THE NEW COWBOY PRESIDENT

For someone who claimed he would have the most transparent administration ever, Obama sure has a weird way of showing it. Set aside the failure to show proposed legislation on C-SPAN as was promised, forget bypassing the White House visitor's log so the public has no idea who he's meeting with, just ignore him sealing his records (along with his wife's), and disregard the fact that he sat on his birth certificate until Donald Trump rattled his cage - you don't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, do you? Okay, we know he lies and we know he hides things but he has really outdone himself with this bin Laden stuff. They can't even get the story straight about the actual circumstances of the mission and to top it off they throw the evidence overboard. What the hell? The dog ate your homework?

Supposedly they gave bin Laden a nice Sharia-approved sendoff so as not to offend Muslims. I guess they figure that will make up for shooting an unarmed old man in the face in front of his family instead of capturing him - yeah, that should forestall any potential indignation from his followers. We are supposed to believe that some obscure pastor burning the Koran would set off global mayhem but sending Osama to sleep with the fishes would not be a problem. They might have said all the right words over the body, but it's a little hard to keep your head pointed toward Mecca when you are the guest of honor at an all-you-can-eat shark buffet.

None of this is making any sense, and it doesn't help Obama's credibility when we see him rushing to make political hay of this by pushing his own role to the forefront - he is certainly not one to miss an opportunity to turn a situation to his personal advantage, as he showed with his despicable politicization of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. His speech on Osama's death seemed a bit schizophrenic - he started out talking about 9-11 and actually acknowledged the work of military and counter-terrorism professionals, but about halfway through he reverted to campaign mode and it was all about Obama patting himself on the back for a job well done. Mr. Tough Guy. Mr. Macho Man. A war-mongering, ass-kicking ring-tailed son-of-a-gun! Hey, what happened to Mr. Nobel Peace Prize? Who cares, he's Winning!!!! Geez, this guy can't make up his mind if he's Charlie Sheen or George Bush (I'm leaning toward Charlie).

He even used the word "terrorist" - I thought that was verboten, but maybe he's trying to regain the support of people who increasingly see him as out of touch on the terrorism issue. It also seemed strange that he mentioned God three times at the end of his speech - what's up with that? Now he's a God fan? He seems to think guns are just dandy now, too. Oh noooo - he's turning into a bitter clinger! What's next, buying a truck and joining the Tea Party? After all, he just finished praising God, guns and the American Way. Nah, much as I would like to see Reid and Pelosi commit hara-kiri, that would be just too good to be true.

The inconvenient truth for the president is that because of his concealment of records and obfuscation of issues, more and more people are becoming willing to publicly question what he says. Even if it means they will be called nasty names by the slobbering sycophants in the mainstream media, there are now "deathers" joining with the "birthers". Like the boy who cried wolf, Obama is no longer believed. Allowing the birth certificate issue to simmer for so long has led to a situation where the authenticity of the document is questioned largely because he only produced it under duress. Now there are those who think Osama bin Laden wasn't even killed, they got the wrong guy, or even that he died years ago and this was just staged to give Obama a boost in the polls. Theories abound and there is no way of proving anything because of this literal reverse version of habeas corpus (you shall NOT have the body!). So there is no body and apparently now there will be no pictures either. The reasons for withholding them them are shaping up to be pretty feeble so far. It's too gross? Give me a break, there's all kinds of gory crap on the internet. It would inflame the anger of his followers? Oh puh-leeze, if shooting their hero in the head and deep-sixing the body isn't enough to piss them off, I'm pretty sure a picture isn't going to make any difference. They will make a martyr of him? News flash: already happened. So what are people to do? Trust but verify? Well, the trust thing has pretty much gone out the window and now the verification is pretty much impossible, so we will be asked to believe on the strength of some piece of paper with DNA test results on it. Damn, back to that trust thingy again.

Well, the walking photo-op is off to Ground Zero now to grandstand and drum up support for the next election - that should hold him over for a while, at least until the ribbon-cutting ceremonies at the Victory Mosque. Bush and Clinton were smart enough to decline the offer to appear there with him - Obama has really stepped in it this time and I'm guessing they don't want any of that crap on their shoes. Recasting himself as Dirty Harry will only serve to piss off the Kumbaya crowd that swept him into office, and his commie-lite policies have already pissed off the rational folks. In his desperation to be all things to all people, he ends up being nothing and pleasing no one. Meanwhile Native American groups are offended because the code name used in the bin Laden mission was revealed to be "Geronimo". Maybe he can go give an apology speech about that - I mean, you gotta have priorities, right?

FREE SPEECH DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE - PSYCHOS KILL PEOPLE

The top story in yesterday's news was the horrific shooting spree by the obviously unhinged 22-year old Jared Loughner, which left over a dozen people wounded and six dead, including a federal judge and a 9 year old girl. It was shocking, but what shocked me even more was the response of the lunatic left in Canada as well as the U.S. - leaping to blame "right wing rhetoric", the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, and immediately calling for restrictions on speech. It is disgusting enough to use this tragedy to advance a political agenda, but to try to portray this psycho as being motivated by listening to the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh is beyond ridiculous. I doubt this person had ever listened to either of them, especially Glenn whose main message is non-violent resistance. The action of one deranged individual is now being used to justify speech control by opportunistic vultures who will jump on anything to stifle dissent.

This guy was not affiliated with any political party. According to papers found in his home, he had held a grudge against Congresswoman Giffords ever since 2007 (before the rise of the Tea Party) when he had asked her a question and didn't like the answer she gave him. He is being portrayed as a Tea Party sympathizer but he is a fan of flag-burning, drug use and heavy metal music. One of his favorite books is the Communist Manifesto. He is also an atheist who does not like the Constitution. If he is a Tea Party member, he is a piss-poor excuse for one since he pretty much embraces everything they stand against.

The leftists are acting like she was targeted because she was a Democrat, but Ms. Giffords was about as conservative a Democrat as you're ever likely to meet - in fact, she started out as a Republican. She criticized Obama for suing Arizona over its immigration law. She voted against auto bailouts. She was against gun control and had recently voted against Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, prompting a bizarre diatribe from the Daily Kos titled "My congresswoman voted against Nancy Pelosi and is now dead to me". Of course they scrubbed that now, but many bloggers had the foresight to save it - fortunately you can't ever "unwrite" the Internet so it can still be viewed. Ms. Giffords track record hardly makes her the ideal target for a crazed right-wing extremist.

Much is being made of Palin's website map showing "crosshairs" on political "targets". Are we to believe that any normal person would take this literally? The Democratic Leadership Committee had the exact same map on their website in the past, only with bullseyes instead of crosshairs and the caption "behind enemy lines". If some lunatic had attacked one of the targeted people with a crossbow, would we blame the Democrats because they showed bullseye targets? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also had a map on their website featuring "targeted Republicans". How is Sarah Palin responsible for a nutbar's response to a political strategy used by both sides? There is no evidence whatsoever that he was even aware of her views or visited her website - this is just another pathetic attempt by the left to discredit someone they are afraid of.

The American left have lost the support of the people and they know it. The voters are fighting back as the new congress prepares to initiate repeal proceedings against the unpopular health-care legislation. There is opposition to politically-driven environmental regulations and to the government extending its tentacles into the Internet. People are even seeing such personal freedoms as food choices being limited by government and they want no part of it. The statists know the only way they will have the remotest chance of getting their agenda back on track is to silence dissent and shut down opposition - this is why they are targeting the loudest voices who point out what they are doing. Fair political comment is now labeled "vitriol", "inflammatory rhetoric" or "hatemongering". Unless a leftist is doing it, in which case it's no big deal. It's okay for Obama to talk about taking a gun to a knife fight, to call Republicans the "enemy" and to say he is going to kick ass while Salazar talks about keeping boots on people's necks. Chris Matthews can fantasize on air about how he would like to see Rush Limbaugh get murdered. Heck it's even okay to make a movie about assassinating George Bush. Apparently that's acceptable.

This is the last desperate gasp of the left as they see their prize slipping away. How many times have we seen the MSM go yapping in full cry after some "right-wing extremist", only to find out later that he was a committed leftist, a jihadist, or just your apolitical garden-variety nutcase? Or, as in the case of the Discovery Channel gunman, a rabid eco-loon? When these inconvenient facts surface, the silence from the media is deafening - as it was when no swine flu pandemic emerged after months of manufactured hysteria from the news outlets. Now there is some idiot sheriff in Arizona saying this is Rush Limbaugh's fault for "angering people against the government". How so? By telling them the truth? Should no one express a political opinion for fear of setting off a sociopath? Nice try.

