Confessions of a Flames fan: When will the CFL season start?

While the Calgary Flames are not mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, I have serious doubts as to whether or not they'll be able to make the cut. Sitting in 9th place, four points behind the Colorado Avalanche (and a game ahead) it is painfully obvious that the Flames will have to run the table on their last 6 games (and get a little help along the way) for them to make the playoffs. Simply put, every game is a must win; especially matches against Colorado and Minnesota - those are 4 point games.

But I have to ask myself: who am I even cheering for? I mean, the Flames are a shell of the organization which I fell in love with. Beyond Iginla, Kipprusoff, Langkow, and Regher what kind of team are we? We pillaged the "best" players from the 29th place Leafs and a couple of mild producers on the third line Rangers players in exchange for... hell, I'm not even sure!

(Ages ago, I wrote a post on this blog that if I wanted to cheer for the Hamilton Tigercats, I'd move to Southern Ontario when the Riders made a whole host of moves with the 8th place team. In the end, many of the trades were undone with key players coming back to the Green and White for their '07 Grey Cup win. In this same light, I wonder how many of the Leafs and Rangers are goning to remain with the team beyond the obvious Stajan signing.)

While I like some aspects of the Phaneuf/Stajan-White-Mayers trade, ultimately I'm left with wondering whether or not we needed to get rid of Phaneuf. Our problem was scoring and it certainly didn't improve by leaps and bounds when Stajan arrived. Jokinen needed to go, but I'm left scratching my head over the way Darryl Sutter has managed our team since he became GM. He's 4 for 4 when it comes to blockbuster moves but 0 for 4 when it comes to management of those players.

Consider Tanguay, Jokinen, Cammalleri and Bouwmeester and their successes with the team. Argue ably, Cammi was the best player to come to the organization and he was the one we should have kept. In hindsight, why didn't Sutter swap Phaneuf for White and let go of Jokinen in the 09 post-season in order to free up more money to keep Cammalleri? Given the reasons for Jokinen's departure, I have to ask whether it wasn't it obvious that Cammalleri was a better player than Jokinen all along (both on the ice and in the locker room)?

Given these moves and others, I am not entirely confident in the once mighty Sutter family. Rumours have it that Darryl could be gone if the team does not make the postseason and his players (Stajan, Mayers, White, Kotalik, Hagman) do not make their mark in the Flames' playoff performance.

The only consolation a Flames fan has is that the Oilers were left winless against the Calgary club this year and that they're relegated to the basement of the NHL. That feels pretty good. Could this be Vancouver's year? Probably not. However, the second best thing to a Flames cup-run is seeing one of our opponents come so close to winning and falling on their face. As you can imagine, I look forward to cheering against Vancouver in every stage of the 2010 NHL playoffs.

All this said, I'm feeling quite indifferent to the Flames potential postseason. If they do squeak in, they'll sit in 8th and get beat up by the Sharks in the first round. They'll lose and we'll all go back to the blogs and subsequently beat up on Darryl and Brent. Then, we can move onto other things. Like football!

No, I'm not talking about the 2010 World Cup (which will be awesome) but rather the beginning of the 2010 CFL season in which the Saskatchewan Roughriders are poised to repeat as Western Champs and Grey Cup contenders. That's right, I'll call a Grey Cup appearance right now. Why? Because the core of our team has stayed the same and we've made some incredible additions by bringing in Barrin Simpson and Prechae Rodriguez. While I will miss the innovation of offensive coordinator Paul LaPolice, I think Doug Berry will fit in nicely and hold our ground.

Darian Durant looks fabulous and we'll get to see what our backups are made of as Graham Harrell and Cole Bergquist battle for the title of second-in-command and short-yardage specialist. Furthermore, Cates is back along with some other key players from our defense and secondary.

What the Flames cannot get done on the ice I am sure the Roughriders will accomplish on the grid iron. Heck, maybe the Flames will surprise everyone and eek into the playoffs only to go on a magical 2003-esque Cup Run. I'd love nothing more than to be watching Flames hockey in the month of May but something inside me is screaming that this is not the year and it is best to come to terms with this reality sooner rather than later. That way, I can enjoy the first 20 games the Jays will play (inevitably spurring prophecies of another 92/93 season) and the start of the next phase of the Rider Dynasty.

