Topmost (in use)

Archive | October, 2005

My apology to Feminist Students United!

Dear Liza Potter:

I am delighted to respond to your recent charge against me, which was sent to Rosemary DePaolo, Chancellor of UNC-Wilmington. Characterizing my column as an act of sexual harassment against all women in the UNC system is a tremendous favor for which I am truly grateful. I’ll explain that as I go along.

In the opening lines of your sexual harassment complaint, you stated that you “feel very strongly” that my “sexist, discriminatory language toward the female students at UNC constitutes sexual harassment and violates the existing anti-discrimination policy.” That is an extremely important point, Liza. In order to file a complaint in the UNC system, the plaintiff must have very strong feelings. Feelings are the basis of every decision in our system. Logic and objectivity are irrelevant and probably sexist, too.

But, while your complaint starts off strong, you have made some serious errors in the second paragraph of your missive. (Or is that Msive? Please pardon any unintended sexism). The three major errors follow:

1. Your sexual harassment complaint states that “You, in the column, call female students at UNC-Chapel Hill “promiscuous.’” Go back and read the article. The word “promiscuous” does not appear anywhere. It seems that you have falsified a sexual harassment report, which you copied to my superiors.

I am sorry but I have no other choice than to conclude that this act of falsification is a form of “sexist, discriminatory language” that “constitutes sexual harassment and violates the existing anti-discrimination policy.” I will file my complaint against you some time later this week.

2. Your complaint also says that I called UNC female students “nymphomaniacs.” Not true, Liza. Here is the relevant quote:

“While the UNC administration is undoubtedly thrilled that these coeds are turning out to be nymphomaniacs rather than intellectuals…”

Based upon a closer examination of my quote, you can see that I have expressed the opinion that when female students a) organize an Orgasm Awareness Festival, b) erect (note: this is not intended to be sexist language in violation of the UNC anti-discrimination policy) a vibrator museum, and c) begin to collect antique vibrators from 1924, this suggests that they are “turning out to be nymphomaniacs.”

That doesn’t mean they are there yet, Liza. It just means that there is a clear trend in the direction of nymphomania. Had they erected two vibrator museums – instead of just one – I might have taken the plunge and suggested that they are already “nymphomaniacs.” But, cautious as always, I held my tongue.

3. In your letter, you also accuse me of “calling students such derogatory names as “whores’” which is “simply disgusting and inexcusable.” You also repeat (for good measure) the assertion that my speech “seems to go beyond the bounds of free speech and into the territory of “[Harassment] based on… sex,” which is specifically mentioned in the Harassment Prevention Policy of the UNC system.

Actually, you really blew it, here, Liza. Recently, at “The Vagina Monologues” our campus feminists suggested that it is acceptable to call women “c**ts.” So, of course, had I really called them “whores” that would have been much better than calling them “c**ts” as the feminists would prefer. But, of course, I did not call them “whores.” My actual statement follows:

“Jessica Polka, an executive board member for the co-sponsor of the event, was recently quoted as saying that “We also have the goal of trying to work toward fighting the social stigma against female sexuality.’ In other words, she wants college women to become whores without being ostracized.”

The only question, Liza, is whether you are, a) actually illiterate, or b) pretending to be illiterate in order to levy a false allegation of sexual harassment against me. Either way, things aren’t looking very good for you.

Finally, I want to address your most cavalier paragraph, which states that “I’m sure you notice that I have copied this e-mail to the Chancellor of UNC-Wilmington, as well as to the Director of Human Resources. At the very least, I feel that you owe the female students enrolled in the public university system of North Carolina—all of them—an apology for this harassment. If you are not willing to give it voluntarily, it is my hope that your superiors will demand it.”

This is a point on which we finally agree, Liza. I do hope that Chancellor DePaolo demands an apology for my remarks. If you will recall, last year I published a sexual harassment report after a female student wrote me an unsolicited email talking to me about her “vagina.” I also published a complaint about a female student who put condoms in my mailbox, told me I should not be allowed to reproduce, and called me an “insensitive a***ole.”

Since the university never called me about my complaints, I have come to “feel very strongly” that the administration’s indifference is “sexist” and “discriminatory.” I bet it even constitutes sexual harassment and violates the existing anti-discrimination policy.

So, Liza, you have really done me a tremendous favor. After reading your letter, I have decided to sue my university. Thanks for inspiring me to do the right thing. I plan to have my mommy write to thank you, too.

