The HPV Vaccine: Promoting Promiscuity at a School Near You

Okay little one, get on out there and spread those legs! Can you imagine saying that to your pre-pubescent daughter? Unthinkable. Not surprisingly, this is the message that the rigidly religious feel would be portrayed to our daughters if we choose to have them vaccinated with Gardasil or Cervarix, the recently approved HPV vaccines. How ridiculous. Once again, the belief in an invisible man prevents humankind from making sound decisions for the betterment of society.

HPV, or Human Papilloma Virus, is a sexually transmitted disease that is believed to cause most cancer of the cervix. The really scary thing about HPV is that it goes relatively undetected and most studies indicate that greater than half of the sexually active population, both men and women, has it. So, after considering these facts it is easy for any rational, intelligent individual to see that a safe vaccine against HPV is a revolutionary discovery. The problem lies in the lack of intelligence and rational thought that is generated in the minds of those that hold literal, unyielding religious beliefs.

Now listen, my issue here is not with informed people who question the efficacy of the vaccine. I understand that vaccines in general are a hot topic amongst parents and the efficacy studies on the HPV vaccine are, to my understanding, somewhat limited at this point. If I had a daughter right now, I wouldn't be lining her up to be vaccinated until studies become more conclusive on its efficacy and side effects. But this would be a result of my concerns regarding the vaccine's biological effects on my daughter, not a fear that she would suddenly become hornier than a three-peckered-billygoat. For the love of all things hypothetically holy, if this vaccine is found to be perfectly safe and as widely effective as current studies conclude, why would anyone choose to prevent their child from avoiding the wrath of cancer? Because having your daughter vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease promotes the sex that spreads the disease? Please! If you ask me, any 10-year -old girl who is told, "this needle will prevent you from getting sick from a bug that enters your body when you eventually have sex," is going to chalk that bug up as another reason to wait a while. If your daughter ends up having sex shortly after getting her HPV vaccine, it's more likely the result of the inherent challenges of monitoring her behaviour or a failure to educate her about the realities and risks of sexual activity than it could ever be the result of a life-saving vaccine. I have never seen a study on this, but in my experience, many teenage pregnancies occur to the daughters of strictly religious parents. There is no scientific validity to my observation. It's purely anecdotal and I could be wrong. But I would not be shocked to see such a study reveal that there is a scientifically significant correlation between the two.

This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not HPV vaccination should be legislated as mandatory or publically funded. As I said, it also has nothing to do with the recurring debate of whether or not vaccines are too readily administered without a true understanding of their efficacy and side effects. No, this debate is not even close to as complex as that. I just cannot understand how the reaction of a group of people who literally believe that a 900-year-old man built a boat, collected two of EVERY animal, insect, and flea on the planet, corralled them all onto that boat, and made them all have sex, carries any weight in the discussion of whether or not a life saving vaccine should be administered to our daughters. Call me irrational I guess.

There's No Place Like This

So I’m sitting here listening to that Ontario tourism song, “There’s No Place Like This.” I admit, I find it very catchy. In fact, if it were a standard length track I would probably put it on my iPod. It would be one of those songs that we all have on our MP3 players. You know, the ones that you wish you had a hidden folder and password for so no one could ever know you listen to such garbage; songs that are the equivalent of your deepest secrets in MP3 format. In case you ever run across my iPod I have them filed under “Work Contacts,” disguised as data files. Password: tiffany.

If you wish to torture yourself with a classic “can’t get this stupid song out of my head”-song, here you go. Enjoy.



So, why am I listening to Toya Alexis gloat about how great Ontario is while watching a variety of people having Ontario-induced orgasms? Well, I am in a bit of a personal quagmire. A socio-geographic love-hate relationship. Should I stay or should I go? Ms. Alexis is certainly correct. There is no place like this; no place where I have said, in the same day, “honey, I am so glad we live here,” and “honey, I fucking hate this place so much.” Did I say in the same day? I meant same hour.