GO FLAMES! GO RIDERS!

Canada 150: Sacred Cows and Do-Overs

I like the Canada 150 concept. Moreover, I like how it is being billed as a "Thinkers Conference" because I'm a believer in ideas and I think that Canada 150 is exactly the kind of place the Liberal Party of Canada needs to get back in the game to start breaking the 31% watermark they reached at the height of prorogation madness. However, today the MSM brought some interesting news to the Canadian public.

CBC News chose to highlight the event by writing a piece on retirement, savings and the future of health care in a post-Baby Boomer Canada.

CTV News chose to focus on a different part of the speech given by David Dodge: two-tiered health care. Yeah, you read that right. Doesn't it just roll off the tongue? Two-Tiered health care, brought to you by David Dodge and entertained by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Wha?

First of all, while the idea of two-tiered health care in Canada is nothing new to Canadian households, the idea being amused by the Liberals is.

Dodge, a former deputy finance minister, told the Montreal conference it's time to re-think the program, the cost of which is increasing at seven per cent a year -- twice the rate of growth in the economy.

He told delegates there are "really only four" options to rein in health spending:

• Impose or increase dedicated health-care taxes or levies.
• Reduce the scope of medical procedures covered by public health insurance, forcing people to buy private health insurance for services not covered.
• Introduce "significant" co-payments.
• Continually reduce the quality of services provided -- letting wait times increase and limiting drug coverage, for instance -- and allow people to buy upgraded, private health care. In other words, "so-called two-tier medicine."

"These are stark and unpalatable choices we face with respect to health care," Dodge said.

Ah ha. I love how behind the Deficit Smokescreen anything goes. We're used to politicians mulling over cuts to health care - but it takes a rare and confused moment in every politicians life when they actually speak about making significant structural changes as to the way health care is delivered in this country.

This is our Sacred Cow. Some countries have obscure and abstract sacred cows like "freedom" which can mean anything under the sun; and others have institutions which define them. Whether you're a Conservative, Liberal, Dipper or Green; you've got to admit that Universal Health Care is a defining institution in this country and it has become an untouchable part of our socio-political fabric.

That does not mean that changes to the system are not necessary or that Canadians are not willing to engage the health care "debate." When prorogation, the ballooning deficit, and joblessness was at its peak, Canadians wanted reassurance in one area of policy and budget spending: Health Care. And it seems that for people like Dodge, that doesn't matter. Worse yet, for people like Ignatieff these ideas supposedly "need to be heard." Others, like Kennedy take them for what they are worth and throw them away immediately. I wonder what the hell they're talking about in Montreal and if they all have collective amnesia regarding what's been happening in Washington these last, I dunno, 16 months.

Speaking of 16 months ago... it was around that time that the Harper Party had their minority strengthened through the inept leadership of the Dion Liberals. But that has not stopped the Canada 150 conference from feeling out the crowd on the issue of Carbon taxation. That's right. They're asking for a mulligan. A do-over.

"I'm happy that there are so many people here who are willing to talk about this because at the end of the day it's one of the most efficient measures you can use if you actually want to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions," [Steven Guilbeault of Equiterre] said in an interview.

Ignatieff, who first proposed a carbon tax during the 2006 Liberal leadership, has since said he won't revive an idea that's been so decisively rejected by voters. He now advocates a cap and trade system instead.

But panelist Michael Phelps, board chairman of the GLOBE Foundation, said a carbon tax is a much simpler and more effective way to influence consumer behaviour.

"I'd be standing on a soapbox saying, 'Use less carbon, you're going to pay for it,"' he said.

It's interesting. Ignatieff thinks that the voters have "decisively rejected" the idea of a Carbon Tax but have not decisively rejected the idea of broadening Canadian health care to include a pay-as-you-go private option. If this is so, he should be referred to the success of the Canadian Alliance and the elections of 2000 and 2004. Finally, it was only amid controversy and some back-stabbery, the Liberals were defeated.