Mike S. Adams’ ( speech at the University of Florida has been cancelled. He will next speak at Dalton State University on November 16th.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Mike Adams Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Fraser Inst.: Health Care Spending in Canada is Unsustainable

Provincial Health Care Spending in Canada is Unsustainable

Based on the most recent five-year trends, Medicare will consume more than half of total revenues from all sources in 7 of 10 provinces by the year 2022. If the relative rate of health spending and revenue growth does not change, public expenditures on health care will swallow two thirds of total revenues in these provinces by the year 2032, eventually reaching 100 per cent by 2050, according to Paying More, Getting Less 2005, released today by The Fraser Institute.

Rather than rationing access to publicly covered health care, Brett Skinner, author of the paper and the Institute’s director of health and pharmaceutical policy research, points out that the prescription is to introduce the kinds of policies increasingly being used in other countries to deal with similar cost-control problems in their public health care programs. Reforms could include:

?      Requiring patients to make co-payments for publicly insured health services;

?      Allowing people the option of paying privately (via private insurance or out-of-pocket) for all types of medical services, including hospitals and physician services;

?      Allowing both for-profit and non-profit health providers to compete for the delivery of publicly insured health services.

Read the News Release

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Blatant Paul Martin lie already revealed as a result of Gomery?

Mere minutes after writing a blog entry about the fact that the Gomery report would be handed to Liberals in Ottawa—to the exclusion of all other parties who wouldn’t get it for at least another 12 hours —- we already find that Prime Minister Paul Martin may have lied through his teeth to YOU and your Canadian compatriots.

It’s clearly unfair that the Liberals get the report a fill 12 hours ahead of all others, giving them time to craft their spin and be right off the mark in shaping public opinion. 


Ironic, that, isn’t it, given the reason for this Gomery inquiry in the first place?

[…] Martin said last week that he was only following Gomery’s wishes in receiving the report first. But Gomery has made it clear that the final decision rests with Martin.

In response to a letter from all three opposition parties, Gomery said all 6,000 copies of his report will belong to the government of Canada as of 6 p.m. Monday.

“The commission did not and does not plan to submit its report to the prime minister,” Gomery wrote in a letter Monday.

“From (6 p.m.) on, the commission no longer owns the report and has no control over how it may be dealt with. Subsequent decisions about the tabling, public release and distribution of the report are the responsibility of the government. . .

“I am suggesting that careful consideration be given to the request for opposition parties to receive the report Monday night.”



Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Gomery report will be delivered to Liberals in two hours

At roughly 6:00 PM today, the Gomery Report will be delivered to the Liberals—only the Liberals mind you, who have the special privilege of seeing it 12 or 18 hours ahead of the rest of us tawdry minions —in Ottawa under tight security from the printing plant in Gatineau. 

Make no mistake about it:  There will be nothing new in the Report.  It may be phrased differently, and it may contain scant new detail, but we’ve already heard it all.  This merely makes it more official.

More official even, I guess, than the Auditor General’s remarks which were this:

“This is such a blatant misuse of public funds.
It is shocking…Words escape me.”

Auditor-General of Canada, February 2004
On the Liberal Party’s so-called “sponsorship” program.

It’s hard to believe that Canadians read those words and then get into their SUVs and drive to the polling booth and vote for liberal-left politicians instead of Conservative Party politicians, but there you go. 

Rest assured that the Liberals have been spending tons of money and employing tons of liberal-friendly media firms from Quebec and Ontario to put their spin on the findings (and they are just that, “findings”, since Gomery was NOT given the mandate to name names and make accusations of guilt, etc), and to begin the process of demonizing the conservative Canadians from coast to coast to coast.  Watch for new “hidden agenda”-like slogans and the words “scary” and “extreme” to be used more frequently starting tomorrow, in addition to some new ones.  I expect “angry”  might be among the new ones. 

Watch as the Liberals spin this sucker like nothing has ever been spun before in the history of this great nation.  This will be, among other things, a most excellent opportunity to study how the liberal-left spin machine works—how they manipulate things, deceive, cheat, steal, lie, obfuscate, and more, while convincing Canadians to march to the polls and vote liberal.

Behold the deception as it unfolds before your very eyes from their mouths, and their mouthpieces.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

“Scalia-lite” nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court

We know he’s a good choice because the Democrats are calling him “too radical”, and Senator Shumer said “This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people”.

This despite President Bush’s promise made during the election (at which he won the most votes of any President in the history of the United States) that he was going to nominate Supreme Court judges in the model of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Alito has been dubbed “Scalito” or “Scalia-lite” by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to that of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Probably should have made this choice to start with, saving tons of time and grief….