Ontario has become an over-regulated, sanitized, politically correct soap dish. The government and citizens of "Upper Canada" spend far too much time attempting to appease every last interest group at the expense of any sensibility. Zamboni drivers require helmets. Christmas trees are banned from court houses. The premier, Mr. McGuinty, feels that recognizing Sharia law is something to consider. Cities distribute crack pipes with their logo on them. Clotheslines are illegal. Pretty soon we'll be required to write provincial exams to prove our knowledge of Ontario's twelve official religions and fifteen languages. I embrace Ontario's ethnic diversity - really I do. I know that my life is a better one, and Canada a better country, because of the opportunities I am afforded to learn from so many faiths, cultures, and beliefs. But for the love of all of their gods, do we need to try so hard to eliminate any minute detail about this country that they may not like. The immigrants that founded this country would be sick watching the current goings on. If you think I'm racist you're missing the point, and apparently, under the same spell.

This ridiculousness has lead to a population of over-sensitive cranks. Go ahead, say it - I'm no different. How can this moron write a rant about how cranky everyone in Ontario is when all he does is complain? But that's my point. Sometimes, this otherwise beautiful, progressive, and exhilarating province makes you want to take a month-long yoga class. In fact, I think I'll write to my MPP to have month-long yoga classes compulsory for all citizens. I think he'll go for it. He is the premier himself.

Before you start preparing the "sad to see you go" email, understand that there are many things I love about Canada's newest "have not" province. When I am in a better mood I will write about them. But, for the purpose of writing a good old-fashioned unbalanced rant, I am going to leave it at that. If you are wondering if I actually write anything pleasant, check back on the solstices.

Back to the song. I have a friend who is a song writer. When I told her that I couldn’t stop humming “There’s No Place Like This” she pointed out that the phrasing in the song is all wrong. Listen to it – you’ll hear it. It’s where she sings, “...like this that I’ve been.” It just sounds weird. My friend also pointed out that the song uses two different verb tenses, has an unnecessary stress on the word “this”, and lacks melodic complexity. You know, after learning all this, I've realized that "There's No Place Like This" is an excellent overall representation of Ontario. It's catchy, has no sense of past or present, is filled with unnecessary stress, and is quite shallow.

If They Would Just End Their Campaign With This...

Wouldn't it be great if this was their closing speeches and the polls opened tomorrow?




And to be balanced.....

Maybe We’re Just Not Wanted Anymore

I frequently end up in discussion, and occasional argument, with a good friend regarding climate change. He is one of the most intelligent people I know. The type of person that has visions of change, societal improvement, and progress. He is a visionary, no doubt about it. He sees the environmental movement as the necessary, idealistic force that is required to reverse the unquestioned damage we are inflicting on our planet. I equate his vision, and that of all those "green", to past movements of change: civil rights, female suffrage, and glasnost. He openly admits that he has a utopian view of the adaptations we need to make as a society to preclude the environmental end of the Earth. His rationale is that all change requires overkill in the desired direction to ensure the more reasonable desired outcome. In other words, "I'm going to go overboard on this one because I know the behaviours of those that don't understand as much as I do will average it out." I commend him for his vigour.

I am not a denier of climate change. Not in the least. I compost, recycle, carry cloth bags, pick up litter, use glass over plastic, support "green" charities, explore nature, bird watch, reuse, buy used instead of new, use a reel lawn mower, drive a small car, take the bus – you get the point. There are days where I am whole heartedly on board the environmental movement to reverse this mess at all costs. Then, there are other days where I struggle with the big picture here. The source of this personal conundrum is not that I don't think climate change is occurring. Nor do I deny that we are the cause. My internal argument (yes I have ulcers) is that, as a society, we are so arrogant to think that we are destroying the planet. Think about it. When our unbridled consumption and waste kills off the very last human, will Mother Earth take one final shallow breath and just vaporize into intergalactic powder because she no longer has a raison d'être? I ain't no environmental scientist, but I certainly don't see it that way. She will begin the process of decomposing our carcases, recycling our mess and, depending on the sun's cooperation, voila a new civilization will emerge. Now that's recycling.