The shooting of Ms. Giffords is being shamelessly pimped by the leftists in the cause of suppressing free speech. They keep blathering on about "toning down the rhetoric" and "polite discourse" while they themselves have spent every hour since the incident blaming the right and ginning up animosity toward conservatives in general and conservative media in particular. They are a shining example of what they profess to oppose. Meanwhile less is said about the victims who actually died, perhaps because there is no political mileage to be had by mentioning them. They are: John Roll (federal judge - 63 years old), Gabe Zimmerman (30), Dorwin Stoddard (76), Phyllis Schneck (79), Dorothy Morris (76) and, saddest of all, Christina Green (9). All in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing more. Taking away people's freedom to criticize government would not have saved them, nor would it stop future random acts of violence by unstable individuals with unfathomable motives. For all we know, he got his inspiration from "kill the ho" lyrics in some stupid rap song. This person was driven by his own demons, not by Rush Limbaugh's political commentary, and, despite the bests efforts of the leftist media to play connect-the-dots with Sarah Palin, she did not pull the trigger.

TORONTO REGAINS SANITY - ELECTS ROB FORD

I think I really started despising Toronto last year when I read that they were trying to make green roofs MANDATORY on government buildings. The idiots in charge spent 21 million taxpayer dollars to "green" city hall, just to suck up to special interest groups and of course the planners and developers who are making a fortune on the sustainability scam.

Yes, these bozos actually pretend that all this stuff will affect the climate and there is no shortage of ignorant people who believe them, thus enabling them to sign on for "sustainable" energy which costs 20-25% more than regular electricity. What's even stupider is that this green energy is put on the grid, but no one knows if the energy they personally use actually comes from a "green" source, since it's not handled separately. Only a delusional greenie would pay money for a product they may or may not be getting, but then again they buy carbon credits, don't they?

Unfortunately, George Smitherman (remember the guy who mismanaged all that public money hiring those e-health consultants that didn't produce anything?) decided that EVERYBODY should contribute when he, as Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, brought in Ontario's green energy act in 2009, which made everyone pay more by forcing power-purchasing authorities to "grant priority and obligatory purchase of power from green energy projects". When the government is mandating the purchase of certain products which result in unnecessary price increases for the homeowner, it is not about the environment or even about ideology anymore - it is about corporations, government agencies and unions running the show (and all the palm-greasing that entails) with the peasants footing the bill. The useful idiot footsoldiers of the environmentalist movement haven't figured this out, as they clamor for bird-killing wind turbines (which require power backup from other sources), restrictions on businesses and a surge in the war on cars.

Sensing some easy pickings, Mr. Smitherman decided to withdraw from the provincial cabinet and run for mayor of Toronto. Of course he would be the perfect fit: an eco-nut, a proven big spender, and gay to boot - resumes don't get much better than that in lefty-land. So, unless he had to run against a one-legged lesbian vegetarian visible minority candidate who spent her spare time organizing walkathons for homeless street mimes displaced by global warming, he pretty well had it in the bag, Or so he thought.

But a funny thing happened in Toronto. Enter Rob Ford, the epitome of political incorrectitude (yeah, I think I made that word up - if it isn't a word yet, it should be). A local councilor for ten years, he has made statements that have the lefties choking on their lattes. He is not a fan of big government. He doesn't give a crap about global warming or "going green". Running on the slogan "Stop the Gravy Train", his main platform is cutting government waste and ending the catering to special interest groups.

He wants to cut council from 44 to 22, slash their expense accounts and remove their perks like golf passes and free parking outside of working hours. Of course, this pisses off the council members. He wants to stop the war on cars and get rid of the vehicle registration fee. This pisses off the car-haters. He is against bike lanes on the arterial roads, which really pisses off the cyclists who want bike lanes everywhere. He wants to contract out services like waste disposal, which really pisses off the unions. He doesn't think the government should tell people what to eat or how to live. This pisses off the Nannies. He is fat, outspoken and apparently pisses everyone off. So he couldn't possibly get elected in a left-wing ultra-progressive city like Toronto, could he?

Just to make sure, other candidates dropped out of the race in an attempt to throw voter support behind Smitherman. Eventually only Smitherman and Ford were the real contenders, with one other candidate so far behind he didn't matter. The media kept reassuring everyone that the race was too close to call, but I thought it was odd that no matter what any of the articles said, the comments were 98% pro-Ford. I don't have to tell you how much I was rooting for this guy - a NORMAL person, in Toronto of all places. Well, I didn't have to wait long to find out: less than ten minutes after the polls closed, the news outlets were declaring him a winner. He won in a landslide and the media were left scratching their heads over how their polls could have been so wrong.

One theory is that people thought voting for Ford was socially unacceptable, so they didn't want to admit who they favored. This is really sad, but today a lot of people keep their opinions to themselves for fear of being politically incorrect - it's time to change that or we are really going to go down the tubes. Maybe people voted for Ford rather than have someone with a track record like Smitherman's (understandable), but I think it was more than that. I think people are waking up to the problems with big government, with the unconscionable waste of money on programs the public doesn't want or need, and the accompanying financial hardship of keeping up with the tax burden associated with out-of-control spending.

Now that just about everyone has access to the internet, people can see what is being done with their money, and they are not happy about it. The election of Rob Ford against all odds is the first crack in the dam, we are going to see a huge change in what has been business as usual for so long. I just wish we could clone him and bring him here to run the RD. God knows we could use him.

HELPFUL HUSBAND TIPS

My goodness, it's been forever since I last blogged - I've been busy annoying the greenolas in the local paper and just haven't had the time to put together a decent blog. I still don't so I'm going to post a funny thing the old man just unearthed. I wrote it for him a few years back after recovering from a nasty bout of the flu, during which time my significant other was, shall we say, less than outstanding in his role as compassionate caregiver:

TAYLOR'S GUIDE TO SPOUSAL CAREGIVING

1) Under no circumstances admit that the sick person is actually sick. Pretend that they are faking it to get out of their miserable existence of slaving for you.

2) Do not do any of the routine chores, as this could cause the sick person to become spoiled and expect you to do so at some future date, in the event that they recover.

3) Absolutely do not look after pets or livestock because you know that no matter how sick the patient is, she will get up off her deathbed to do this. There is no reason for you to miss "Xena, Warrior Maiden" on this account.

4) If desperate, you may prepare your own meal: however, do not even consider making tea or taking in a glass of water to your ailing spouse, you are enough of a hero for making your own food so she does not have to get up and do it. The ungrateful old bag should appreciate this heroic effort on your part.

5) Let the dishes and laundry pile up, this gives the little woman something to do between coughing fits.

6) Complain loudly about her coughing - it isn't polite to keep you awake just because she can't breathe. Call her rude names like "behemoth" and "narwhal", and mock her with animal imitations.

7) Demand sex - the sick person couldn't possibly feel any worse.

Yep, that was a few years ago, but it still makes me laugh.

RAT PATROL

Looking for the perfect gift for that enviro-weenie in your life? Everybody knows one - not necessarily an environmental activist, maybe just someone with no life who enjoys ratting out their fellow man at every opportunity. Well, look no further - the eco-snoop is here: a phone app that enables you to post photos of environmental transgressions directly to a website (frequented by other losers with no lives) where you can all obsess about the evil cleaning lady leaving the lights on in the closet in some office building.

If you type in eco-snoop on YouTube, you'll get to watch an enlightening video featuring some smarmy skank with a bad makeup job telling you how to bust eco-crime in your community. Lovely. What kind of a lame-brained waste of skin would spend their time patrolling their neighborhood on a Friday night, looking for dripping taps and redundant porch lights? Hmm, I'm guessing someone with the self-esteem of a cabbage and no date.

How insane is this? How did we as a society get so pathetic that the only way some people have left to feel valid is by trying to give themselves some sort of perceived authority as enviro-enforcers? I can only imagine the interesting scenarios that would ensue if people were to actually follow the advice given on the video. Just take the photo into the offending business, Miss Skankleton suggests, they are probably not even aware of the problem and will be only too happy to fix it. Yes, I'm sure the manager would be just thrilled to be interrupted at work by some smelly permanently-unemployed self-righteous planet-saver explaining to him how he could run his business more efficiently. In fact, he would probably be so grateful for the input that he'd open a free can of whup-ass and provide a handy styrofoam container to take their teeth home in. Good God - the unmitigated GALL of it!

