Put your tinfoil hat on

Dana at Canadian Comment finds this funny (which it is). However, I also find it a bit disturbing.

I grew up in the 70's, and was a big fan of shows such as Sesame Street. I do not think I ever saw this show, which appears to be British.

Just about every sentence that comes out of every character is a double entendre. It must have been planned that way. It makes you wonder if the show had some other purpose then just entertaining kids.

Now I am going to be watching everything I do to see if it I am being controlled by Sesame Street.

She's cheating on me.... with my Arch Enemy Part II

It seems I have stirred the Three Headed Dragon. In this post, my Gf's ex talks a bit about me. Note the first line:

Here's an entertaining post from one of my e-girlfriend's
fiance.

Now, perhaps it is just a typo, but to me there is a big difference between an ex-girlfriend and an e-girlfriend (which could be considered to be an online girlfriend). You may laugh, but these things happen. My uncle's wife left him for some guys she met online. This was about 10 years ago, so it was very unusual at the time.

Am I being too suspicious? Or not suspicious enough?

She's cheating on me.... with my Arch Enemy

The Gf has an old boyfriend who has a blog here.

Stop!

Do not go there!

I don't want to increase his traffic.

I am always coming upstairs to see her writing emails to this guy or looking at the lame links he sends. This guy lives in San Fran and is a typical left wing, Bush-hating moonbat. During the US election I had to put up with all manner of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Republican jokes that he sent her. (I got the last laugh).

Now, I am not the jealous type, but isn't it a bit strange to be taking to some guy who was your ex-boyfriend 10 years ago? We are soon to be married, and I think a certain someone should be focusing on a certain someone and not talking to another certain someone. I don't have contact with any of my exes.

This guy is sabotaging all my work. All that time and effort to convert her to the light side of the force and here she is dipping her feet in the moonbat pool when my back is turned. He is directly counteracting my evil plan(tm).

Does anyone know how to use the parental controls to filter out socialist, left wing crap?

P.S. Note that he has chosen the same blogger template. How weird is that?

So you say you want more military spending?

Thanks to Babbling Brooks and The Files of the Phantom Observer for bringing this to our attention and making it into a graphic for easy comprehension.

It is good to see that, at the height of deficit fighting in Canada we actually spent more inflation adjusted dollars on defence than we will in 2006.

So much for commitment to the military.

Life and Rights

I have always struggled with certain social policies, such as abortion and euthanasia. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I do not think we should be preventing people from doing things to their body. If someone wants to kill themselves or take drugs, who am I say no? I do not agree with those actions, but it is their body. Does another individual, or even a group of individuals, know what is right for someone else? Even if they do, do they have any right to coerce that person into doing it?

This view is a bit harder to muddle through when discussing abortion. In one sense, a person has the right to do to their own body as they will, but, as libertarians say, your right to punch me in the face ends where my face begins.

What about those that cannot stand up for themselves? Does a woman's right to control her body trump the rights of an unborn child? How can a country that will not execute the most heinous of criminals condone the death of an unborn child?

Good questions all.

However, as Different River and The Hobbesian Conservative point out, this is going even further.

Peter Singer wrote in 1995 an article entitled "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong" in which he argued that there should be a ceremony some time after birth where the child is officially admitted into society as a person. The child could be killed before that and it would not be the same as killing a person. Among other things, he states that killing a seriously defective newborn is not wrong. Seriously defective is defined as one that can include lifelong medical treatment, but does not preclude one from living a productive and pleasant life. Is asthma a serious disability?

I bring these points forward to push for public debate on when life begins. The Europeans are already at this point. Should we define what our society is going to be like, or just leave it to some "experts" to decide?

I would be interested to see what The Monger has to say on this issue.

"They're fighting in the car again."

Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Gf.

When we met, the first thing to come out of her mouth was a Simpson's quote. I was hooked right then.