I am a true Darwinist. I believe the strong survive and the weak don't. I believe that all natural systems are cycles that should be left to correct themselves (hence my disgust with the financial bailout). So when we say that we need to do all those things in my green achievement list above to save the planet, do you think what we really mean is that these are the actions that are necessary to sustain our ability to live on the planet? In other words, aren't we more worried about our comfort on the planet than we are about the planet itself? Sometimes I think Mother Nature is trying to eliminate the parasites on her back and we are trying to cease a natural cycle from running its course. Are we arrogant to believe that, without us on it, Earth is "dead?"

I have a pact with this same friend that, if I am being kept alive with tubes, cables, and fluids that he is to come into my hospital room and accidentally trip over the power cords, yanking them out of the wall. He is to not say a word, give me a wink, and then go have a beer in my memory (I know this is far-fetched but we enjoy the possibility). We made this pact because I know my wife could never do it – she really is the best. Life support is, in my opinion, a waste of money and prolonged agony for loved ones. We treat our pets with more dignity than we do ourselves. So, by trying to reverse the effects of pure, unabashed human nature (i.e. gluttony) are we not just putting the planet-sized feeding tubes and ventilators in place? I agree with climate change sympathisers that the cause of this disproportional warming of the planet is a result of our disgusting desire to consume and waste with no regard for the consequences. This, I feel, the science has proven conclusively. What I wonder about is the lack of empirical study into the role of human nature in this cycle. Does our collective nature to act like pigs (they get such a bad rap) make the climate change phenomenon a natural cycle that should be just left alone? It seems to me that, to date, society has not demonstrated the willingness to make the mass sacrifice required to reverse climate change. I'm not saying I like it. I'm just telling you what I see. So is this noble cause a classic battle in futility? Are we being realistic?

For me it comes back, once again, to reasonableness. We should be responsible stewards of the planet, doing our best to be conscientious of the effects of our behaviour. Scientists should continue their efforts in the research of this issue, but at the same time maybe ask those questions that are currently unquestionable. I doubt science will ever truly accept that elements of human-caused climate change are a necessary cycle but asking these questions may result in a more realistic approach that society is ready to accept. I'll never be an expert but I'll continue to do my part. It makes me feel good – all within reason of course.

It’s Just a Building for Christ’s Sake

So some wack-job wrote a letter to the editor today complaining that his polling station was a Catholic School. Apparently he wasn't Catholic. He whines that Elections Canada should be "a little more sensitive to the diversity of our faiths." He also says that he was distracted by the crucifix on the wall. This, I get. It's a half naked dude, dying, nailed to a wooden cross. I've always found the whole image over the top, and quite frankly, terrifying. Its presence distracts me wherever I happen to find it. So the fact that this guy had a hard time making an "x" while being watched by Jesus is understandable to me. But that's where any agreement with this freak ends.

As far as I see it, a church, or in this case Catholic school, is essentially a building that only has theological meaning to those of the faith under which it was built. I am an atheist who was required to vote in a United church. To me it was a polling station that just happened to be a church. I had no problem with the statue of Jesus that greeted me at the door (he was alive and well with his arms outstretched – quite welcoming actually). In fact, I would like to thank the congregation of that church for volunteering their place of worship to democracy's greatest process. They could worship tuna fish and peanut butter on Wednesday afternoons and I really couldn't give a rat's ass. Actually, I love both Tuna and peanut butter and I know they both exist. This is a religion I might just be attracted to. Hmmm. Oops. Tangent.

A move towards ensuring "neutral sites" for polling stations would represent more time and energy unnecessarily allocated to the plague of political correctness in this country. Listen, I don't believe in God. I think Jesus was a really great guy who spread an important message but I am also quite sure Mary and Joseph enjoyed creating him. I could go on. However, I recognize that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. This isn't going to change. So I can tolerate, in fact celebrate, this history while still recognizing that our progress as a civilization has disproved the biblical myths behind these values. You could throw me in a mosque, temple, synagogue, or chapel to vote and I will take in the beauty of the architecture (unless it is one of those new age "airport style" churches – why are they doing this?) and then meet my civic responsibility to choose a candidate.