I shouldn't be surprised - this trend has been gaining popularity, especially with the younger set. Kids have been getting indoctrinated right and left (mostly left) to nag, whine, pester and rat on behalf of the eco-freaks. Anthony Watts, on his most excellent website wattsupwiththat.com, has an article (2008/07/27) about Climate Cops - a club for kids who have had the misfortune of being born (or exposed) to misguided environmental nitwits. He shows excerpts from an ad in a British newspaper which exhorts children to not only investigate their own families for "climate crimes", writing reports and keeping files on "cases", but also to spy on the homes of relatives and school friends. They are instructed to check back on cases periodically to make sure no one slips back into their wasteful ways. The very idea of some snot-nosed brat from down the street telling me to stop idling my car would be laughable if it weren't for the chilling similarity to the campaign mounted by a certain deranged little fellow with a funny moustache in order to transfer children's allegiance from their parents to the state.

I wish they'd leave the kids alone, a five-year-old should not have to worry about his carbon footprint or that Santa may not get to his house because humans are causing global warming and melting the North Pole. This was the theme of a kid's Christmas video propaganda series on the popular Build-A-Bear website, until backlash from outraged parents forced them to remove the video and issue an apology. Kids today are constantly bombarded with lies about dying animals and our imminent destruction in the fiery CO2-induced hell caused by their parent's addiction to nasty things like driving them to soccer practice. Talk about growing up with a guilt trip, as if kids don't despise us enough when they become teenagers - why give them any reason to start sooner? This undermining of parental authority is one of the most disturbing aspects of the green movement, along with the promotion of products like the rat-a-phone which encourages people to go around tattling on their neighbors and local businesses.

I guess there's a whole crew of modern-day Barney Fifes out there now, with their imaginary badges and no bullets, keeping an electronic eye on the rest of us and feeling like heros. Adolf would be proud.

PANTS ON FIRE

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Vindication!!! Schadenfreude!!! Good old-fashioned outright absolute GLOATING!!! Yes! It has finally happened - Climategate - and I'm doing the happy dance.

When the story broke a few days ago it just seemed too good to be true, but now it has been confirmed and it's the mother of all Christmas presents for the climate realists. Information has been released from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the U.K. outlining the nefarious activities of those in the climate lying/carbon persecution/green fraud business. A file containing over a thousand e-mails and documents has been obtained by persons unknown and posted on the internet. Hackers are being widely credited for this, but many people believe it is the work of an insider who was just fed up with the corruption, which makes more sense to me. However, blaming "hackers" and focusing on the criminality of leaking the information allows the perpetrators to attempt to gain the moral high ground in the press. What a laugh - if it was an environmentalist busting Exxon for the same kind of shenanigans, the media would be all over it praising the whistleblower as the savior of humanity.

But amazingly enough this development is actually getting some media attention, in some cases even acknowledging the wrongdoing of the climate fraudsters and supporting an investigation into it. I should hope so, since the incriminating e-mails include references to deleting files in order to thwart freedom of information requests, preventing peer-review and publication of papers which do not support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and fudging data to "hide the decline" in temperatures. This is pretty nasty stuff and it will not be possible to sweep it under the rug like in the good old days when we depended on the mainstream media to tell us what our opinions should be.

When the actual observations don't fit their predictions, they blame the data. Mother Nature not co-operating? Temperatures embarrassingly dropping? Well then: "the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate". Yes, that must be it. It couldn't possibly be a flawed computer model - it's supposed to be WARMING, goddammit!!! The X-box says so!!!!

It's about to get hotter for the alarmists all right, but not in quite the way they had envisioned. Senator Inhofe in the U.S., a longtime opponent of the global warming scam, has stated that he will be calling for an investigation into the matter and I will certainly be looking forward to seeing that condescending dimwit Barbara Boxer try to squirm her way out of this one (I've never forgiven her for being so appallingly rude to Michael Crichton). There's a little something for your buddy BHO to take to Copenhagen, missy.

Just going to algorelied.com or climatedepot.com gives links to hundreds of articles documenting and discussing the perversion of science that has been allowed to take place in the name of cheating taxpayers out of billions of dollars and saddling us with insane carbon-related regulations. Of course, the alarmist community will have no problem throwing these guys under the bus; they will declare it outrageous, call for resignations, play the "one bad apple" card, and then go right back to lying through their teeth about exactly the same things.

Even the Goracle is not leaping to their defense - I went to his lame website (it's a necessary evil, like cleaning out the kitty-litter box, but you just have to hold your nose and do it) and he is keeping his piehole firmly shut on this one. I didn't even know he was capable of that, but who would have expected otherwise - there is no honor among thieves.

These indications of foul play are not surprising to climate realists - Chris Horner cites many examples of exactly this type of thing in his excellent book Red Hot Lies, and the climate blogosphere is rife with articles debunking such fabrications as Mann's famous hockey stick, the hurricane connection and ridiculous predictions of catastrophic sea level rise. Lawrence Solomon's book The Deniers also has some good information, but most people just aren't interested enough in the subject to read up on it. They should, because if this deception is allowed to continue we are going to find ourselves in a different world, with all aspects of our lives micromanaged under the guise of saving the planet from evil CO2 emissions. Addressing this latest development in the mainstream media will lead people into becoming more informed, even if only out of curiosity. Nothing like a good scandal to get people's attention, and the more they learn about this issue, the less likely they will be to fall for "green" solutions to nonexistent problems, or to fork over money for dubious "research".

Cost of financing the global warming scam: Billions

Cost to all of us if cap and trade passes: Unlimited

Catching climate liars with their pants down: PRICELESS!!!

Schadenfreude. Sometimes you just can't say it in English.

RISKY BUSINESS

CBS news has just released information from a months-long investigation of the swine flu "emergency" (at CBSnews.com - "Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?"). In July, the CDC stopped testing/counting individual swine flu cases, supposedly because there would be no point in keeping records since it's a PANDEMIC and all, so we can just go ahead and assume that it's the swine flu, right? Wow, that is really scientific. We can just ASSUME!!! Who knew??? I doubt they could get away with this crap if they were testing dog food at the Purina factory. They'd probably expect, well, actual DATA or something. So I guess you could stop tracking it in order to throw the resources into fighting it (their excuse). OR maybe you could stop tracking it so the public wouldn't realize that the cases are far less than we have been led to think, and we are once again being hoodwinked by the big pharmaceutical companies and their bumboys in the government. Personally, I'm going with answer B.

Reports are coming out based on "estimates" and "reported cases", with the media running headlines like "X number of people infected with H1N1". Not lab-confirmed. Just assumed to be infected because they had symptoms which happened to be common to many other ailments. When my grandson recently stayed home with a cold, the school asked what his symptoms were. Now school secretaries are diagnosing swine flu? Do kids with the right symptoms get written up as "probable" H1N1 so they can prop up their statistics? This kind of shoddy data-collection wouldn't be tolerated in any private business, but it appears to be good enough for the government-run health care system that people pay for and entrust their lives to.

Investigative reporters had to resort to the Freedom of Information act in order to force the CDC to release their statistics, which showed that the number of CONFIRMED cases was a very small fraction of the "guesstimates" that were making scary headlines worldwide. Look around, for God's sake - it's not happening!!!

And yet this weekend Mr. Obama declared this supposed pandemic a national emergency so they could bypass federal requirements and get this vaccine into as many people as possible. Now if this man is so divorced from reality that he considers this a reasonable measure, he is obviously not fit to run a lemonade stand, much less an entire country. If he does understand the situation and is knowingly going ahead with this deception, then he is a criminal.

Of course we are getting our share of hysteria in Canada, too. Just look at any of the mainstream media to see pictures of the sheeple lined up to get their magic bullet. Guaranteed to save you from the big bad piggy flu. Really? Flu vaccines sure haven't come with a money-back guarantee so far. The ability of the flu virus to mutate has become a major selling point for the fear-mongers, but that inherent quality is exactly what makes flu vaccines such a crap shoot in the first place. Not much point getting a vaccine for the wrong strain of flu, is there?

Interest in getting flu shots is waning, and Big Pharma is resorting to ever more desperate measures to convince us that we need them. For the first time in history we have almost unlimited access to information, and the more informed people become the less likely they are to be suckered into undergoing an invasive procedure which has been insufficiently tested and is potentially damaging. So the real emergency would seem to be more economic than medical - millions of dollars spent and resources wasted on what is starting to look more and more like a manufactured crisis. Not to mention the fallout yet to be seen from the side effects of the shot. The vaccine is being recommended for pregnant women, yet even the vaccine manufacturers admit that the effect on the fetus is unknown. That's a pretty big gamble to take with the life of your unborn child.