On policy, the case of health care is open and shut: do not touch. Moreover, it wasn't the idea of the Carbon Tax that reduced the Liberals to 77 seats. It was Dion. Case in point: the CPC didn't even have an official platform until a week before the election because they didn't need one with Dion leading the Liberals. But that's not going to be the case for Election Twenty-Ten.

Policy needs to be at the heart of the Liberal's attack and this conference is where those policy ideas need to start. The Liberals need to be mindful of not only the voters, but what they can - as a party - offer with courage. That's what the Dion campaign lacked. It wasn't void of good ideas but rather a bold vision for the country that was embraced by Liberals from the caucus to the candidates to the grassroots. Let's hope Canada 150 is the start of that.

The CPC has Evangelicals & LPC has Catholics

When I hear of a Liberal voting against same-sex marriage, abortion or contraception the only thing I see voting is a Catholic. And sure enough: Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and John Mckay are all active members of the Catholic Church.

McTeague is a self professed "devout" member of the faith; Szabo has been called a "Catholic champion" by Catholic Insight; and McKay has been branded by The Catholic Register as the poster-boy for Catholic Liberals.

And should we be surprised? This was the party that had 32 of it's own members vote against Prime Minister Paul Martin's bill C-38 on same-sex marriage. After all, Martin is himself a Catholic whose actions in parliament drew condemnation from the Pope.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with voting by your conscience if your conscience is known ahead of time. That said, I feel that MPs should serve their constituents and unless there is clear consensus from their constituents that is in-line with their conscience - they should abstain where differences emerge.

Take Jim Prentice for example. The CPC MP from Calgary voted in favour of Martin's bill C-38 after reaching out to his constituents on the issue. Many of his constituents live in "old" Calgary (a semi-inner-city area close to downtown) and vote for the Alberta Liberals in provincial elections. Prentice weighed his beliefs on the issue and went to his constituents. His personal beliefs favoured the legislation tabled but he made a conscience effort to hear his constituents out before voting.

And hey, perhaps McTeague, Szabo and McKay were all given that very same signal from their constituents. And if they did - good. They should have voted that way. However, some other notable Liberal MPs who represent EDAs with a (what one may describe crassly as) known religious homogeneity such as Stephan Dion and Anita Neville; who may have been off the Hill at a most convenient time lest they face the music.

I don't like to brand people who go to a particular church as voting in a particular way, but, when it comes to track records a number of "coincidences" turn into patterns. If I were to guess which Christian denomination a CPC MP belonged to if they so chose to profess holding membership in a Church - I'd guess it would be something protestant if not evangelical. If they were Liberal, it would be Catholic. NDP or Green, it might be harder to pin down - but I'd start with the radical and peace Churches before moving onto the more stereotypical.

While I personally disagree with the positions guys like McTeague, Szabo, McKay, Harper, Van Loan and Day have when it comes to moral issues such as the use of contraceptives (which shouldn't be a moral issue when you evaluate the rationale behind the "ban" and the time in which it was institutionalized), abortion and same-sex marriage; I cannot condemn them for the way they vote. I can condemn them for being bad parliamentarians, weak theologians or passive Christians - but not bad people.

The lesson learned here today: The Conservative Party has the majority of right-wing evangelicals; and the Liberal Party as a whole host of right-wing Catholics. Why they're not all in the Christian Heritage Party, we'll never know - but we shouldn't be surprised when they compromise the good of the nation for the religious voting block on the eve of an election.

Will U Calgary follow Ottawa?

Welly, welly, welly. After her racist outburst at Western, the organizers at Ottawa U have decided not to host Ann Coulter. Good.

Known as a "controversial" (read: moron) figure in the American conservative movement (read: army of flying monkeys), Coulter has one more stop on her tour of Honduras (read: Canada): Calgary, Alberta.

I wonder, will the University of Calgary follow suit and uphold what's left of their academic integrity? No doubt there will be some idiots at the U of C which will defend Coulter's appearance citing freedom of speech or some other straw-man to justify keeping her appointment.