President Bush on Monday nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

While many Republicans praised the judicial nominee, Democrats wasted no time in publicly blasting him as “too radical.”

“Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges of America and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of judicial experience,” Bush said in making the announcement in the White House.

“He’s scholarly, fair-minded and principled and these qualities will serve him well on the highest court in the land.”


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Nearly half the country agrees: Liberals have lost their “moral right to govern”

That’s the result of an Ipsos-Reid poll, conducted for liberal-friendly CanWest News Service.

When asked if the Liberal Party has lost the moral authority to govern our country, 48 percent agreed.  And that sounds devastating for the Liberals on the surface.  However the flip side is that 45 percent don’t agree with that assessment at all!  They think the Liberals have NOT lost their moral authority, requiring us to once again ask ourselves:  What in tarnation would it take for Canadians to believe that the Liberals are systemically corrupt and incapable of faithfully leading our nation? 

More perplexing is the fact that last week, an Ipsos poll showed that Liberal Party support had grown to a spread of 12 percent over the Conservatives, and a poll just emailed to me this morning by SES Research shows the same result.  That goes counter to other recent polls suggesting that the Liberals were ahead by only five to seven points, and one anomaly in that mix of polls showing a couple of weeks ago that the Liberals were ahead by 13, which Ottawa columnist Val Sears chose to embrace as “the latest poll” (which it wasn’t) in a column last week —without any of the other trifling words I just typed for accuracy and balance of course. 

Canadians are so liberal they don’t even know how liberal they are any more.  The liberal-left, its media and academia and entertainment industry, together with state-run media here and a culture of full dependence on government by most every Canadian and most businesses which has been nurtured by the liberal-left, has worked marvelously well in turning Canadians’ attitude against conservative government in favor of liberal-left socialists. 

The media in particular have done a great service to the Liberals, by, for example, turning the Liberal Party’s sponsorship or “Adscam” corruption scandal into what they constantly term the federal sponsorship scandal in their stories, or the federal government sponsorship scandal —-rather than Liberal Party sponsorship scandal which is what it actually is.  Thus they make everyone look bad—not just the Liberal Party which is the only guilty party in actual fact.  It’s a little like calling terrorists “militants” or “combatants”—in that it makes anyone who’s fighting equal in guilt.  They’re all bad—no one party stands out as worse, they would have us believe. 

Here’s an example of that, from another story just this morning: 

Canadians by the thousands have watched the televised testimony, fumed over the news accounts, gasped at the perfidy and laughed aloud at the theatrics.

Now the long-running federal sponsorship scandal is about to burst back onto the national scene, with the release by Justice John Gomery of the first of two reports from his nine-month commission of inquiry.

As if to prove the point, Mr. Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid said, regarding this latest poll, 

“It’s not like anybody has seized the issue as being the ‘party of clean,’ ” he said. “It’s not like anybody has broken away from the pack on that. So, people are just throwing up their hands and saying; ‘Oh well, I don’t think anybody is necessarily going to be any better (than Mr. Martin).’ “

Eureka, liberal media! 

But look at this:

Thirty-four per cent of respondents pointed to Mr. Chretien when asked who was most to blame for the scandal, 15 per cent picked Mr. Martin, who was finance minister at the time, 14 per cent chose officials from the federal Liberal party in Quebec, 12 per cent said public servants in the Department of Public Works, and 10 per cent blame all parties.

Ten percent blame all parties for the Liberal Party Adscam corruption!  How could that have happened? 

But moreover, that little gem of “blame” information amounts to a total of only 51 percent of the country.  Where’s the rest?!  I imagine that a good wack of the remaining 49 percent of Canadians (which is left mysteriously unexplained in the story) blame Stephen Harper and the Conservatives!

I think it’s remarkable that in spite of all of that, so many millions of Canadians still vote Conservative.  The conservative message, its values and truths must be very powerful indeed.  Too bad more don’t hear it!

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

In Rust We Trust: Men and Boys and the Wealth of their Toys

I could never be a Leftist because the Left seems to hate two things that I love: men and American business.

Male-bashing has developed into a full-blown art-form in this country. And strangely enough, the male-bashing is often accompanied by the presumption that men and women are the same in every significant way. No one seems to notice the logical conclusion: if men are bad, and women and men are the same, ergo, women must be bad. But never mind. I love the men and boys in my life, precisely because of the ways in which they differ from me. And many aspects of American business are distinctly “guy things.”  I love these parts of American business too.