Do you take a chance with unknown side effects or take the chance of contracting this milder version of the standard flu? Since we appear to have been reduced to getting our medical advice from the media, maybe it's time to to get some advice from someone who is just as qualified to advise us as the news reporters are. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you?

HAIR

I've been a little preoccupied lately, and haven't been keeping up with the mundane things in life such as coloring the old grey hair. I never gave it much thought until about ten years ago, when my husband started making "old grey mare" and "grey as a mule" remarks (he's nothing if not romantic). I originally wrote it off as jealousy, since at the time his hair was rapidly losing the battle for territory with his forehead. Hah, I thought, just sour grapes. But then my brother started nagging me too. He's a real diplomat: "My God you're grey!" - "Your hair looks like crap." -"Why don't you dye that rats-nest?". You know, subtle hints designed to spare my feelings.

Now, he's pushing fifty and still sports a luxuriant mullet that would turn Joe Dirt green with envy, but I was still skeptical until the day I got reading glasses and a decent mirror light. YIKES! Where did that grey-haired old bat come from? Okay, okay, I get it. Off to Wal-Mart for a box of instant youth.

The results were pretty good, so for years I've been dyeing my hair a basic boring brown. Unexciting, but better than grey. But lately I've been putting it off. That little strip down the center of my scalp has been widening steadily, eventually giving rise to the usual Pepe le Pew comparisons from my eagle-eyed family members. I'm not sure why, but this time I decided to do something a little different (here's where the warning bells should have gone off) and change the color ever-so-slightly. Maybe put a little red in it - after all, I had auburn highlights in the prehistoric days of my youth - it would probably suit me. So I bought the same brand, same basic color, just with a little red thrown in. Or so I thought.

Well, I thought wrong. That box did not contain "copper-red brown" like it said on the label. Oh no, it was more like "Highly Unlikely Red", "Incredible Redible", or "What The Hell Were You Thinking?". Or, as my comedically-inclined daughter suggested: "Prosti-tutti-frutti". I think not - with this look, I couldn't give it away in front of the Courtenay House at twenty-five cents a pop. I mean, it's really hideous. Calling it God-awful would be a compliment.

You can't possibly imagine my feelings when I viewed the final result (unless you have had the same unfortunate experience, in which case you have my sincere condolences). The first glance at my flaming head brought to mind visions of Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider. It looked like someone had doused my head with red paint then set it on fire. As I stared into the mirror, I found myself gripped by the overwhelming urge to go out and slap cuffs on the Hamburgler. Oh man, this one is going to be hard to live down.

But I'm stuck with it now, for redder or for worse, for at least a month - I'll just have to wash it lots, wait for it to wear off, and maybe start wearing a hat. Or just stay home and pretend I've gone on vacation. I've already resigned myself to looking like some kind of geriatric streetwalker, but the worst is yet to come. My brother hasn't seen it yet. I'm already steeling myself for the Olympic Torch jokes.

THE C-WORD

Euphemisms have an amazing effect on people. They influence our perceptions, shape our values and can even control our behavior. Take "going green" for instance: sounds nice - kinda harmless - brings to mind those idyllic leafy forest scenes in the commercials where willowy girls in long white dresses swan around chasing butterflies and being thrilled to be having their period. Now who wouldn't like that? But if "going green" was referred to by the more accurate term "lifestyle regulation", I'm thinking not so many people would be interested in signing up.

"Sustainability" is the new word-of-the-week, since people are wising up to the green scam. The green profiteers keep having to change their buzzword as the new wears off and people become aware of the actual meanings. When global warming became downright embarrassing as the earth continued to cool in the face of rising CO2 levels, it became "climate change". Can't argue with that, can you? It's like that old detective show where the "names were changed to protect the innocent". Except they're doing it to protect the guilty.

This sustainability thing needs to be recognized for what it really is, and I'm going to have to use the c-word here. I don't like to use it because people tend to stop listening when I do, but here it is anyway: communism (what the hell were YOU thinking?).

If you look at the official "sustainability strategy" for our valley, it's not hard to see where it's going - rationing of energy and water, control of the business and housing sector, land appropriation, indoctrination of the children, and my personal favorite: "ecosystem protection on 100% of public and private land". Meaning basically that if you have any "threatened" plants or a body of water bigger than a mud puddle on your property... you, my friend, are screwed. It pretty much hands over the keys to your kingdom to the government, in the name of environmental protection. Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that a whole lot of things are going to become "eco-sensitive" in the not-so-distant future?

And community gardens. Oh Lord, please save me from community gardens. I am not a friggin ANT, I'll pick my own gardening buddies, thanks. No one should be forced to associate with idiots because the only access to land will be as part of the collective. The community garden thing is very trendy in theory, but in practice, well, not quite a bed of roses - I know perfectly rational people who thought it was a great idea until they actually tried it. I can think of few things more nauseating than the thought of sharing my favorite pastime, the thing that gives me time alone, renews my soul and keeps me sane (well, as sane as I get) with a bunch of politically correct, Prius-driving, sprout-sucking, doughnut-hating numbskulls from Al Gore's Holy Church of Climate Change. Which, from my friend's experience, are the type of people who tend to participate in these things.

Yes, I've heard the stories and I can just see it now: Mr. A. is pissed off because Mr. B. isn't using the approved brand of fertilizer, and omigod it might leak onto HIS plants. Mr. B. is pissed off because Mrs. C. isn't pulling her weeds fast enough and omigod they might invade his patch. Mrs. C. is pissed off because people should be planting according to an approved color scheme so everything looks harmonious. Mr. D. just wants to kick Mrs. C. where the sun don't shine because she is an insufferable self-righteous bitch. And Mr. X wants the whole area declared a turnip-free zone because he is allergic to rutabagas. Yes, I can just see myself there. I think I would be using the c-word a lot.

Socialism. It just doesn't work. It is totally antithetical to human nature. Yes, we are herd animals but we are not hive animals. In a hive, every member is hardwired for his job, he is content with his role and does not aspire to anything else as long as basic needs are met. In a herd, there is an ongoing struggle to better one's position, to always be looking to improve the situation. Even starfish fight over territory (very cool on speeded-up film). Are we expected to be more docile than an invertebrate?

This is not to say we aren't altruistic. We care about each other and try to help others, this is what has enabled us to survive. But socialism asks us to give the illusion of doing this at the expense of individual advancement. Are we helping people by creating a system that rewards mediocrity and conformism? That penalizes success? That allows the indolent to parasitize the industrious? There is a world of difference between helping those genuinely in need and giving a free ride to those who won't pull their weight.

With communism, the "people" who supposedly control the government find themselves clutching a handful of nothing. Everything is "public" property, but it can only be accessed under the conditions imposed by that governing body. The bigger the government gets, the more corruption and profiteering occurs, taxation escalates and personal freedom becomes curtailed in the cause of the "greater good", which in these times comes in the guise of saving the planet. There are an awful lot of people getting rich off rescuing poor old Mother Earth.

It's happening right now. The U.N., European Union, our friend Mr. Obama and the global governance crew are hard at it working toward the New World Order. (This is where you start thinking to yourself "I knew it - Mrs. Pelican is a certified conspiracy-theorist nutbar"). Well OK, I do listen to Glenn Beck. But you can't really call it a conspiracy when they're so obvious about it. It's not like they're hiding it or anything. In fact, we're expected to embrace it. To think globally. To be good global citizens.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in communities all over our nation "sustainability" plans are being implemented. Based on "global sustainability targets". Using the bogeymen of "climate change", "our deteriorating planet" and even overpopulation. All a complete crock of crap, but it makes a mighty fine stick to beat the unsuspecting sheep with. While I appreciate people who are trying to keep our planet clean and improve living standards world-wide, I take exception to those who use lies to justify things like carbon taxes, increased energy costs, erosion of property rights and forced green retrofitting of our homes before we can sell them. They call themselves environmentalists. I think it's time we started calling them by their real name. I think the c-word would be appropriate.

MARMOT MADNESS

Marmots. No wonder Mother Nature's phasing them out. They look like a cross between a squirrel and a gopher, only apparently they are fatter and more useless, spending most of their time lounging around on rocks and only bothering to get up and look for food when they get really really really hungry. Hmm.... must be some marmot genes somewhere in our family background, sounds a lot like my brother.