Mr. Whiner's concerns appear to be one more example of organized religion's growing tide of intolerance and unreasonableness towards one another. The dogma associated with every religion, whether you like it or not, teaches its followers that their faith is the "correct" faith and those that follow others will be punished come judgment day. It's a fact. I learned it in Sunday school when we would do those Bible scripture races. Remember those? I never won a single race. This girl in my class practiced all week and kicked our ass every Sunday. Maybe this is where my disdain originates. Again...tangent.

Anyway, I would like to thank Rideau Park United Church. You have a beautiful polling station, I mean, church.

A Great Big Bruise

I'll try to keep this short and sweet. I know I have completely slaughtered the election horse to the point of entrails. However, it would just be wrong, if after all of this, I didn't write one last entry on what just happened. Canada, you got it right last night (save Atlantic Canada who reminds me of phantom limb pain). This is exactly what Canada needs – a strong Conservative minority that has a moderately secure mandate. The evangelists in the party will be muzzled and locked in their cages only to be released for parliamentary votes. All will be okay.

So here are my thoughts, expectations, and otherwise unimportant musings:

• The Liberal brass need to see that their party has moved too far left to be Canada's natural governing party. The average centrist Canadian is just no longer comfortable with their migration from common sense. A national party they are no longer.
  
• Canada needs to have a multi-partisan health care summit. I'm not talking about a bullshit photo op where all of the parties get together on a nice lake in Quebec and announce their archaic ideological views on Canada's health care system. I'm talking about a week-long melding of the minds where a combination of politicians, clinicians, and scholars can speak free of political retribution about how our current system needs to be overhauled. It's time we realize that our system is not one of the best in the world. It stinks. Canadians have to let go of the ridiculous notion that universal health care is a national symbol like Gretzky, the Maple Leaf, and Celine Dion's chest-pounding. Allow our leaders to discuss and consider meaningful change instead of politically-safe patch work. While you're at it people, take some time to read up on health care systems around the world. You will learn that a two-tier system is nothing close to American. In fact it is very much European. Oh, and it works. Our health is too important to treat the system that ensures it like a sacred cow. With criticism comes improvement.
  
• As a nation we can't complain about another minority government when we insist on having five main stream parties. It comes down to simple math.
  
• Danny Williams is a fucking buffoon.
  
• I'm glad Michael Fortier lost. Harper so screwed that up and got what he deserved.
  
• Book it. Stephane Dion is the worst leader in Liberal Party history. When contacted late last evening Paul Martin stated that he was more than happy to relinquish his title.
  
• The Green Party should not be allowed at the next debate. As refreshing as Elizabeth May was, the debate is meant for potential Prime Ministers to demonstrate their mettle, not an interview for "Smartest, Nicest Canadian."
  
• I would vote for the leader of ANY PARTY if they came out on the first day of an election campaign with the following promise:
  

  "Within one month of taking office, I will legislate a referendum in Quebec on the issue of sovereignty. The question will be clear: 'Do you want Quebec to completely separate from Canada on May 1, 2009? If yes, Quebec will be responsible for establishing their own currency, military, and network of social programs, including health care, completely independent from those of Canada. The new country of Quebec will also be responsible for their portion of Canada's national debt at that time and must purchase back all federal property within the geographic borders of the new nation. It is understood that anything greater that 50% in favour of this separation will result in its full enactment. Yes____ No____'"
  

  If "yes" wins (which it won't) we cut the cancer lose, collect our money, give federal jobs to unilinguists, and move on. If "no" wins, legislation will take effect immediately to have the Bloc disbanded as a federal party. Either way, we have our country back.
  

• Finally, look at an updated color-coded Canadian electoral map. It looks like a big, sore, bruise.
  

