, and you're whisked off to Stop the War Coalition; a web site that protests the war in Iraq. Select "Angry", on the other hand, and you're transported to the Songs For Teaching website, where you can find the lyrics and sheet music for a song called "Count to Ten!" by Jim Rule. You can also listen to some of the song, order the CD on which it appears, or download the album. Having listened to what there is of the song on-line, I can testify that it's impossible to listen to this song and stay angry. Nope! Can't be done!

Wild Mood Swings has a large selection of moods (and related web sites) to choose from (there are 174 at the time of this writing) so it will take you quite some time to see them all, and more are still being added. I haven't seen them all myself. I would, however, like to shine my blogger's spotlight on some of the more interesting or amusing links that I've found on Wild Mood Swings.

If You're Feeling: Adventurous

Wild Mood Swings Recommends: Samorost-1

Samorost-1 is a bizarre on-line adventure game. It's about a strange little man who apparently lives on ... well ... what looks like a small asteroid made up of a weird amalgamation of rock and tree trunks, floating through space. One day, he discovers another small asteroid, similar to his own, heading directly for him on a collision course and so you guide our intrepid protagonist as he sets out for the other asteroid in search of some way to alter its course and forestall disaster.

The game has quite a surreal mood, with a look and style reminiscent of something out of a Terry Gilliam animation. You control everything via a simple point-and-click interface, and there is nothing in the way of instructions or hints. You simply need to explore, experiment and figure things out on your own.

If You're Feeling: Argumentative
Wild Mood Swings Recommends: Things My Girlfriend And I Have Argued About

This web site chronicles the seemingly dysfunctional relationship between an English chap by the name of R. "Mil" Millington and his German girlfriend, Margret. If there's ever any friction between you and your significant other and you're having serious doubts about whether the relationship can work, just visit this web site and you're guaranteed to come away feeling better. Mil and Margret apparently cannot agree on anything. I mean anything! The web site consists of a long (and, by "long", I mean DNA sequence encoding long) list of things that the two have argued about; everything from the proper method of cutting a Kiwi fruit in half to arguing over the arguments themselves. I kid you not!

In fairness to the fairer sex, I must point out that many of the issues over which Mil and Margaret disagree are issues over which the sexes have often disagreed since time immemorial and, as this web site is authored by the male of the relationship, it tends to presents things entirely from the male point of view. Margret is never given equal time or an opportunity for rebuttal. (Or, if she was given an opportunity, she very likely decided that it would be pointless).

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "Good Lord! Don't I have enough grief in my life as it is? Why would I want to immerse myself in someone else's?" Well, aside from the well-known adage that misery loves company, Millington's most redeeming quality is his excellent and irreverent sense of humor. This web site is truly an amusing read; laugh-out-loud funny at times, in fact. I can only wish that my blog were as funny.

Take, for example, Margret's apparent insistence on asking Mil questions about movies or TV shows that the both of them are just seeing for the first time and for which Mil can't possibly have the answers, which will doubtless present themselves in any case if Margret were to simply watch the show. Questions such as "Who's she?" or "Why did he get shot?" or "I thought that one was on their side?" until Mil has to suppress the urge to yell "JUST WATCH IT! IN THE NAME OF GOD, JUST WATCH IT!"

Aside from all that, it becomes clear as you near the end of his writings that, in spite of their apparent incompatibility, Mil and Margret remain together, which makes them a true inspiration. If these two can maintain a relationship, surely anybody can! I can only assume, though, that Margret hasn't seen Mil's web site.

Apparently, Millington has even published a book about his domestic misadventures. There's certainly enough content on his web site to fill a book. You won't get through it in a single sitting, so bookmark it and visit whenever you need a good chuckle.

If You're Feeling: Clairvoyant

Wild Mood Swings Recommends: http://www.futureme.org/

Ever looked back on your life and thought "If I could somehow go back and visit myself ten years ago, I'd tell that person..." Wait! Let's turn that around. What if you could talk to yourself 10 years from now? What would you say? What kinds of questions would you ask? Well, now you can. This web site lets you send an e-mail to your future self. Enter your e-mail address, type a message and select a delivery date, and futureme.org will deliver your message to you at the appointed time. This assumes, of course that:

a) You are still alive at the appointed time.

b) Your e-mail address hasn't changed.

You can mark the message as either "public" or "private" and you can read public messages that others have sent their future selves.