Anyway, what's the big obsession with saving these guys? What's the likelihood of the average person ever running into one? Don't get me wrong, I personally have nothing against them. In fact, I've never even seen a real live specimen but I'm pretty sure if I did, I'd like it. Preferably on a plate. Fried, stewed, breaded, broiled . . . perhaps roasted with some nice mashed potatoes and gravy. Mmmm . . . marmot. I bet they're even tastier than spotted owl. First Nations people used to hunt them for food so they must be at least palatable, if not downright delicious.

As you can see I'm definitely not anti-marmot, at least from a culinary standpoint. But I do object to subsidizing the bucktoothed little bastards. Not content with throwing money around like drunken sailors on shore leave to finance stupid crap like the Olympic Games and carbon persecution, last year our government forked over $233,000 in rodent welfare payments.

This isn't just housing subsidy, maternity benefits, free food and day care for the kiddies, this is also relocation funds, an expensive clothing allowance (radio transmitters don't come from WalMart) and their very own personal militia to ward off pesky predators. And here's where it gets ugly.

The marmot advocates, exhibiting typical eco-loon tunnel vision, don't have a problem interfering with other forms of wildlife in order to pursue their own goals. It's fine for them to put up nets and fences, play tape recordings of annoying noises and in general disturb every living thing in the area because they happen to think marmots are cool. It's okay to capture, traumatize, and tranquilize cougars and make them wear radio collars so their dedicated crews of marmot shepherds ( I'm not kidding, this is what they call themselves) can be alerted and put the run on those bad nasty kitties when they come looking for lunch. They don't even mind using a cougar hound to chase and harass the poor cats because marmot-saving is very ecologically correct.

But the eagles had it worse. In Green Mountain near Nanaimo in 2003, seven golden eagles felt the wrath of the marmot-lovers. In a misguided attempt to reduce marmot predation, employees of the provincial government killed these federally and internationally protected birds by baiting them with a deer carcass and then shooting them. How low can you go - you can bet the general public wasn't in on that one. Coincidentally, the guy in charge at the time just happened to be the chairman of the provincial marmot recovery team. Your tax dollars at work, killing eagles. Disgusting.

And is this kind of one-sided disregard for other species going to help the marmot? Not if Mother Nature decides that Vancouver Island marmots just aren't working out. New species are constantly being discovered and other ones are disappearing - it's just how nature works, get over it. If we saved every type of life form on earth there wouldn't be any room for the new ones. Complicated schemes involving human interference won't save a species that is slated for the cosmic dumpster any more than buying carbon credits will affect the temperature of the planet. In fact, well-meaning intervention by humans has historically only made things worse. If marmots aren't going to make it on their own, we won't change that by giving them life support until the funding runs out. If they are meant to survive they will.

I suspect we don't really know how many there are in the wild anyway. After all, they are reclusive creatures - they aren't going to show up and fill out census forms. They also tend to pop up in unexpected places: earlier this year, a female showed up in a gravel pit in Port Alberni. Two days later a male was found in a backyard in Nanoose. In a display of mind-numbing stupidity, these poor things were trapped and relocated on Mount Hooper in hopes that they would mate. Good grief, did it not occur to anyone that these two might not find each other attractive? That one of them may have been the marmot version of a double-bagger? Or that they already had friends and family in the neighborhood and had no desire to be transported elsewhere? God Almighty, even glorified gophers can't escape from government interference in their lives these days.

If they disappeared completely, would anyone even notice that this creature they had never seen wasn't there anymore? I don't see anyone whining and crying about the demise of the dodo. This year the government has cut funds for the marmot program, to the great chagrin of the would-be marmot saviors. I guess the powers that be have realized that people who can't even get decent health care aren't exactly thrilled to waste what little money they have on a marmot dating service. How fitting that Mukmuk the marmot should be a mascot for the Olympic games - both represent our government's amazing ability to blow money on feel-good projects while our real priorities go unaddressed.

SELLING US DOWN THE RIVER

Well, thank God the horrendous heat wave seems to be over - I've managed to keep my garden alive by endless hand-watering, but my lawn is toast. Or at least toast-colored. But I'm getting used to it, I've had a brown summer lawn for a few years now because I actually believed the bullshit about us having a water shortage. And because having water meters forces you to comply whether you believe it or not.

Yes, having a green lawn nowadays identifies you as being an environmental criminal, even lower in the social order than a smoker, global warming skeptic, non-recycler, or (that lowest of the low) an employed white heterosexual non-handicapped male. But here's the interesting thing - the water shortage only seems to apply to local taxpaying residents, not to tourists or greedy developers. Apparently it's okay to drop the level of Comox Lake by AN ENTIRE FOOT to accommodate the all-important Kayak Festival, but if you're planning to top up the old Mr. Turtle, you'd better do it in the dead of night so your neighbors won't rat you to the Water Police.

This kayak event is estimated to attract about 200 tourists, bringing "economic benefits" to the valley. Big deal, so a few hotels, stores and restaurants making a couple of extra bucks justifies such a massive waste of this supposedly scarce resource? There certainly aren't any economic benefits for the average resident. Think about this: Comox Lake is 9 km long, with a surface area of 2116 ha and a depth of 120 meters. If we can afford to drop the whole thing by 30 cm just to provide for some out-of-towner's boating pleasure, how much of a water crisis do we actually have?

If the situation is so dire, why on earth is development being allowed in Union Bay that would add 12,000 more users (I'm guessing four to a home) onto the system? Union Bay currently gets its water from Langley Lake, bringing it all the way up to Spindrift where Royston can access it if necessary. At this time it could service about 2300 new connections according to their website, but in the future expects to be part of the Comox Valley water system. The original proposal was for about 1700 residential units, but somehow that has morphed into 3400, DOUBLE the original amount. How do they even get away with this crap? Let's see, maybe because the proposed new bylaws (made up when convenient to the current agenda) will include "density bonus" provisions, which means that if the developer will "donate" enough multi-family ratholes to cram the unwashed masses into, he will be "allowed" to build extra properties for private sale to people who want real houses. An interesting business transaction, to say the least. But we all know that developers are just bristling with altruism, all they want to do is provide affordable housing for the good of humanity, they really CARE about people. Of course, not quite enough to actually live in one of these slum crapshacks themselves. Oh no, they will be off saving the world somewhere else as soon as they have collected their enormous paycheck.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways. If we have enough water to accommodate another 12000 people, then quit with the restrictions and phony guilt trips. If we don't have enough even for ourselves, then obviously any new development should be completely out of the question. Why are we being sold two diametrically opposite scenarios? That can only mean we're being lied to one way or the other. And where do these new residents plan on working? Or going to school or getting medical treatment? Or parking, for that matter. Well, I guess that's all just part of the package, isn't it.

Most of us have settled here because we like the small-town feel. I'm always hearing the rah-rah about our lovely little valley, nestled in the wilderness, how lucky we are to live in such an unspoiled paradise, etc. Well, yes we are. But not for long. The profit-seeking of developers and the willingness of the Regional Board to sell us out is hurtling us headlong toward becoming another Vancouver. We're told it's a good thing because it will be "sustainable" and ever so eco-friendly. Unfortunately, sustainability is just a politically correct term for developers cramming the largest amount of people into the smallest area possible and then saddling them with insane amounts of green regulation. They get brownie points for this in the form of LEED certification, which sheeple think is great because they don't know what it is, but it's green, so it must be good. Baa.

Yes, tiny lots, multifamily housing and a bunch of shared greenspace. I guess if you enjoy the communal lifestyle, that's okay, but most people would rather have bigger lots and their very own greenspace and privacy - that's why we live here instead of the big city. So why are we letting the big city come to us? I'm just going to come right out and say it: I don't want more people here. I don't want more crime and more traffic congestion and more nagging about how we don't have enough resources. If we don't have enough, the solution is simple: QUIT ENCOURAGING NEW DEVELOPMENT!!! Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

It's like pulling teeth to get a decent hospital or even snow removal or road maintenance for the people who already live here, but let's just roll out the red carpet and invite a few more people over - that should improve the situation. It's becoming painfully obvious that our elected officials care more about constantly creating more income through new development than in maintaining and improving services to those of us who have been paying taxes here for years. They will be too busy rubbing their hands together at the thought of the expanded bureaucracy and all the money it entails to mourn the loss of a unique little town like Union Bay. They would do well to remember that the people who put them where they are can also remove them. I'll certainly be thinking about it every time I drive by the maintenance crews tending to all the annuals planted in the name of beautifying Courtenay for the tourists, while on my way home to NOT water my own.