Why Blue Is Okay Today

I really don't think any of you care why I am voting Conservative today. I'm not that into myself to think that millions (okay tens) of people would come to my blog just to see where I placed my "x". The reason I am writing this explanation is very much a selfish one: on the off-chance that just one of you visits A Chronicle before voting today, it's satisfying to think that it may have persuaded you to be comfortable voting Conservative too. I'm really not "a Conservative." I consider myself more of a realist. A moderate. Pro-choice, pro same-sex marriage, and an atheist (wait now...I'm a left wing wack-job!). There was a time (pre-Trudeau) where the Liberal party was a very sensible one. They existed in a nice place near the fulcrum of the Canadian political teeter totter representing the moderate Canadian. Hence the title "Natural Governing Party." Over the years they have drifted farther and farther to the left and now reside close to the left seat of the teeter totter. This seat has become very crowded – shared with Jack, Ms. May, and their bleeding heart army. Mr Harper is stuck all alone on the other seat (in fact he hasn't reached the seat). You remember that kid – held in the air for hours (okay minutes) wailing like a baby while the bullies on the other end howl in insecure delight. I remember it all too well. Queen Elizabeth Park. 1982. Glace Ba.....I digress.

The Liberal's major failings, in my humble opinion, have been on issues like immigration (no, I don't hate immigrants), crime and justice (I do believe that victims have more rights than criminals), and an over-riding desire to hold the collective hands of the nation (my parents taught me not to speak to strangers). I could get into each of these issues in detail, however I don't have the time nor do I think any of you really give a shit right now (and if you do I suspect you will go to a much more credible source than this blog). I understand your concerns that The Conservative Party of Canada has some extremist, right wing, freaks embedded within. Really I do and you are right – they exist. But what you have to remember is that you live in Canada and Harper is not a dummy. Sure, he isn't a big fan of Steve and Phil getting married. I doubt he will be sitting in the front row when Dr. Morgentaler receives his Order of Canada. And if you were to ask him on a personal level, he would love to see Canada a more socially conservative place. However, he knows that most Canadians are progressive and pursuing these goals would surely be the demise of any long lasting conservative legacy. But what Mr. Dion, Jack, and the rest of the far left don't want you to know is that Mr. Harper is also very much a libertarian. He despises the thought of government getting involved in the personal affairs of Canadians. If one was to research the founding platform of the Reform Party (Preston's Church Club), they would discover that Mr. Harper stood up to have any stance on same sex marriage and abortion left out of the party platform. He took a strong stance (and lost) that these issues were not meant to be a part of parliamentary debate. I know what you are thinking: If he is so reasonable, why did he table a bill against same sex marriage shortly after taking office? Good question. Easy answer. Think about it. He had the far right ideologues (see, I'm fair) in his caucus (I still laugh like a ten-year-old at this word) wanting the issue brought to parliament. He didn't feel it was the government's position to deal with it – remember, libertarian. So he decided to table it while he had a weak minority. His neoconservative supporters would be satisfied and in the end the bill would easily lose. Good night.

So here is my plan and maybe you might make it yours too. Vote conservative. Their platform is not radical and to be quite honest, Harper really is the safest choice in a rough economic storm – without question. He will win another minority. There is no chance that a majority government is anything close to possible. A Conservative win will surely be the end of Stephane "can you repeat that" Dion. The Liberals will hold another leadership convention and will have learned a lesson: let's try choosing a leader this time and see how that works out. Harper's minority government will be "supervised" by the checks and balances of our Parliamentary system (Jack's job) and much to the surprise of our left wing Chicken Littles, the sky will not fall. In a short time, when the Liberals' ducks are strategically arranged, they will pull the box out from under the Conservatives feet and low and behold: another election. I know having to digest another six weeks of begging stinks. However, that election, I pray to my atheist gods, will provide us with a real choice. Consider it long-term strategic voting.

In any event, get out and vote (any colour) and enjoy a day that represents your freedom. It really is a wonderful thing.

Cause of Death: Prolonged Orgy

Reasonable. The word is so benign in nature isn't it? Not fantastic. Not exciting. Not bombastic. Just reasonable. This isn't to say that it is connotatively negative. It just doesn't get anyone horny. What I like about the word reasonable, and why I have become obsessed with it recently, is its civility. Think of a reasonable person. They are so damn likable aren't they? Maybe not the guy you call for that twice-a-year piss-up, but definitely a person you feel "gets it." I doubt anyone calls me reasonable although I'm working on it.