You have to date your message at least 90 days into the future. If you try to send yourself a message the next day (as I did, just to verify if it works) the site admonishes you that it's "Not a reminder service".

If You're Feeling: Foolish
Wild Mood Swings Recommends: The Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes Of All Time

This one's timely! Read about the funniest, most innovative April Fool's gags ever pulled. Like the respected BBC News show that convinced thousands of gullible Britons that spaghetti grows on trees and that 1957 yielded a bumper crop of the pasta, thanks to a mild winter and the virtual elimination of the dreaded "spaghetti weevil".

And just in case you're thinking "People were a lot more gullible back in those days. Now we're much more savvy," how about the 1985 Sports Illustrated article about Sidd Finch, the up-and-coming rookie pitcher, schooled in a Tibetan monastery, who could throw a baseball at 168 mph with pinpoint accuracy?

My personal favorite is the article printed in the April, 1998 issue of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason newsletter, which claimed that the Alabama legislature had officially voted to change the mathematical value of Pi from 3.14159... to the "biblical" value of 3.0 (well, if it actually happened anywhere, it would have to be in Alabama).

These and other astonishing April Fool's jokes await you on this web site. The incredible part is that people actually fell for all of these.

If You're Feeling: Inspiring

Wild Mood Swings Recommends: Motivator

You've probably seen those motivational posters that some businesses display in order to "pump" their employees. They generally feature some inspiring photograph that suggests achievement, like a mountain climber scaling a granite wall or some dude sailing into the sunset on a hang glider, accompanied by an inspirational message that consists of a single word, such as "ACHIEVEMENT" followed by a short phrase, like "Sometimes reaching the destination requires going that extra mile".

You've probably also seen humorous parodies of these same posters. In fact, one of them can be found right here on this blog.

Motivator lets you make your own motivational poster, either serious or not so serious. Just choose an appropriate picture, pick your font, choose a border style and colors for your font and the background, and presto! Instant motivational poster, suitable for printing and framing. If you sign up for a free membership, you can even order professional prints of your poster, if you like.

If You're Feeling: Like Trespassing on Government Property
Wild Mood Swings Recommends: Abandoned Missile Base VR Tour

Some web sites let you virtually go places where you wouldn't normally be allowed to go, or that would be dangerous to visit, even if you were allowed. This is such a web site.

The authors of this web site found and broke into a decommissioned abandoned underground ICBM missile complex. While inside, they took several photographs, which they uploaded to their web site and turned into a virtual tour. They make no bones about the fact that what they did was, in fact, highly illegal and even more dangerous and they do not reveal the actual location of the base. Thanks to their somewhat foolhardy excursion, you can now see the remains of this cold war relic from the comfort and safety of your swivel chair.

If You're Feeling: Lost

Wild Mood Swings Recommends: FOUND Magazine - Find of the Day

Another unusual concept. This web site collects scraps of paper, sticky notes, photos, doodles and other miscellanea found lying around on the street and makes them available for your viewing pleasure. While most of us probably wouldn't spend a lot of time collecting every scrap piece of paper we come across, some of these do provide fascinating glimpses into the psyches of people whom we've never met and likely never will meet.

If You're Feeling: Magnetic
Wild Mood Swings Recommends: Analog Audio Tape Cassette Nostalgia

Okay, time for a re-emergence of my inner geek. I don't know why I like this web site. Actually, yes I do. It has to do with my innate love of nostalgia, coupled with the countless hours that my best friend, Mart, and I used to spend dubbing our vinyl records to tape. I still have my audio tape collection and looking at this web site just brings it all back.

"Ah, yes, the old Maxell XL II Epitaxial 90-minute Chromium Dioxides," I'll purr with a wistful smile. "I remember when you could pick up a box of 10 of these babies for about twenty bucks. Yeah, I spent a lot of happy hours dubbing Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons to these. Even after all these years, there's hardly any "wow" or "flutter". Sweet!

Okay, that's enough! There are lots of other cool links and I could go on and on listing them, but why don't you just go to Wild Mood Swings and check them out yourself? Oh, and, if you're reading this, McManus - how's about one hand washing the other? After all, I plugged your web site. If your readers happen to be in the mood for, oh I don't know, thoughtful discourse, intellectual stimulation or just a plain old hearty belly-laugh, why not link them to The Halmanator? It can only elevate the quality of your already fine web site even further!