FUN WITH FOSSILS

Today I thought I'd take a break from slaving in the garden and do something completely different, perhaps something relaxing and less physically demanding than shoveling and pushing a wheelbarrow around. With this in mind, I volunteered to go fossiling with my daughter the paleophile, envisioning a nice leisurely stroll on the beach with maybe a break for lunch at some seaside cafe. Ah, rest and relaxation, just what I need.

Unfortunately I overlooked the fact that, to a dedicated ammonite-hunter, fossiling is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Let me explain this: if you've ever worked on a chain gang, you've already enjoyed the equivalent of what passes for entertainment in the world of fossil collectors. Breaking rocks in the hot sun, to be exact. In fact, the poor slobs with the leg shackles actually have it a lot easier, because they get to crack rocks in the blazing heat WITHOUT also lugging along a giant bag of hammers, chisels, extra clothing, umpteen bottles of water and a variety of unhealthy snack items. Plus a ten-pound purse full of change (since the stupid slot machines stopped taking quarters, I'm just not motivated to clean it out anymore).

Yeah those prisoners had it pretty good, the old warden probably let them rest once in a while, but an enthusiastic fossiler will unmercifully flog you onward in search of the elusive Bostrychoceras or Eupachydiscus. "Oh, look - just over there" (looks to be about 2 kms away) "just past that enormous impenetrable wall of razor-sharp barnacle-encrusted boulders, my friend found the most AWESOME Nostoceras!" Oh, goody - I'm sure we too will find a dozen or so when we get there. Trudge trudge. Pant pant. Onward.

I learned a lot on this trip. Mainly that the reason fossils are still around after millions of years is that they're good at hiding. Oh yes, they're cagey little buggers all right. Hiding under seaweed, disguising themselves as oysters. Embedding themselves in rock formations and jumping out of the way when you try to remove them, causing you to hammer your thumb and invent a bunch of new swear words. No wonder no one's ever captured a live specimen.

Aside from discovering that it's entirely possible to whack yourself in the shin while aiming in the totally opposite direction, I learned that my tolerance for crawling around on hot rocks like a lizard is a lot higher than I thought. We spent five hours out there, which is about four and a half hours past my usual limit for sun exposure (I will know who to blame for those future wrinkles coming my way), but I actually had fun. I got to spend the day with my daughter, which doesn't happen nearly often enough, and I learned a whole pile of impressive new paleo words.

Our efforts did not go unrewarded, either - we didn't find a Nostoceras (not for lack of dragging Grandma through the tide pools), but we did come home with an assortment of fossils, most of which I got to keep. Luckily for me, a specimen has to be pretty unique to be worth adding to Paleogirl's collection, so I get them by default (although I'm pretty sure she would have beat me insensible with a rock hammer if I'd tried to make off with a Nostoceras).

So at the end of the day, here I am: dehydrated, sunburned, barnacle-scraped and exhausted, but by God, I've got a pretty fine Baculites sitting on my desk in front of me. Now how cool is that?

CHICKENSHIT WHITE BOYS

You've probably heard all about it by now - a trio of brain-dead punks with nothing better to do attacked a local landscaper outside McDonalds. The video has been on and off YouTube, but now that the media has picked it up, it's all over the place (google "racist attack Courtenay" and take your pick).

It seems these heros decided to harass this guy from their truck, yelling insults and threats as he walked past minding his own business. When he had the audacity to respond, they bailed out and surrounded him. What a pathetic display - it's apparent from the video that these losers were sharing one set of balls between the three of them. If any of them had tried it one-on-one, he would have been crying like a little girl and calling the man "sir" in about thirty seconds flat.

As it was, the victim was defending himself admirably until he had the bad luck to slip and fall, then they were all on him, kicking, punching and screaming obscenities. It reminded me of a Wild Kingdom episode with a pack of baboons or hyenas, except animals have the excuse of not knowing any better.

Now because the victim of this crime happened to be black, people are yelling racism. I don't think that's the case - he could just as easily have been gay, homeless, Asian or even a fat white kid - any excuse would have done for a bunch of little boys trying to (unsuccessfully) to prove their (nonexistent) manhood.

Some people are saying it's the victim's own fault for responding to their initial verbal assault. Really? You mean hardworking respectable citizens are supposed to just shut up and take crap when confronted by a bunch of lowlifes? Reinforce their appalling behavior by letting them get away with it? Turn the other cheek and all that? If he had ignored them and gone home and reported it to the police, what do you think would have happened? Yeah, exactly. Nothing. They just would have had more confidence built up for the next time because there were no consequences.

I'm glad he had enough self-respect to defend himself, and I'm surprised and disappointed that no bystanders intervened. Do we just let this stuff happen, no one say anything, just walk by and pretend we didn't see? Don't get involved? Are we that big-city yet?

Either way, it was a stupid move, boys. After pulling a stunt like this, it might not be prudent to leave the house alone for a while. Not because of some perceived threat of retaliation from the black community, but because of outrage on the part of anyone recognizing you from the video. How sad for you that cowardly performance was caught on tape for all the world to see. I'm not saying you 'll get beat up (very few people are as stupid as you), but it's going to be uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially for your poor parents. Did you even think about that when you were acting like such supreme jackasses? They must be really proud - I feel sorry for them. Now, thanks to the internet, you have managed to embarrass not only your parents and relatives, but your entire community. Way to go.

$USTAINABILITY $CAM

Greetings, Comrades! Good news! Our wise and benevolent local government has come up with glorious plans to save us from ourselves! For a mere $340,000.00, the CVRD has hired an out-of-town planning company to come in and tell us how to live. The Green Socialist Manifesto (oops, I mean draft 3 of the Comox Valley $ustainability $trategy) is 80 pages long and available online at the CVRD website. I would heartily recommend that you take a look at it, and while you're there it wouldn't hurt to take a gander at how much we pay the staff to sit around all day picking their noses and rejecting septic tank permits.

This $ustainability $trategy is just bristling with wonderful green ideas, like cramming us all into cheap multifamily housing in town (a developer's dream), taking cars away from 85% of us, and forcing us to use mass transit. Oh yes, I'm sure that I will enjoy sitting on the bus with the winos and crackheads who will be infesting these future ghettos, but the plans include lots of "greenspace" conveniently located so the criminals can mug me on my way home from the bus stop. After all, bad guys have to make a living too - equal employment opportunities and all that.

We are also going to reduce our carbon footprint in a big way. In fact, the CVRD is so dedicated to this that they're planning to send a couple of their henchmen (make that loyal employees) on a free trip to China to explain to the Chinese people how wonderfully the green agenda is working in the Valley. That should reduce those pesky CO2 emissions all right - if they're planning to walk, bike, or take the bus. Excuse me, but isn't this a bit redundant? I mean, it's CHINA, for God's sake - they already KNOW how to be communists!

They'd also like us to reduce our energy and water use by 50%. Yes, I can see it now: after a fulfilling day of attending sustainability workshops, volunteering for community projects and memorizing the quotations of Chairman Mao, I can pick up my ration of organic tofu, shove it into my recyclable bag knitted from armpit hairs and trudge home to my hovel in the inner city. Then I could enjoy a fun night of squatting around in the dark smelling my own feet - with 50% reduction in water use, it won't be long before we all smell so bad you won't be able to tell us from the environmentalists.

Maybe we should reduce our crapping by 50% too. That would be a great waste-management strategy. We could even do offsets - constipated folks could sell their crap credits to people with diarrhea. There you have it: Mrs. Pelican's Crap and Trade program. Think I could get a grant for that?

PS: Take a look at what the Fraser Institute has to say about "Smart Growth". It's not pretty.

AND NOW THE NEWS

Shout it from the rooftops! Third swine flu death in Canada! Same crap, different pile. Third person to die. All three had chronic preexisting conditions, this one had even been in the hospital "for some time" before his death. Yet the headline is CANADA REPORTS THIRD SWINE FLU DEATH. Some people just scan headlines so - mission accomplished - there will be people out there believing that the swine flu is lethal.

How about some honesty? How about SWINE FLU NOT KILLING HEALTHY PEOPLE IN CANADA? Why are they beating this thing to death? A sick man dies, and just because he happened to pick up the swine flu virus on his way out, we're supposed to believe that's what did him in. If he just happened to have athlete's foot too, did that kill him? Betcha if the fearmongers were promoting an athlete's foot pandemic, it would have been at least a "major contributing factor".