These two things, American men and American business came together for me last weekend. My husband and I had a few blessed child-free hours, so we went on a date. We went to the Antique Gas and Steam Engine fair, held two week-ends a year on the grounds of the Museum of the same name, here in Vista, California. Male and female difference number one: My husband went to look at the antique steam engines. I went to look at my husband, and a whole lot of other guys, in their natural habitat.

What kind of machines are we talking about?  Everything from huge steam-driven turbines, large enough to power a city street, to a dinky little engine that runs a butter-churning machine. This museum is a combination of technological history, and Americana. Old gentlemen in blue-striped engineer outfits drove steam-propelled tractors around the grounds, blowing their whistles at imaginary obstacles. Other guys showed off antique farm machinery, that they had restored from a pile of rust. (The theme of this year’s fair was, I kid you not, “In Rust, We Trust.”)  Still others worked in a replica of a blacksmith’s shop, demonstrating the fine points of the blacksmith’s craft.

Strolling through the streets of this antique tractor fair, you could see continual improvements in technology.  Old-fashioned wringer washing machines were on display. You could imagine how welcome a gas-powered agitator would be to a hard-working farm family, accustomed to washing and wringing their clothes by hand. You could see the improvements in farm implements, as a tractor took the place of a horse pulling a plow. Then the ordinary tractor made possible a whole series of more specialized attachments: a disk, a thresher, a combine.

And how did all these improvements come about?  If you just read the history books, you might think it was a series of small miracles that led from the horse-drawn plow to the modern air-conditioned tractor, equipped with TV and computer. In the nineteenth century, close to 80% of America worked in agriculture. Today’s tractors allow a mere 8% of the population to plow the whole Mid West and feed America and much of the world.  But looking around the grounds of this antique tractor museum, I believe I could see how those miracles took place.

My husband truly loves these old machines. Each old engine prompted a story about how some old farmer must have figured out this or that about how to make something or other work better. My husband got excited as he explained to me that once you had figured out how to make a steam engine work, you could use that same engine for many purposes.

You could use a drive belt to connect the engine to your washing machine, or to a saw mill. And he knew people of his grandfather’s generation, who had done just that.  They took the engine they normally used around the farmhouse, up into the woods when they had lumber to mill.

As I watched my husband and the other guys, looking at antique engines with love in their eyes, I realized those men weren’t just looking at old rusty machines. Every man there was filled with admiration for the men who made those machines, admiration for the lives they lived and the lives they made possible. These were once little boys who loved their toy trains and tractors and cars. They grew up to be men who make things happen, who look for a better way, and who figure out, one step at a time, easier and cheaper and safer ways to do things. These are men who honor the past, not by preserving it, but by building on it, improving it.

I am convinced that men like these are the key to understanding the secret of American wealth. This is how all the little miracles of innovation took place. Because they owned their little farms and had the right to any improvements they made, American men had every incentive to find better ways and to share their knowledge with others. These men take pride in the fact that they can confront reality on reality’s terms. They are accountable to reality in a way that no talking head or academic can truly be. Even when I was an academic myself, and even now when I am surrounded by talking heads, I love being married to an engineer. He keeps me grounded.

The American way is about small business and individual initiative. Our country’s system of private property and personal innovation harnesses the unique gifts of men and places those gifts at the service of the common good. We are a rich country because we turn little boys who love tractors into grown-up men who make things work better.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Liberal Indian Affairs Minister refused to resign

Pretty quiet Sunday, but one news item caught my eye —particularly the last four paragraphs of the story.  The story was based on the Liberal Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott and how he has refused to resign, when asked if he would, on CTV’s Question Period today.  That, despite the Liberals’ amazingly poor administration of their Indian Affairs ministry in which a whole town has to be abandoned and evacuated as a result of policy and administrative mismanagement under their watch. 

Bush did not cause this.  Liberals caused this. 

I found that the headline and the end of the story summarized ubiquitous problems in Canada under liberal-left watch, despite (as a result of?) massive over-taxation, and massive social programs, the government handout of roughly 100 BILLION dollars in just the past ten years to various indian programs; and their creation and nurturing and ultimate accomplishment of a Canadian culture of complete government dependence and entitlement.  They worked so hard for exactly what they now have:  the likes of Ontario’s Kashechewan First Nation reserve.

Reserve still waiting for water purification unit

[…] Meanwhile, people are now concerned about security in Kashechewan.

Homes and belongings have been almost abandoned due to the evacuation of approximately 500 of the community’s residents.