Before we met, I had some trouble connecting with woman. I love to argue and can be aggressive when making my point. The Gf is the first woman who can stand that quality about me. Not to brag, but I like to think I am smart. Not book type, 200 IQ smart, but I like to think I can recognize a logical position and reason out an argument. Not very tech minded though.

The Gf is the first woman I have met who is like me in this respect. Most women are either not smart enough to reason through an argument, or don't care enough about the argument. Most of the ones I met who do, are humourless.

I don't know if I was made for her, but she was definitely made for me. No one else has been able to stand me for this long.

However, at times she can really piss me off. Inevitably, this always happens when she falls back on what I call the Moonbat Debating Rules. Anyone who has visited the Democratic Underground has seen these in action. They generally follow these rule:

1. Make the most outrageous statement you can think of
2. Insult your opponent
3. Cover up any lack of evidence with wild conspiracy theories

Example: Bush=Hitler, you are a racist, the war was only about oil for Haliburton

I am used to her using these rules when we talk politics, but we she starts using the rules on me, I lose it.

Lately we have been fighting about money. We are looking at purchasing a business from a friend. It is a home business, so it would include buying their home and moving just outside the city. All these things we have discussed and it is something we both want to do. However, I am concerned that the price is too much, and the fact that it is a package deal (home + business) makes it difficult to sell in 10 years when we will want to move on. In addition, the house is missing some features that, although I can get by without them, will effect our ability to resell it and thereby make my exit strategy more difficult.

So, I have been the one dealing with this. I have visited the lawyers, real estate agents, banks, talked to friends who know something about business, dealt with the seller, etc.

I was in favour of the idea in principle, else I would not have started looking into it. However, after some research, I am not as convinced it is a good deal based on the price he wants and my ability to execute the exit strategy.

She says I am lazy and I never follow anything through.

Any big decision, I take my time. It took me 6 months to buy this computer. I never rush into these things, and this decision is big. We are talking about taking on debt load of 5 times the value of our present house. This is not something you rush into. If this doesn't work, it could wipe out all the financial gains I have made over the last 8 years.

I don't mind her disagreeing, I want to discuss it with her. We are a team. But when she starts saying I am lazy, and never follow anything through because more research makes me think the deal is not as good as we thought, that is below the belt.

So, I put a poll up in the sidebar. Vote and tell me what you think.

Update: The Gf put up a rebuttal in the comments. It's only fair to read here points before you vote.

Wow

Just as a get on to RightThinkingPeople, they put out this.

The above post is probably the best I have seen that sums up the main problem that "conservatives" face in Canada.

If you agree with what Pianoman is saying, true conservative government is a long, long ways away.

Great post.

Does the Prime Minister know our national anthem?

The Gf told me that while she was watching the live memorial service for the 4 RCMP officers on the CBC, she noticed that, during the french portion of the national anthem, Paul Martin stopped singing and resumed singing when the english portion started again.

She noted that he looked flustered and had a "I wish that camera was not pointed at me" look on his face.

I did not see this myself, so I cannot comment. Did anyone else notice anything like this?

A few to add to the roll

I wanted to bring your attention to the following blogs:

Kate at small dead annimals

Although I may not always agree with her, she says what she thinks. Also, I think one of her latest posts is being misrepresented in the comments.

Don't let them intimidate you.

Also, RightThinkingPeople

I just recently came across this blog and was inpressed by the analysis on various issues. I think they have caught the mood/feelings of some of the conservatives in this country.

The Freaks Come Out at Night

or at least for Senate Committees.

On Monday, the Senate Committee on Defence was in Edmonton to solicit advice from Canadian citizens on the composition of the Canadian Forces. Specifically, they were looking for ideas on the size, capabilities, equipment and role of the CF.

I used to have no respect for Senators and the Senate. I saw them as a bunch of unelected, lazy, patronage appointments and I wondered who's ass I had to kiss to get such a plum job.

Well, the above may or may not be true, but they sure have some patience. Of the approximately 20 presentations, about half were pro military, the other half I will refer to as "nutbar".