The World Health Organization is still trying to drum up business, saying the swine flu is going to get more severe and kill more people. Wow! More! At last count it has killed 115 people in 62 countries. Omigod, that's almost two people per country!!! Run for you lives!!! I wonder how many people world-wide died from athlete's foot complications?

So why the fuss? Let's see, could it be the billion dollars the U.S. is putting into "fighting" it? Or the 32 million Japan is planning to spend? How about Sanofi-Pasteur, Novartis, Baxter, or GlaxoSmithKline? Think they're going to make any money by selling flu shots? Drug companies did pretty good off the bird flu scare - in fact Roche still has three million packages of Tamiflu (an antiviral) stockpiled in anticipation (or hope) of some great pandemic. Heaven forbid that stuff should expire, there goes the gosh-darn profits. But if everyone can be sufficiently alarmed and convinced that we need to get vaccinated, I'm sure they can more than make up for any losses.

What I can't believe is all the media attention this is getting, considering the pitiful evidence they have to present. How do you make something like this into a big scary deal? Misleading headlines? Opinions obscuring facts? Guesswork? A whole pile of could, would, might, maybe, possibly? It worked for Al Gore, but you'd think maybe the media would grow a collective pair  and actually present facts without putting the alarmist spin on things and catering to the current groupthink. No wonder newspapers are going out of business.

THE DEER HUNTER

Wow, long time no blog. Finally, finally, FINALLY getting over the awful flu. Of course, I couldn't be lucky enough to get the cool trendy SWINE flu, where you get a few days of sniffles and your picture in the paper. Oh no, I get stuck with the cheap-ass, low-budget three-week long horkorama that is the ORDINARY flu. No fame. No glory. Just dirty looks from the cat when my coughing into the wee hours disturbs his beauty rest by dislodging him from my pillow. That's one nasty cough - I think my left lung is in a landfill somewhere along with 40 boxes of generic tissues. But I'm all better now.

Unfortunately, while I was occupied with trying to keep my lungs on the inside of my body, my garden woke up and realized winter was over. Everything immediately started growing like crazy (everything being weeds), which was the signal for the deer to come in and start eating the good stuff, like the apple tree.

This awoke the primal instinct in the old man (mighty hunter), who decided to show those effin deer who's the boss, once and for all. Well, he underwent several changes of persona during this little episode. First he was Elmer Fudd, with his trusty musket, vowing to get rid of not only the effin deer, but the wascally wabbits as well. Number of deer eliminated by this process: zero.

Deciding to scale back the technology a bit, he morphed into Hiawatha, stalking the wily forest-dwellers with his crossbow. Number of deer killed: zero, although several of the rabbits looked slightly nervous.

Being persistent, if not very accurate, he then took up the Dennis the Menace approach, and, armed with a bag of marbles from the dollar store, stood in the yard taking pot shots at them with a slingshot. The deer seemed to like this, as it gave them something to look at while they were finishing off the clematis.

When he was finally reduced to becoming Og the cave man and hurling rocks and invective at them, I realized that it might just be an opportune time to (once again) broach the (touchy) subject of finishing off that deer fence. Amazingly enough, he agreed. " Yes. Too hard kill effin deer. Og do fence now. Woman right". Ah, evolution.

CRYING WOLF (OR PIG)

God help us all, now it's the friggin swine flu. Again. People just aren't panicking enough about co2, climate change or terrorism, so how about a big fat nasty GLOBAL PANDEMIC? That oughta get the public's attention.

There's no shortage of photo-ops, what with people walking around like jackasses in their Michael Jackson masks, trying to avoid the seething pestilence emanating from their fellow human beings. Although a determined virus could probably get through one of those low-tech masks if it really wanted to. People would actually be better off wearing sunglasses, because (little-known fact) the virus is more likely to infect you through your eyes (nice moist surface, no natural barrier) than your nose or mouth. And you'd still get to look like Michael Jackson. Only not as creepy. 

The first figures I heard on the subject estimated almost 2000 cases in Mexico, with 150 suspected deaths. If that's not cause for alarm, I don't know what is (except maybe George's being closed when you're dying for a mushroom cheese deluxe). China and Russia were alarmed, and banned import of pork from Mexico and even some parts of the U.S.  I have no idea why - what self-respecting flu virus is going to hang around in a piece of dead pork? Egypt even ordered the slaughter of 300,000 pigs, even though they haven't had one case there.

The latest figures are far less scary: there have been no deaths outside Mexico with the exception of one child who had just arrived in the States from there, and most patients outside the country have only had mild symptoms. Of the original suspected deaths in Mexico, 58 were found to have died from other causes, 16 deaths are confirmed, and the rest are still being looked into. So this big scary flu epidemic is looking about par for the course as far as flu outbreaks go. In that case, why discourage flying to Mexico? Why ban their pork? Is someone pissed off at Mexico for some reason that I don't know about?

Not one to miss a spending opportunity, President Obama has asked Congress for 1.5 billion (yes, that's billion) dollars to fight the swine flu problem. Man, this guy has some serious money management issues. After all the spending on climate change, fighting terrorism, going green, handing out bail-outs and flying in pizza, he's got to be getting a little short. Maybe what he should be fighting is his urge to spend taxpayers money on nonexistent problems. Of course, part of this money would go to developing a new flu vaccine, which should be ready by about the time this has all blown over. Not that I'd rush out and get a flu shot anyway, the only benefit I can see from a flu vaccine is to make money for some drug company.

And let's not forget the previous swine flu scare of the seventies - predictions of a dire health emergency led to a massive vaccination campaign, resulting in hundreds of people suffering severe side effects including paralysis and death. In fact, there were more adverse effects from the vaccinations than from the great pandemic that never materialized. But hey, if you can declare co2 a dangerous substance and use it to justify taxes,  maybe you can declare a run-of-the-mill flu outbreak a major health emergency and justify mandatory flu shots. It wouldn't surprise me.

Everything's a crisis these days - we must ACT NOW and, more importantly, we must spend money on averting the current catastrophe.  People have become desensitized to the fear-mongering and instead of going into panic mode over the latest lurid headline, they are more apt to yawn and turn to the sports section. Biased reporting and sensationalism have caused a lot of folks to be skeptical of what they hear in the news, and many of us dismiss alarming headlines until we've checked it out on the internet. This mistrust of the mainstream media's habit of crying wolf has it's own repercussions - it creates the very real possibility that, in the event of a genuine emergency, people might not be inclined to take it seriously. And that could lead to a REAL crisis.

(DON'T) SHOW ME THE MONEY

Well, the business world has finally achieved the pinnacle of salesmanship - we now have the privilege of actually being able to purchase a product that doesn't exist. In fact, it's even better than that - we can buy a NEGATIVE quantity of something, which certainly solves the problem of manufacturers running out of stock.

I was looking at my weather site this morning, hoping that global warming was coming soon to my yard (which is stubbornly refusing to get with the program and warm up), when I noticed a "climate change" section. Of course, I had to have a peek - my, my, what a surprise: an infomercial from an alarmist website explaining how you can spend your (real) money to buy (not real) carbon credits. Sounds like a deal to me, you know how annoying it is to have all that extra money laying around and getting in the way. A big whack of carbon credits, being invisible and all, would take up much less space in my wallet.

Working on the premise that the potential buyer is in the habit of buying swampland in Florida and has recently had a lobotomy, the information is presented very simply. First it explains that everything you do produces carbon dioxide ( you know, that stuff that makes plants grow and supports life on Earth?) and that you are ruining the planet. But there is hope - you can purchase magic "carbon offsets" and thereby negate the environmental impact of your farts or whatever.

Yes, if you just send a bunch of money to some guy you've never met, you can light your BBQ with a clear conscience. In fact, if you're disgustingly rich, you can emit all the co2 you want. Al Gore could fly a jet to Costa Rica, take a crap in the rainforest and still have enough carbon credits left over to wipe his ass with non-recycled toilet paper. But hey, he's rich. We're not, so you just better do your part and quit idling in the McDonald's drive-thru. You filthy polluter.

Next we are told to prepare for the inevitability of greenhouse gas regulation and taxation. Hold on a minute there, not quite so fast - that's what the profiteers are trying for, but there is a lot of opposition. People are so bent about BC's carbon tax that the NDP (who normally love Ministries of Regulating Everything) have made repealing it one of their most popular campaign promises.

Of course, they plan to replace it with an even more devastating cap-and-trade scheme, but they're desperate for votes, right? Good luck with that. It's funny, all this fuss about co2 when water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. Wonder when they'll get around to making money off that?