So, why am I taking the time to discuss such a random word with so many sexier words out there to choose from? Well, I really think the world is losing all reasonableness. Sure, things are more exciting than ever. The age of internet, technology, cheap travel, and reality television has made the globe a smaller orb. The lives of the rich and famous are ostensibly more common and attainable. We are making more money (or are we?). Buying more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more....you get the point. What was once considered luxury is now considered entitlement. Credit is more available than ever, and consequently, debt is mounting like an impatient volcano. But hey, we are entitled to that debt: it's the only way to get a flat screen television. I work in an industry where I have the opportunity to meet people in their homes. You would be shocked at the number of low-income homes I enter that are filthy, lacking what I consider the essentials of life, however replete with all the necessary high-end electronics: plasma televisions, monster stereos, gaming consoles, and several satellite feeds. I'm not picking on the poor here but rather making a simple point: regardless of socioeconomic status, western civilization is starving for wealth that is just, well, unreasonable.

With all these expectations people get pissed off when Santa forgets to bring the toy on the top of their wish list. Anything less than "WOW" is unacceptable. We view "reasonable" as failure. As weakness. Remember when an orgy was a rare treat? Well times have changed my friends (I sound like McCain). Orgies are the norm. Why "get it on" with a TV you can afford when you can borrow and make out with a 700-inch plasma loaded with surround sound, a satellite feed, and a built-in prostitute (gender of your choice). I think they actually make these in China.

This unreasonableness isn't exclusive to our need for "stuff." People's expectations of one another have become downright mindless. Email, IM's, texting, and PDA's allow us to get someone's attention on our terms, not theirs. I despise the sound of my phone. I cringe at the "you've got mail" chime. I turn my Blackberry off most of the time. However I radiate expletives when I call someone's cell and no one answers. I know.....completely unreasonable. The concept of human error has become synonymous with bad character. When a waitress brings the wrong appetizer, she is likely a stupid whore. When a well-meaning health professional makes a mistake, she surely was trying to hurt you. Benefit of the doubt lives on an old rusty shelf with a hoola-hoop, Rubik's cube, and eight-track stereo.

I won't even begin to fulminate about the ridiculousness of our expectations of our children. Okay I will. Let me just say this: organizers required to keep track of our kid's leisure activities. Enough said.

So this Thanksgiving weekend I am "down home" in Nova Scotia. And while Bluenosers (and certainly myself) are not immune to the plague of unreasonableness, I do sense that they have found an elixir of some sort to keep it at bay (could it be the Keith's?). We could start a string of comments to come up with why this is (which would actually be a reasonable use of this blog) however it doesn't really matter. It's just the way it is out here. If you haven't been here you should put it on your unreasonably long list of destinations. Who knows, maybe being reasonable is contagious.

Intoxicated Truth

I love it when a normally reserved person gets a little too into the sauce and reveals his inner asshole. You know the scenario, the guy crosses the threshold into intoxication and basically everyone and their mother becomes fair game. He may tell you that he wants to sleep with your wife. Or maybe he snaps on the waitress who forgot to split the bill calling her a stupid "git" (picture you are in London for this one). Sometimes the guy is a "good drunk" and tells you that he loves you and has already slept with your wife. Anyway, you get the point: people are honest when they are pickled. You want to see a person's true blueprint? Buy them drinks and initiate a targeted conversation. Three hours later you've got the goods.

So I have an idea. Drunken debates should be mandated during an election campaign. Just one per election is all we would need. It makes perfect sense. We all know they're lying to us. Jack Layton knows he would have to tax us to the point of food stamps to follow through on all the promises he assumes he'll never have to act on. Deep inside Stephan Dion knows that he took advantage of a ridiculously illogical nomination system (thanks Gerard). And south of the border, Barrack Obama really does think that his wife was right – they have never really been proud of their country – and never will unless he wins.