The only thing between post-secondary Calgarians standing up for Canada and folding like a cheap suit is allowing her to speak at their place of higher education.

I hope they do the right thing and shut the door on her ignorant ass.

Parliamentary Contempt, National Security and Butterfingers

I am stunned that the Con government is actually hiding behind the "national security" excuse to withhold turning over documents to fellow (read: Opposition) parliamentarians. This is the government who has appointed MPs to high profile cabinet posts (Raitt and Bernier) that have lost, misplaced, and mishandled sensitive documents pertaining to... guess what... areas of national security! These areas were namely, nuclear power and NATO!

I'd trust a Dipper, Lib or even a member of the Bloc Quebecois with documents pertaining to national security over the buffoons employed in the Harper Cabinet. And in fact, that's probably what Tom Lukiwski is worried about should uncensored Afghan documents be released to parliament - that his fellow colleagues would leave them on a counter at Starbucks, inside of a cab, or at a the residence of their latest squeeze.

Given this Butterfinger Government's track record of handing important documents, the "national security" excuse should hold as much water to Canadians as placing the fox at the door to the hen house.

And it seems to me from Lukiwski's comments that the Cons are willing to go all the way on this issue and challenge any contempt of parliament order put forward by the Speaker. And on this matter, I think trying to prosecute any member of the government - regardless if they actually are in contempt of parliament - will not resonate positively for the Opposition parties, especially the Liberals, in public opinion.

So, do we find ourselves in a game of chicken between the government and the Opposition? We do, indeed.

The December 2008 Coalition Movement has left a bitter taste in my mouth as to the ability of ordinary Canadians to understand parliamentary procedure and constitutional law/convention. The majority of people maintained at that time that the government has the responsibility to govern and the Opposition is largely a peanut gallery - throwing noise into the House at every chance they get because, that's what they are supposed to do! So make all the noise you want, but don't you dare attempt to "change" the power of the House without the consent of the public through an election.

Now look at where we have ended up: would Canadians view any motion of contempt of parliament from the Opposition to senior members of the Conservative government legitimate? The Con spin-machine would be going overtime, and you gotta know that it's already whizzing away creating a campaign to mislead Canadians if this motion was put forward and if it passes.

Is this issue election worthy? Yes. Would the right side win? No.

Derek Lee cannot lead the LPC into a game of chicken with the government. We need to hear Michael Ignatieff speak on this issue as soon as possible in order to either gear up for a showdown or breathe easy. That said, all this is going on in the House right now, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Liberal's Canada 150 conference in Montreal - which is clearly of the highest concern for Ignatieff at the moment - should we expect any movement from the LPC to support Derek Lee's motion in sufficient numbers?

As a democrat, I say "SHAME!" However, as a pragmatist, I'll nod quietly. The public simply isn't ready to throw the Cons into the street to defend the Supremacy of their Parliament.

The non-binding Parliament: All Talk no Walk

The Opposition made some good moral headway today by posing, and passing, motions to end 10-percenters and curb the PMO's ability to prorogue parliament without the consent of the House. However, both accepted motions are non-binding, which means that the government doesn't have to change it's practices of mailing ten-percenters on the public's dime or requesting lengthy prorogation's from the GG.

This amounts to a lot of talk and not much walk - except maybe on the ten-percenter front where the Opposition holds a majority of the vote on The Board of Internal Economy, the body responsible for determining the allocation of Commons programs (such as ten-percenters).

The program's nickname comes from the fact MPs can send taxpayer-funded flyers to voters outside their ridings in a number equal to 10 per cent of voters in their riding. The program cost about $10 million last year.

According to figures released by the Liberals, Conservative MPs averaged $49,680 in printing costs funded by taxpayers, while New Democrat MPs averaged $33,825 and Liberals $18,500.

Probably more telling is who introduced the motions and the ability for either of them to change the way politics is done in this country. The prorogation limitation motion was tabled by good ol' Jack Layton, leader of the NDP. The ten-percenters, Wayne Easter of the LPC. While the NDP will take the credit for making parliament "more accountable" and curbing the powers of the Prime Minister - an issue very popular with the public; the Liberal motion has the potential to actually go somewhere.

