Wednesday, July 28, 2004

dot dot dot

A few of the finer sites around, and their latest incisive/blistering/hilarious items.


Bob Tarantino's wheelhouse is demolishing the bleatings of the Toronto Star and The Globe & Mail.  He does a lovely job, and I'm grateful; I find that I can't be bothered to undertake such dissections - it's too exhausting.

Today's comprehensive post takes aim at Clayton Ruby's ridiculous article in yesterday's Globe supporting the long gun registry, and is highly recommended.  The only thing I would add is a backhanded commendation of Mr. Ruby for at least being clear about what he believes.  He mentions that the Conservative Party would repeal the registration requirement for rifles and shotguns, "But that was not nearly as alarming as the party's pledge to 'respect the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms.'" 

There you have it - the simple fact that Canadians have guns is the real problem, and if everything works out according to plan, the registry is more or less a step along the way to prohibition and confiscation.  Why can't the rest of the gun control crowd be this direct?

And one more thing nagging at me from Mr. Ruby's piece - why is the Alberta Court of Appeal referencing a UN Declaration on anything?


Jardine has your basic solid libertarian stuff - what sets him apart for me is his interest in letting the markets loose (all the way) on the highway system.  If memory serves, he is a civil engineer by trade.  Naturally he had some comments on the Ontario government's plans to rehab public infrastructure.  The highlight:

From CBC Ottawa:  "The good news is the Ontario government has a $100-billion plan to build and improve hospitals, schools, sewers, water systems, and roads.The bad news is ordinary Ontario residents will be helping to pay for it with more tolls for roads and bridges, and higher user fees for water and other services."
Jardine's response:  "I wonder if the author of this regurgitated press release would care to explain who they think should pay for all this stuff? If not "ordinary" Ontarians, should it be bourgeois Quebecers? Why is the Ontario government spoken of in terms of an omniscent third party bearing gifts for *society*. From whence did it obtain the $100 billion to bequeath upon us?"
Bonus turn of phrase that gave me a chuckle:  "Thankfully, Terence Corcoran has decided to put aside defending corporate crooks for the time being to concentrate on what he does best. For infrastructure, he says, drive the 407 model..."


Damian Penny is one of the more prolific amateurs out there, with lots of good stuff and a sensible worldview - plus he just seems likeable.  Similar to Jardine, his best stuff is about what he knows - lawyerin'.  This entry is about a lawsuit filed against Nissan by the State of New Jersey, predicated on the most twisted, patronizing, open-up-a-giant-can-of-worms logic imaginable.


Kate is more a a reader-linker than a writer, but she catches a lot, and manages a good dig of her own once in awhile.  This post is intelligent, observant, funny, and brief, a combination which occurs about once a month on the entire web.

So that's two from Ontario, one from the West, and one from Atlantic Canada - I appear to be inadvertently building a Cabinet.  That means there should be one from Quebec, no?  I like a few of them, but instead I'll just pimp Inkless Wells.  He knows the politics there, and even uses French quite a bit.  He also wins my award for "Guy I'd Most Like to Have Writing a Pissed-Off Letter on My Behalf" - Exhibit A.

Overall, The Man is still this guy (I'm possibly influenced by provincial patriotism - meh).  His website invokes politics, sports, science, and the arcane - occasionally all in one post.  The likelihood that any other "web-based commenter" has the intellect & inclination to conceive, research, and create the Giambi graphic therein - what kind of brain does that! - is approximately equal to the likelihood that Bush and Kerry have actually had sex.


Post a Comment

<< Home