Here's my proposal. The leaders go out for free wings and beer 90 minutes prior to the debate (I would be willing to pay for this as a tax payer and yes Jack, you can have wine coolers). This should get them perfectly to that point of being linguistically fluid (hell we may even understand Mr. Dion) yet disinhibited and willing to let the shit really fly. The glass of water on their podium will be replaced by an alcoholic beverage of their choice, refilled as necessary. This will ensure that they progressively get more drunk and by the end of the night, downright gross. This serves the purpose of allowing the voter to identify who can hold their liquor best. As the leader of a G8 country (exactly how many "G" countries are there now – I think it's up to like G16) a Prime Minister/President is required to make monumental decisions while schmoozing with other G? leaders. Essentially, who has the best judgment while trashed?

So, with this new model of intoxicated debate in mind I have compiled what I think we would see if my ingenious idea came to fermented fruition.

Elizabeth May would admit she has never recycled in her life.

Barrack Obama would state, "Sure I don't have the experience. But I'm just so much smarter than the rest of you."

Stephan Dion would admit that this is the first time he has ever drunk and then explain to everyone that "drunk" not "drank" is the correct past tense of drink.

Joe Biden would turn to Sarah Palin and say, "Pronounce your g's you dumb bitch. Oh, and nice jugs by the way."

Jack Layton would fire up a joint then admit that marijuana is in fact a "gateway drug" stating, "how do you think I got into heroin?"

Sarah Palin would take her top off. Then start reciting Deuteronomy.

Gilles Duceppe would admit that his master plan includes hunting down Jean Chretien in the caves of northern Quebec and catching him dead or alive.

John McCain would admit that he has stolen the logo from McCain fries and also that he chose Palin because she's a MILF.

Steven Harper would confess that he has homoerotic dreams involving Jack Layton.

In the end, I think we would all have a much easier time making a choice and voter turnout would hit historic highs. You can't say I'm wrong can you?

Election Spin and Brain Anatomy

Here's one of the reasons I could never be a politician (or is this a reason I could be?): I break promises. I said I would refrain from political entries for the next week at least. Well, sorry but I couldn't help it.

I really have no issue with people voting Liberal. Honestly (and I'm not lying this time). If you decide to vote Liberal, good on ya. They have some very appealing positions and policies. I would like to be able to vote for them and I am sure some day I will again. However, please don't vote for them because of their latest slew of attack ads on Stephen Harper, characterizing him as a George Bush wannabe. Please, realize that you are smarter than this horse shit. "Brotherizing" Harper and Bush has become very in vogue (en vogue in Quebec) amongst the Canadian left wing ideologues these days. I was thinking it was something in the Starbucks Latte, however if this was the case I would be under the same spell. Open any newspaper to the editorial section and you will find myriad articles recycling the same theme on a different day. It really has gotten old for those of us able to fire up the critical analysis portion of our brain (the frontal lobe if I'm not mistaken). Sure Mr. Harper is right of center. Someone in this country has to try to average the "net compass position" towards the center. Without him Canada's collective "square" would fall off the bottom left corner of the graph for Christ's sake (if confused read blog entry titled, "Find Your Square and be Proud.") But Mr. Harper's position right of center does not automatically equate the guy, and his party, to Mr. Sarah Palin.

There is an excellent article in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen written by Dan Gardner. Here is the link:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=0af97da6-b4bb-4d21-992f-2f9d688ff8f1

The article provides readers with several points, both ideological theory and legislative fact, which prove that when one uses their cognitive capacities, the link between George Bush and Stephen Harper gets more and more tenuous. The fact of the matter is this: Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are closer to Mr. Bush and the Republicans than any of the other mainstream leaders or parties in Canada. Both of my cats have realized this. But to allow your brain to blindly accept Dion's claims (if you are able to understand him of course) that Mr. Harper is a Bush clone would be a lazy, uncritical conclusion. If compared to our current prime ministerial candidates, Barrack Obama, who I think is going to be a fantastic president if given the chance, would fall not all that far from Mr. Harper in terms of ideology and current platforms. The Democratic Party of America, would no doubt be considered right of center comparatively in Canada. Does this make Obama and his party Bush wannabe's? Hardly. Use your brains people. Separate fact from left wing shepherding. Don't land in the herd. Instead, use your frontal lobe.