It seems that whenever the government asks for the opinion of its citizens on a subject, such as defence, the people take it as a cue to come and complain/comment on just about anything.

I won't comment on the pro military presentations, as it is the nutbar ones that were most interesting. The first guy to get up was all about the evil things CSIS has been doing to the Muslim community. He had no evidence of these "atrocities" except to say that CSIS agents were (gasp) calling up and talking to Muslims. What, no torture, beheadings, etc? Just talking? Surely he could have some up with something better that that.

Then there was a string of aging hippies/peaceniks (and believe me, they looked the part) who talked about how the environment/BMD/Bush/America/ was the biggest threat to Canada and how the Canadian Forces should be used to help people, etc. I got the impression they felt the CF would be best used giving out food and teddy bears to people, or shoveling snow in Toronto. Some had shiny, fancy documents that laid out their great plans for the Committee. There wasn't a coherent argument among them.

I will give the Committee members credit. They sat through the whole thing and treated each presenter seriously, no matter how wacko.

My favourite presentation of the night: The woman with the sign protesting the Official Secrets Act and how it was treating immigrants. Kudos to the Senator who, during his question, pointed out to her that what she really wanted to protest was Bill C-36, since the Official Secrets Act deals with what the government and government workers are allowed to release to the public (I believe this legislation has been replaced).

Most delicious piece of irony: One presenter made some comment towards Tommy Banks about lazy politicians, to which the chairman replied, "Tommy Banks is the most hard working Senator". This may be true, but it is up there with being called the smartest idiot or best politically informed Hollywood actor.

Damn them with faint praise.

Note: Laurie Hawn, an ex-airforce major who ran for the CPC in the last election and lost to Anne McLelland, was there giving his 2 cents.

Update: I forgot to add this point to earlier to this post. One thing I did notice was a certain question asked by the committee members. After most of the "peacenik" presentations, some form of the question "should Canada even have a military" would be asked. Everyone this question was put to answered yes. even the guy you wanted to cut the military budget by 90%.

Mark my words, this point will be made in the final report with some sort of statement about how the vast majority of Canadians support the military.

Thanks to the Monger

The Monger posted a summary of some of the stuff on this site and, in one day, doubled the traffic.

This is a testament to either his popularity or my lack thereof.

This blog was started because I thought it might be fun, and to get some writing experience.

Still, it is nice to know that others are reading and, maybe, getting something out of it.
Else, this becomes some mastibutory ego stroking.

Thanks Monger, I will add you to the sidebar.

A Bit of Humour

From Blackfive check out this

Step 1. Tie the balloons (pictured below) to your car [Blackfive note: you could tie them to someone else's car]

Step 2. Drive VERY FAST

Step 3. Watch people freak out

Step 4. Tell the nice officer you thought they were real

Then view the photo at the bottom of the post.

Where do I get me some of these?

The Canadian Connection

Kate over at Small Dead animals has this post that I find interesting regarding the UN Oil-for-Food program and Canadian involvement in, if not covering up, delaying the truth. Note the comments by James Halifax.

This is a similar to an idea that Mark Steyn recently wrote in an Article entitled "The Power behind the Thrones" regarding powerful people seldom heard about in Canada.

And here I thought Canada was too small for grand conspiracy theories and Star Chamber-esque secret societies. Perhaps I can spend less time on the US nutjob websites to get my conspiracy fix.

One Man's Terrorist....

...is Another Man's Freedom Fighter.

Or is he?

This question has always plagued me. In my heart I know that the use of bombings, etc, in the defence of some ideals perhaps was not moral, but definitely was legitimate. How could I reconcile the Afghan "freedom fighter" with the Palestinian "terrorist".

Lucky for me I have Lee Harris, a man much smarter than I, who put together this essay on why Palestinian terrorism is different.

I highly recommend this to anyone who has ever struggled with the right and wrong of terrorism.