Anyway, the infomercial goes on to tell us that not all carbon offsets are created equal. Price varies, and the "high-quality" ones are better, so you are encouraged to shop around. Yes folks, do some bargain hunting - you want to get the best nothing for your dollar, don't you? I mean, I'd feel real stupid if I paid a high price for nothing when I could have got it on sale.

How the heck do they plan to keep inventory on this? How many times could a company sell the same carbon credit? When your stock is non-existent, how do you know if some is missing?I guess we should be more trusting, everyone knows it's for our own good. Just send the money and don't worry your little wooly head about it.

I have an idea - I'll buy carbon credits, but in keeping with the spirit of the times, I'll purchase them with "lifestyle credits" instead of money. I can use the $40 I didn't spend at the casino last week. Yes, and the $12.95 I saved when I passed up that chocolate cheesecake at Thrifty's (I'm actually regretting that one). How about all the money I don't spend on crack? Do I get double credit for money I don't lend to my kids because they only pay me back half the time? The math is getting complicated here, but I can see where axe-murderers and armed robbers could really make a killing, so to speak. By purchasing "criminal lifestyle" credits and refraining from acts of mayhem, they could help to reduce "social pollution". Now, where's my Nobel Prize?

Excellent info site: ilovecarbondioxide.com  ( look at:  co2 facts)

EARTH HOUR UPDATE

Apparently I haven't been giving the folks in our fine valley enough credit - there are WAY more sensible people here than I thought. When I heard Big Brother reminding me through the WalMart speakers to remember to turn off my lights for Earth Hour, I thought to myself: this tears it - now a DEPARTMENT STORE is nagging me about global warming? Has everyone gone completely nuts? I was so depressed I had to buy two giant Aero bars to console myself.

Oh, the stupidity of it all - as I looked out my window in April at the snow-covered fields, I had pretty much given up hope that there were any rational people left on the planet. Then last night I read the local paper. I could hardly believe it - Headline: Valley Shines Bright During Earth Hour! Yes, electrical consumption in the valley actually INCREASED 1.3% during the event! Not only that but province-wide, the lights-out response was only half of that recorded last year! Yes! People are wising up to the scam and, even more important, are sending a message: up yours, you money-grubbing, co2-taxing profiteers - we do not buy the lie!

Of course, like a typical brainwashed Gore-worshipper, the local organizer of the event tried to ignore reality by saying that some people might have forgotten (yeah, right), and that the increased energy use during Earth Hour was "not the point". How ridiculous - it was EXACTLY the point. People are fed up with the bullshit and they showed it, in a big way. Think how many people must have turned their lights on to not only compensate for the idiots who sat around in the dark burning candles (which, by the way, are up to 100 times less efficient than light bulbs and produce 10-100 times more indoor air pollution), but to actually INCREASE the energy use. The irony is that the candle-burners probably did more damage to the environment.

But that's typical - most global warming believers have not bothered to find out anything about the real pollution issues or the economic and human damages caused by this so-called crisis that was invented to line the pockets of the rich. They just watch one movie starring Lardbutt McScammer and get sucked in, then go around feeling all smug and self-righteous and expect the rest of us to follow suit, feel guilty, and throw money at the government.

Haven't they figured out that the scientists who disagree with the global warming/co2 theory have nothing to gain by their statements - the ones that promote it are all depending on the program to provide funding, political gain, and money through taxation and investment in the carbon control business. They have a trillion good reasons to lie - the dissenters don't. Not hard to figure out who's more likely to be honest. Al Gore and the IPCC have been caught lying and providing false information to the public (Chris Horner's book "Red Hot Lies" gives some good background on this), but it doesn't seem to matter to the truly converted.

Locally, it was a great moment for the climate realists, and it got even better when I saw the letter to the editor from a man giving his opinion on the climate hoax (loved the part where he compared global warming alarmists to lemmings!). I haven't felt such a sense of community spirit in years. And pleasant surprise that our local paper doesn't predigest our news for us or refuse to print politically incorrect viewpoints like some of the larger ones do.

Anyway, enough gloating - suffice it to say that I was so surprised and elated that I had renewed hope for the future - rational thought seems to be prevailing. I even went out and gardened today. In my friggin PARKA! But hey, it was my way of (belatedly) celebrating Earth Hour.

Best climate information site: algorelied.com  (lots of links to other good sites)

You Tube: Not Evil Just Wrong - trailer for upcoming movie showing the true cost of climate hysteria

New book: Red Hot Lies by C. Horner explains the politics and deception behind the global warming issue

SYSTEM ERROR

I've noticed that quite often when a person or a group wants to regulate something, they haul out their well-worn mantra : "it's a drain on the health care system". It's become a very popular excuse for a bunch of sanctimonious sissified do-gooders to tell you how to eat, work, drive, and now even how to play. This week it's skiing - the proposal for mandatory helmets on the slopes of Quebec - coming soon, of course, to a ski hill near you. Because if you ski, you might get hurt. And if you get hurt, you become... any guesses? That's right - a miserable selfish DRAIN ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. 

When are people going to realize that our health care system wastes money faster than my brother at a blackjack table? We aren't draining the system - it's draining us! We pay and we pay, but when we need treatment we have to wait, sometimes until it's too late. Or the treatment is not available, or is hopelessly inadequate - not enough equipment, beds, or staff. Why? Because all the money that is drained out of us does not go to patient care - a huge proportion is spent on studies, advertising, "information" programs, and paperwork. Then, to add insult to injury, we are treated disrespectfully by health care providers and hospitals, because we are seen as inconveniences rather than paying customers. People feel free to pass judgement; if you just hadn't eaten that extra Twinkie or skipped that exercise class, you wouldn't be in this fix. Now, say ten Hail Marys and put out that smoke.

Contrast that attitude with the way you are treated by your dentist or optometrist - prompt, courteous, and competent - right? Imagine how different things would be if you were paying directly for your health care and were actually perceived as a customer. They would WANT to give you good service, because you would take your business elsewhere if they didn't. You would no longer have to feel pathetically grateful when some bitchy nurse finally calls your name after a three-hour wait and can't even be bothered to look pleasant, much less apologize for the delay.

The problem with socialized medicine is that someone other than the consumer gets to decide how the money is spent, so we have virtually no control over our treatment or options, or where the funding ends up. Are you happy with the millions of dollars poured into "preventative" health campaigns that don't work? Or the brainwashing of your kids in school about health and the environment, even when the information is not correct? Are you happy to fork over money so junkies can have nice clean needles and a comfy place to shoot up? In a smoke-free building, of course - wouldn't want to put their health at risk.

In a free market system, you control how your health dollar is spent, you decide when you get treatment, and you live with the consequences of your own actions. Right now, the health care system is being drained all right, but not by sick people. It's being drained by special interest groups pushing their own agendas: anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-obesity, anti-sport, anti-marijuana, and now even anti-co2 ( talk about taxing the very air we breathe!). They all have one thing in common - using your health care contributions to finance their own cause.

If we weren't paying outrageous taxes to finance government spending, we could all afford to pay our own medical costs, directly or through private insurance. Medical care is expensive because the government is perceived as picking up the tab, so everyone feels free to abuse the system, from within and without. And then blame others for "draining" it.

Some people don't want to pay for smokers or fatties or skiers that don't wear helmets. Fair enough - but I don't want to pay for hypochondriacs, crackheads or neurotics who run to the doctor every time they see an ad for a new happy pill. And I sure as hell don't want to pay for studies on the health impact of fictitious global warming.

As an adult, I don't need anyone telling me how to live. I don't want or expect anyone else to finance my health care. I expect value for money spent, and I'm not getting it under the current system. People seem to think it's some kind of safety net, but if you look closely you'll see that net is full of holes and fraying at both ends. People are going out of country to get the care they need, either because they can't get it here or the wait could literally kill them. 

The present situation can't last - the demographics won't support it. The birth rate in Canada is below replacement level, and there are more and more people moving into retirement as the baby boomers leave the work force. Who will finance the big machine then? Not the kids, there aren't enough of them. When the system collapses, people will have to make their own arrangements. No one will have to pay for anyone else's "lifestyle choices", and therefore will have one less excuse to impose their values on others. We'll all have to get over this nation-wide "failure to launch", and stop expecting a parent government to look after us, because it won't.

Personally, I look forward to the day when I can go to the emergency room at three in the morning with a crying baby and have the staff actually show some concern instead of acting like I'm interrupting their coffee break. I expect better than that, I deserve better than that, and I'm more than willing to pay for it directly, avoiding the expense of a middleman and the constant harping of those who think my lifestyle is their business.