Keep It Simple

I am going to try to go the rest of the election season without mentioning politics. Well, at least until the end of the Canadian election. I'm not sure I can go a month with all of the material I'm sure to get from "Awe Shucks" but I will give it a try.

So the other day my wife was telling me about a friend of ours who is seeing this guy. I won't go into details because really, when are the details of a story that starts with, "This friend of ours is seeing this guy....." ever different? The end of this all too typical story follows the standard script where the guy is acting "different" and all of a sudden is just being a dick. My response of course is, "so she should just dump him because he just isn't into her anymore." Of course, the logical question here is, "Then why doesn't he just tell her." And this my friends, is the purpose of this blog post.

Listen ladies, consider men lower on the complexity chart than a single-cell organism. Stop trying to complicate their behaviour. The guy just isn't digging you. It really is that simple. Nothing more. Nothing less. He doesn't like you anymore. Sure, there may be hope because sometimes he actually looks at you. However, I never said the guy was a sociopath. I just said he doesn't like you. The male version of the homo sapien (no, I'm not saying he's gay) is the easiest organism to understand if the female version would just stop trying to write a God damn romance novel. Here's how it works: You are dating the guy. It is going well. You are likely having sex. One day you go on a date. He acts weird. Like there's a hockey game playing on a screen behind you. You turn around. There is no screen there. You go home and call your friend. The two of you concoct a story of complexity that explains everything. He goes home hoping you will dump him. The end.

There's a book out there by a gentleman named Greg Behrendt titled, "He's Just Not That Into You." I've never read it. That would just be weird. However, I did see the guy on Oprah (I know, equally as weird as me reading the book). Essentially, it explains my point: if you are dating a guy and he starts acting like he doesn't like you, he doesn't. He wants you to dump him. The more you resist. The more of an asshole he becomes. You being nicer to him equates to the proverbial gas on the fire. So, unless you are a masochist (and I don't judge that sort of stuff) think simple and cut and run. If you are a masochist, tell him – he'll probably start paying attention again.

Some Debatables

What I learned last night:

• Setting the bar ridiculously low makes average intelligence appear genius.
  
• Joe Biden has had work done on his eyes. The right one specifically looks Joan Rivers-like.
  
• We may very well be the stupidest country on the planet to offer a man who wants to pack up his province and "move out" a seat at a national leadership debate.
  
• Elizabeth May is smart.
  
• I don't like the "kitchen table" debate format. Must have been Jack's idea.
  
• Jack Layton is the bratty short kid that should be shoved into his locker every morning.
  
• There were only three parties sitting at the table last night: The Bloc, The Conservatives, and The NGLP (The New Green Liberal Party).
  
• The American debate format is better than the Canadian but the Canadian is more of a circus (it's the one time that Canadian politics looks "American" and American looks "Canadian.")
  
• Like him or not, Harper is a leader and the rest are not (save Duceppe, but he shouldn't count (see third point above)).
  
• Elizabeth May looks like Eeyore the donkey.
  
• Jack Layton looks like the guy selling computer educational software on TV.
  
• Duceppe looks like a transvestite separatist.
  
• Stephane Dion looks like a mouse.
  
• Harper looks like George Bush (for my left wing readers).
  
• Palin really accentuates the long "I" vowel sound.    
  

And finally,

• Stephane Dion is like the 20-year-old virgin who decides to get a hooker to "get on the board" yet comes out of the whole affair still a virgin. He's got the sure thing right there in front of him. His party truly does represent most Canadians. Yet, he is such a dufous he just can't "get laid."

An Example of Clear Choice

There are times when making a decision is tough. You know, "Should I get the lasagna or the ravioli?" However, has there ever been a time when the decision has been as easy as this? "Do I vote for an ass-clown (x 2) or do I vote for someone who is capable of sustaining an educated and substantive conversation with (i.e. keep up with)the person deemed to be the most shallow anchorperson on television right now?" (although I do think Katie Couric generally gets a bad rap).

Once again, "Shit-bull" provides me with another piece of incriminating evidence. Her crime?: being dumber than moronic (which is actually quite tough...try it. Bet you can't do it).

Any chance I can get my American citizenship and register in a swing state in 33 days?