But that doesn't mean that stopping ten-percenters is in the bag, it still has to pass a vote at the Board which is in-camera, so the public won't know how each member voted. Although, New Democrat and Liberal representatives, in addition to the PMO - which came as quite a surprise - have already spoken in favour of voting to end subsidies to ten-percenters at the Board.

Meanwhile, the CPC has no intention of yielding to the motion to place limits on the length of a requested prorogation to 10 days without the consent of parliament. According to New Democrat Bruce Hyer, Thunder Bay-Superior North, the motion was tabled instead of a private members bill (which, if passed, would have had legislative authority) in order to send a "quick message" to the government.

Walking the walk would have meant tabling the proposal as a private members bill, not just a toothless motion. The advantages of the motion being tabled and passed by the NDP are purely political - this motion has all the bark without any of the problems associated with the bite of a private members' bill. It's a win-win for a party that would never form the government, they get to play the "noble party" card, which they've given themselves through tabling this motion.

The LPC went after the issue that could yield real results if the Opposition remains united at the Board. The NDP sought a "quick message" followed by a "pat on the back" and a boost onto their political high horse. The bottom line: it's time the Opposition - as a whole - started walking the walk they've been talking about since December 31, 2009.

Youtube Judges: Is Harper a Mouse or a Man?

Oh boy, here we go. Young people (18-25) are exactly the demographic who the CPC do not want voting. The trends are that this block of the electorate are more likely to vote Liberal or Green rather than CPC or NDP, so why is Harper going on Youtube to take their questions? And lemmie tell you, some of them are real gems:

• "Why do you continue to waste millions of taxpayers dollars on propaganda such as the +$45M that went to an American firm for the Economic Action Plan ad campaign we have all had rammed down our throats? When will you stop sending out abusive 10%ers?"
• "What is it you stand for? You lied about Income Trusts, you ran a huge deficit, you pick senators, your Gov't is secretive, you hide behind the military, you smear people who disagree. Is this the "new" Conservative party you wished to create?"
• "The phrasing of this event makes it appear that your staff will cherry pick the questions, as has been your pattern with the media. Would an honest man be so afraid to answer questions publicly?"
• "Marijuana - what is your reason for making Canada into a police state by infringing on our natural liberties to engage in activities that bring us pleasure and do not harm others? why would you rather spend money on a 'problem' than create revenue?" (Sent in by a Ben from Waterloo...)
• "Many Canadians believe that you are the worst PM in Canadian history. You seem to promote hatred of your fellow Canadians, particularly those sitting across from you in our House of Commons (that is, when you haven't prorogued). Comments?"

Wow. From glancing at the 1,198 questions posed to the PM many of them are extremely critical, bordering on venomous, with a few spattered here and there which lob nice juicy ones on issues like security and the economy.

I encourage everyone in the progressive blogosphere to let the PM have it! One of his flying monkeys is going to have to read these questions in order to select the most harmless for his Master to answer, so let's make it at least interesting for him.

Roughrider Report: Locked and Loaded

Finally! Today, the Roughriders signed free-agent RB Wes Cates to a new contract and offered a contract-extension to staring QB Darian Durant. These two moves have really solidified the foundation of the Riders' offense for the 2010 season. A few days ago Dan Goodspeed was signed to help bolster the O-Line which will be some good news to Wes Cates who needs good, consistent blocking from veteran players.

With the extension being given to Durant, one has to evaluate our backup quarterbacks since Steven Jyles has left the organization to become the #1 pivot in Winnipeg,and Dalton Bell was sent to the Argos yesterday for a 5th round pick. Currently Cole Bergquist and Graham Harrell are battle for the backup QB position.

Clearly the star of the show is Harrell. The Texas Tech star was a Johnny Unitas Golden Arm winner, Heisman Trophy candidate, and the only NCAA candidate to post multiple 5000+ yard passing seasons. Bergquist is talented in his own right too as a product of U Montana. The two have been told that it's an open competition for the #2 spot and it will be exciting to see who plays in the pre-season games and how they both perform.