Compounding the problem is the fact that Kashechewan’s three police officers are refusing to work between 2 a.m. and 9 a.m. Ontario’s regional reserve police force has been on a work-to-rule campaign for four weeks. At issue are concerns about overtime pay and benefits.

Also on patrol are 17 military reservists, known as rangers. They are unarmed and have no authority to make arrests.

And I’m still waiting for the liberal-left Canadians’ shrill accusation that Paul Martin hates Indians and wants them to die, à la their shrill accusation to that effect against President Bush as a result of what they call his purposeful willingness to let black folks die after Katrina.  And the Governor-General hasn’t remarked about how this compares to Sudan and Haiti, as she did the state of affairs in the U.S. south, during her swearing in speech.  I just can’t see the difference in circumstances here, if I were to abide by their farcical logic. They simply aren’t being very consistent are they?  And I note that the CTV story doesn’t refer to the indians as “refugees” as they did the black folks in Louisiana.  Again, not very consistent.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Gutter politics

Conservatives must fight off Liberal mud-slinging if they’re to have a prayer of winning next election

I’m not quite sure what kind of a strategy Conservative leader Stephen Harper has for battling Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberals in the next federal election, but it had better be an aggressive one.

Even a brutal one.

Get Martin on the run, trip him up, and then put the boot in when he’s on the ground.

Not nice words?

Well, the Grits won’t hesitate to throw as much dirt at Harper and his candidates as they can find—or at least concoct.

Compared to the squalidness of Martin and his cabal, the Conservatives are squeaky clean—so Harper’s forces are going to have to fight back with all they have.

None of the gentlemanly route my longtime friend Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield was encouraged to take in the 1968, 1972 and 1974 federal elections. Elections Stanfield lost every time against the crafty and cunning Pierre Trudeau.

No, no—Harper shouldn’t get down into the gutter. That is already Grit occupied territory.

No space left there whatsoever.

But Harper has to take the political ball, run with it, never look behind, and kick it through the goalpost to victory.

He must mercilessly tear Martin and his coterie apart at every touch and turn.

Wage trench warfare.

Martin will have absolutely no qualms himself about playing a dirty game.

He is not a man of great political ethical stature.

The prime minister has demonstrated that on several occasions.

As finance minister, he spent years trying to undermine his boss, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, until, tired of being knifed in the back, Chretien kicked him out of his cabinet.

Not that Chretien had any higher political ethical values than Martin.

Both Chretien and Martin—who feign their devotion to the cause of national unity—didn’t hesitate to make Alberta the scapegoat in the 2000 and 2004 federal elections.

They twisted Premier Ralph Klein’s policies—and they twisted what Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day and Harper stood for. Twisting the values of these three politicians and preparing to sacrifice Alberta, showed their true colours.

Martin will do it again.

He’ll try to hide from the question that as a cost-slashing finance minister, he is chiefly responsible for the plight of our health services today.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

He’ll try to evade his responsibility for the boondoggle of the $2 billion gun registry, blaming lax American border controls for the war zone society Toronto has become, even while we know it is our border posts that are atrociously understaffed.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

He’ll try to avoid the issue of our relations with the U.S., which he swore he’d rebuilt after the disastrous Chretien era.

They are now worse than ever.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

He’ll try to divert attention from Mr. Justice John Gomery’s inquiry into Adscam—even though as finance minister he signed the cheques for this $250 million rip-off of the taxpayers money.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

He’ll try to make us forget his commitment to fixing the “democratic deficit” was all flimflam—Senate appointments and Supreme Court appointments still all come out of the PMO, with no genuine input from all-party committees.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

He promised to give tax breaks to business and industry—to spur investment, boost productivity and create jobs—but capitulated to New Democrat leader Jack Layton’s blackmail.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

He swore he would consider his tenure a failure unless he solved the problem of western alienation, and yet bitterness in the West towards Ottawa is deeper than ever.

Harper can surely run him into the ground on that one.

Come to think of it—when has the dithering, blundering, self-serving Martin ever fulfilled a legitimate promise or commitment he made to the Canadian people?

Ooops!—it’s the bottom of the page or else I could conjure up more of Martin’s sins of both commission and omission.

Surely Harper can do the same.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Paul Jackson Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

A time for anger

Anger, like alcohol, is only bad if it’s abused.  However, if used for right reasons and in right amounts (as the inspired Psalmist once said about wine), it can “make the heart merry.”  Anger might not make you glad as quickly as a second glass of merlot can, but if channeled correctly, it will make you giddy about something you desire, but can’t get—until you get angry.

For example:  say you’re an unemployed, 28-year old guy who does nothing but sit on your butt playing Xbox, smoking weed, living with mommy and dating 19-year old girls and guys.  You know what?  You should get angry with yourself because you, clearly, aren’t the coldest beer in the fridge.  You do not have a life, and it should make you mad that other people are actually productive—unlike you.

Need another example?  Say you’re overweight.  Remember what it used to be like to walk across Walmart’s parking lot without having to be gurneyed to your minivan by Randy Mantooth?  Remember the joy of not being able to hide small toys and half-eaten sandwiches between the folds of blubber on your body and being able to actually see the toilet when you use it?  Remember those simple pleasures?  You do?  Does it make you mad that you don’t get to enjoy them any longer?  It does?!?  There you go . . . see how positive anger can be?

Folks, this righteous wrath not only works for personal improvement, but it can also change for the better all aspects of our society—if we’ll get righteously P.O.’d in a precise direction.  And there’s the rub . . . Our neutered nation tells us it’s a big no-no to get mad anymore.

That’s right, being angry is forbidden in our currently castrated culture—unless it’s something that the liberal thought police thinks you should be ticked at, and then you’re forced to fume also or you’re . . .  you’re . . .  you’re a . . . a Nazi!

Nowadays we’ve been forced to memorize this mantra of postmodernism that being nice and accepting of anything and everything—even if it is utter, uncut and unmitigated BS—is our duty.  And it just so happens that BS is the chief characteristic of our society these days.  We’re inundated with it but not supposed to be upset by it, which is convenient if you are the seller of it.

Because we have allowed ourselves to be programmed by “them” to be nice and not heat up (unless, again, it is at something that upsets the left), we don’t even blink an eye when we see the base and the vile; instead we force a smile.  What a bunch of hooey we’ve been sold vis-Ã -vis this whole uninterrupted “nice” wave we’ve been told we’re supposed to surf.  Today, people can do something appalling, say something contemptible and delve down the funnel exalting the lowest parts of humanity—and what’s to be our response?  We’re supposed to say, “Well, all righty then . . . Okey Dokey . . . have a nice day.”

Why do we show mock civility towards things that mock civility?  Well, because “anger is bad.”  And we don’t want to be bad, do we?  No, we want to be nice. We’re supposed to be a chilled-out group of pleasant and complicit prawns who do the Miss America wave no matter what kind of insanity gets shoved in our faces, up our tail pipes or down our throats.

Now, before I get misunderstood about how we should carry ourselves as perturbed people, let me clarify a couple of things:

1. Don’t unleash your anger on your loved ones, friends or pets (unless you have a cat).

2. Don’t waste your wrath on the inconsequential. For example, I wanted to get really peeved at the people down here in Miami who are screaming for the government to take care of them post-Wilma because they did not take care of themselves pre-Wilma as they were warned to do.  Instead of getting wound-up, I decided that I would chill out with one of my stockpiled Coronas and a beautiful Cuesta Rey #9 in my hurricane-shuttered, generator-powered, canned-food-filled, fully armored home. Remember, soldier, anger has a shelf life.  Use it sparingly and wisely.

So, what do I get freaked over since I am a selective rage-o-holic?  Whither doth my anger arrows fly?  How can I make the most of my bellicose spirit, and where will I lead my readers to direct their rage?

Well, being a Christian concerned about my continued religious liberty, being a traditionalist concerned about the continuity of our nation and its original intent, and a being a parent concerned about leaving my kids and grandkids a nation that doesn’t resemble a Hustler superstore, I have decided to direct my wrath at the ones who advocate on behalf of cultural truth-decay, namely the ACLU.  Why waste my time exposing punks when I can go after the skunk that’s stinking up the place?

Therefore, on and off for the next few months, I’m going to be writing a series of columns that will hopefully stir you, the conservative reader, to righteously recoil and revolt against what the ACLU (which I think stands for Asinine Carping Lunatics Unhinged) spews.

We’ve got to get P.O.’d, people, or our nation is going to be unrecognizable.  We must meet those with anti-American sentiments and their insanity everywhere they raise their garlic-knotted heads and solidly beat them on their own turf.  Otherwise the things we love as traditional Americans are going to end up as relics in a museum in a country that resembles Amsterdam.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Doug Giles Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

CBC broadcasting to be paid for by Liberal Party of Canada from now on?

I read this “news story” with much interest Because (A) it seemed like an advertisement for the Liberal Party of Canada (again) and (B) according to the “news story” the Liberals have decided to pay for what they call “political” broadcasting starting on Sunday.  So I guess this “news story” won’t be covered by their funding.