With the addition of Dorsey and Prechae Rodriguez to the offense and key signings to the D, I think the Riders are in an excellent position to improve upon their record from last season and to repeat as Western Conference Champs! Watch out CFL, there's a new top-dog in town.

GO! RIDERS! GO!

Stockwell Day: The bringer of symbolism and irony

Is it just me or does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that the first thing to be cut by the CPC are patronage appointments?! 245 appointments to be exact - and this will reel in a hefty $1 million dollars that was just floating around in the giant Canadian bureaucracy.

Beyond the irony of the Harper government - the most partisan and appointee-happy government in the history of Canadian parliament - being the one to put these appointments on the chopping block, is the hidden symbolism and message behind their actions: we're not partisan.

Yup. They can stack the Senate with the most bloodthirsty partisans after decrying the Liberal's ability to make said appointments for over a decade, but the message being sent here today is that they're not going to play "politics as usual" anymore. We're at war, ladies and gentlemen. A War on Deficit and in the name of fighting the good fight, everyone has to make sacrifices - including the bureaucracy. And they'll go straight to the most ineffective and controversial place - patronage appointments like at the Canada Pension Plan / Old Age Security Review Tribunals, with 40 of 400 governor-in-council positions being eliminated.

The best part of this move, is that none of these positions that were cut had anyone in them. That's right. They were suspended during a review process which meant that not a single Conservative appointee lost their job. Thank goodness!

And since Cabinet doesn't listen to the bureaucracy anyways, what's the point of these Tribunals and Councils? Why not save a million bucks this year and put that money to real use: like jet-setting cabinet ministers? For Stockwell Day and the Legion of Flying Monkeys, this is a feather in their cap. A microscopic feather, but one nonetheless.

Irony and Symbolism, the main theme of the CPC Throne Speech and subsequent budget. I wonder how long it will be before this government falls off of it's imaginary high-horse? I suppose that day will come when the Canadian people stop believing there's a horse underneath Harper to begin with.

RCI on Recalibration and Tony's Scare Strategy

You've got to hand it to all the simpletons out there, they really know how to beat down intelligent arguments and spin the truth. Just take a look at the CTV and CBC websites and read the alarming number of comments which have come to blame the recession and the Canadian deficit on the '08 LPC-NDP Coalition. However, the majority of the comments "agreed with" were of a progressive view that asked some real questions instead of blindly accepting the dogma of any political party.

The 2010 budget doesn't seem to reflect much "recalibration." In fact, stimulus spending will continue to roll at the expense of extending EI benefits. $19 billion to be exact. As for the "conservative" aspects of the budget, they largely suggest token moves like MP, Cabinet, PM and Senator pay will be frozen as well as government bureaucracy budgets. Not bad. One way to stop the bleeding is to put a band aid on the wound. But surely things have to improve from there.

What Canadians cannot forget is that this government was in deficit before the recession. That as soon as Harper got into the PMO he started cutting taxes and increased spending. Some might call that a "tax-cut and spend" policy. It's like the "liberal" opinion of "taxing and spend" but it's worse. You don't need to be a genius to see the consequences of this action. Imagine quitting your job and relying on your credit card to pay for a bunch of new, very expensive things.

Harper's "tax-cut and spend" fiscal policy coupled with living in denial about a worldwide recession until it was right on our doorstep is why we are in recession - and for no other reason.

And now, Tony Clement is beating the fear drum to keep Canadians scared:

Clement said Ottawa is well aware of Canadians' concerns about the swelling deficit, but expressed confidence in the government's plan to chart the course ahead.

"I think the important thing is to make sure the recovery continues to take hold," he said.

Clement said it was necessary for the government to manage the economy carefully so "we don't dip into a second recession."

Whoa! Let's get this straight, the CPC ignored the first recession until there was no where to go but further down, and NOW we're on the lookout for a SECOND potential recession if we do not stay the Conservative course? Gimmie a break!