The story starts out with this meiosis:

Faced with a daunting list of challenges,  Prime Minister Paul Martin is taking a tip from his U.S. counterpart by delivering a weekly radio address to the country starting Sunday.

He is not “faced with a daunting list of challenges”, he’s faced with the very real possibility of the criminal prosecution and the revelation of unethical conduct against several members of his inner cabinet and bureaucracy, and his party; and at the very least, of leading and being a major part of the biggest political corruption scandal this great country has ever known in its history. 

But whatever.

Then the breathtaking announcement:

“Given that there may be occasion to speak to political matters, the prime minister has instructed that the cost of these broadcasts be borne by the Liberal Party of Canada,” said the statement.

So I’m elated because I imagine that means the CBC division of the party will now be funded by the Liberal Party of Canada instead of all the taxpayers including those who are harmed and stymied and insulted daily by their anti-conservative, anti-American, pro-liberal-left propaganda, to the tune of a BILLION dollars per year.

The “news story” also expended some extra typewriter ribbon so as to inform us that the Prime Minister’s radio address “will also be available on the party website at”.  Not “at their web site”.  No no.  The reporter was sure to tell us the exact address in case we want to go there, read the radio address, and accidentally catch any of their other “vote liberal” dogma.  A quick search finds no such reference in any news story in the past 12 years to “”.

It’s a wonder the “reporter” didn’t point directly to the Liberal Party’s donation page—but then again the Gomery report will spell out how some of the taxpayer funding of the Liberal Party works, starting this Tuesday, so maybe he figured it was redundant. 

The helpful “reporter” closed his “news story” by informing us cheerily:

It is not uncommon for U.S. presidents to use national airtime to make blatantly partisan political appeals to the U.S. electorate.

Unlike the CBC, you see.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Saturday picture

Saturday Picture:  Our little dog Alby in mid-flight.

This picture was taken in a bird sanctuary/marsh area
across the road from our place.

She stands, tilting her head to the left then the right, waiting for the exact right moment to pounce on her prey—usually a tiny field mouse—then she lifts vertically and slightly forward like there are little rockets in each of her paws, and lands exactly where she intended. 

She’s done this approximately 8,488 times and has only caught two mice but history starts fresh every day with her and each time is new and special.

Just to help prove that she’s really in mid-air—here’s a close-up.

Alby is a Border Collie – Sheltie cross.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

New Orleans fires 51 police for desertion. Bush’s fault, no doubt.

Maybe they were lured in by “war criminal” President Bush’s inherent “evilness” and astounding “black-hating” powers of mind-control and weather-altering magnetism (as taught by Rove) to D.C. in some sort of Halliburton-controlled hypnotic trance where they will be forced to join the “religious right” and force judges to vote againt Roe v. Wade and then lock up all the homosexuals starting, of course, with the black ones. 

New Orleans Police Fire 51 for Desertion

NEW ORLEANS – Fifty-one members of the New Orleans Police Department — 45 officers and six civilian employees — were fired Friday for abandoning their posts before or after Hurricane Katrina.

“They were terminated due to them abandoning the department prior to the storm,” acting superintendent Warren Riley said. “They either left before the hurricane or 10 to 12 days after the storm and we have never heard from them.”

Police were unable to account for 240 officers on the 1,450-member force following Katrina. The force has been investigating them to see if they left their posts during the storm.

The mass firing was the first action taken against the missing officers. Another 15 officers resigned when placed under investigation for abandonment.

“This isn’t representative of our department,” Riley said. “We had a lot of heroes that stepped up after the storm.”

Another 45 officers resigned from the force after the Aug. 29 storm. The resignations were for personal reasons ranging from relocation to new employment, Riley said. […]

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

UN has a Heart of Darkness

In Joseph Conrad’s small yet dense novel set at the turn of the last century, Heart of Darkness, the up-river journey of Marlow, the story’s narrator, takes him to a place in the interior of Africa and a man, Kurtz, where power and greed represent the evil face of his time.

Our contemporary Marlow needs to sail up the river Hudson and dock by the New York headquarters of the United Nations to discover another sort of modern-day heart of darkness.

Here, Kofi Annan, the UN’s secretary general presides over a world body—built over the smouldering ruins of World War II—dedicated to the purpose, as its Charter declares, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, establish worldwide conditions for justice and respect for international law, promote social progress and freedom, practice tolerance among peoples and nations, and unite together for international peace and security.

Our contemporary Marlow at the UN, however, will discover legions of Kurtzes representing scoundrel governments from around the world.