I love it! I love this "stay the course" routine that the PMO has begun barking about. What exactly is this course should we are on in the first place? Because where this government came from and where we are now, are two very different places. And if I was a betting man, I'd say that the deficit is going to get worse under this Conservative government than better.

Now, I'm not going to posit that the Liberals have all the answers. In fact, they've come out with nothing today besides rhetoric - I'm willing to accept that. But when the writ is dropped, I'm going to have a keen memory on the events leading up to the recession, the denial that the government was in - and how they attempted to put the Canadian people in that same boat until the election was sprung. Then they tried to be the "fiscally responsible" heroes even though they've done nothing to deserve that title.

"Staying the course to avoid a second recession, vote Conservative."

Doesn't that have a nice and putrid ring to it? I wouldn't put it past 'em.

If it's Israeli policy we should be protesting...

Then let's rename "Israeli Apartheid Week" to Palestinian Ghtettoization Week.

Ignatieff thinks that criticism of the State of Israeli is anti-Semitic. Instead, he suggests supporters of Israeli Apartheid Week to criticize the policies that have lead to the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the imprisonment the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian people are being ghettoized as we speak. The Separation Wall (pictured above) is a distinct policy approved by the Knesset and the Israeli Government (read: the State of Israel) to ghettoize, dehumanize, and imprison the Palestinian people under the guise of "security."

Israel's quest for "security" through measures like this wall and other policies are closely related to those of the South African apartheid regime, which sought to control the migration of blacks and through their "reserves" create a source of cheap labour for the state. Security was the primary reason for the South African apartheid state to put blacks on the reserves and it should be noted that it is for this same reason the Israeli state has created the Separation Wall.

Destroying/occupying Palestinian orange and olive groves through settlement building, the erection of the Separation Wall, and Israeli expansion robs Palestians not only of their land but of their labour their history as a Semitic Mediterranean people, and the human right to live a dignified life.

If the name of Israeli Apartheid Week should be changed to reflect the policies of Israel to marginalize and dehumanize the Palestinian people (what the word Apartheid symbolizes) then I believe it should be called "Palestinian Ghettoization Week."

This way, the oppressive and violent way Palestinians are treated in refugee camps in Syria, Lebanon and other surrounding states can be highlighed alongside the torturous abuses of the Israeli state.

Harper on the art of saying "No" & Captain Obvious

What a mook.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called Thursday's budget the toughest of his career, and says he got lots of practice saying "no."

Budgets are hard to put together. There are lots of priorities that are being juggled and sometimes is is tough to know what should come first and what should be put aside. In fact, from the Prime Minister's comments, it sounds like Harper is having a hard time setting priorities. What say you PMS, do you think it is easy to make priorities?

Come to think of it, I didn't see him turning down tickets to Olympic events like curling, speed skating and hockey. It must have been hard to say "no" to high-fiving medal winning athletes that were given the "privilege" of being invited to sit with the PM.

It also must have been exceedingly tough to say "no" to Double-G as he convinced him to prorogue parliament until March instead of a light, 10-day break - as many MSM sources have told us. The last chief of staff that Harper said "no" to must have been that "elitist" Tom Flanagan... whoever he is.

Moreover, it must be exruciating to stop the CPC spending train, which left "Fiscal Responsibility" Station in the spring of 2006 and has kept chugging along ever since. But wait, there's more! As Deficit Jim steps into a Whitby telephone booth he miraculously turns into Captain Obvious, the slayer of previous CPC lies and un-truths.

"We can't continue to spend at this level indefinitely"

Wha-wha-wha-whaaaat? You mean, we cannot keep cutting consumption taxes and spending Liberal surplus' until the end of Great Conservative Empire?

Well, maybe not the tax part. Captain Obvious said that the government won't raise taxes, which is the political answer of course. Clearly, no political party, save for the NDP and Greens, would advocate for increasing taxes. But that doesn't mean that the CPC or LPC wouldn't raise taxes.

Bring on the boring, yet "beautiful" budget. I'm sure it'll be underwhelming, like all of Harper's budgets have been since every last penny of our surplus was spent on beer and popcorn.