It is as if the good Lord, desiring to establish His kingdom on earth, were to find the satanic prince and his cohorts from the underworld having taken upon themselves His noble aim.

Any good the UN does—now increasingly open to question with disclosures mounting on the oil-for-food (or fraud) program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—is offset by its criminal ineptness and shady practices subverting its principal task of maintaining the ideals of the organization in the face of human propensity to do evil.

A French judge, Philippe Courroye, earlier this month ordered the arrest of Jean-Bernard Merimee for his alleged role in the UN-Iraq oil-for-food caper.

Merimee, 68, was France’s representative to the UN from 1991-1995, and from 1999-2002 served Annan as a special adviser. He was awarded by Saddam Hussein, as documents unearthed in U.S.-liberated Baghdad disclose, 11 million barrels of oil between December 2001 and March 2003.

Besides Merimee, five other individuals are under judicial investigation by judge Courroye. Among them are Serge Boidevaix, former secretary general of the republic’s foreign ministry, and Bernard Guillet, an adviser to former French interior minister Charles Pasqua.

Pasqua was questioned by investigators as well.

French officials deny any of this influenced the republic’s decision in opposing the war to liberate Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny.

Such denials probably have as much plausiblilty as Annan’s denial he was aware of his son Kojo’s influence-peddling, or that of his senior officials and advisers implicated in the oil-for-food scandal.

Moreover, there is Darfur, where a genocide perpetrated by a criminal regime in Sudan has unfolded in a continent that witnessed genocide in Rwanda under the watch of Annan and his predecessor, Boutros-Ghali.

There are reports from several UN missions in Africa and the Balkans of sexual exploitation, cases of child rape and neglect of human rights abuses, and legal actions are yet to be brought against perpetrators.

But the oil-for-food scandal has revealed how deep and ugly is the cynicism inside the UN.

This was not merely laundering money from any dictator, it was colluding with a regime that brutalized and murdered its own people, and bribed UN officials plus representatives of the key members of the Security Council responsible to monitor the regime and preserve the sanctity of its Charter.

Serious people must ask whether the world’s poor and oppressed would not be better served by a Coalition of Democracies, without the UN as an assembly of thugs, terrorists and human rights abusers pretending to help bring progress for them.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Salim Mansur Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Teachers’ Strike Fallout

What can one say about the recent teacher’s strike?  It certainly came as no surprise.  During the election, Gordon Campbell stated that the teachers were going to hold a strike vote shortly after the campaign.  The BCTF called him a liar and commenced legal action for his slanderous comments.  Then they held the strike vote they denied they were going to hold.  And all of this passes by as quite routine in a province where the official opposition sits at the pleasure of the public sector and trade unions.

The teachers are back at work and we’ll have to wait and see what type of contract settlement comes out of the process.  It will be interesting watching the fallout though.  Schools have taken a leadership role in developing anti-bullying curriculum in the past few years.  Yet, they bullied many of their more reasoned colleagues to partake in the illegal activity.  Even though the labor code prohibits unions from punishing members who refuse to break the law, it was clearly stated that any teacher who chose to obey the law and cross the picket line would be in for a rough ride down the line.  Doesn’t that sound eerily similar to the schoolyard threats kids hear from their peers when they’re reluctant to join in vandalism or some other criminal activity? 

Teachers may also find it difficult to enforce the few rules that still exist in the public school system.  I’m curious to see how educators will handle difficult students who have decided they’re going to pick and choose the rules they intend to adhere to.  A lot of restrictions don’t make sense when you’re ten and twelve years old.  By the time you’re fourteen, some of them are downright nuts.  If enough students decide it’s okay to break a rule you don’t agree with, there could be more than a couple messy terms down the road.

And can someone help me out here on another item, please?  Apparently the illegal strike involved 38,000 teachers walking off the job and leaving 600,000 students without classes.  Now I am not, nor have I ever been, a math whiz.  But when I took grade six algebra that meant each teacher would have an average of less than sixteen students.  So how did we get all these unmanageably large classrooms? 

The long and short is that the job action was political and yet another refusal by the left to accept the results of the most recent provincial election.  The teachers never demanded any ridiculous 15% raise when the NDP was in power.  And they certainly didn’t engage in any illegal job action when the NDP legislated them back to work.  The BCTF spends more time talking about Iraq, global warming, Israel, and their hero, Fidel Castro than they do about the real issues facing the public school system.  I’m surprised they haven’t advocated safe injection sites on school property yet.

Guess I shouldn’t give them any more ideas.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

It's a question.