How The Habs Can Improve Their On-Ice Product.

The cleaning crew guys come out three times during each period to scrape up ice shavings. The stoppage is extremely boring and annoying.

The Canadiens can improve the on-ice product without affecting the salary cap with a few simple trades!!

Added attractions:
10 Sexiest NHL girfriends

and the;
World's Hardest Hockey Shot

Best shoot-out goal.....

Worst hockey Mom;

Never Date Within the Division

Florida Fan Flashes the Cam;

Steve Colbert steals HNIC theme song....Arrrgghhh.......

Hypocritical Pauline Marois Gets a free Pass from Press

I don't often get upset at the antics of politicians, they are what they are. As a group, politicians are generally shallow, dishonest back stabbers who put their own interests before those of the people they purportedly serve. Those are the good ones, the bad ones are utterly callous opportunists who hold the public in utter disrespect and use their time in public life to steal as much as they can for themselves and their friends.

It's the media's job to keep politicians in check by exposing their transgressions. For the press, it's good for business, scandal sells newspapers. Just look at Tiger Woods.

Usually the press does a good job, but here is the first of two stories (I'll write about the other one next week) where they let their guard down badly.

The Parti Quebecois has been testing the issue of Jean Charest's extra pay package for a week or two  and now finally satisfied that the issue is a winner, Pauline Marois herself, weighed in.

She hammered Charest for accepting a $75,000 annual payment from the Quebec Liberal Party in addition to the $175,000 salary that he is paid as Premier.

"Your salary has to come from the government of Quebec, not the Quebec Liberal Party," complained  Marois. "If the Liberal Party pays him $75,000 it is because it has expectations and I think this is not acceptable," 
Expectations!!!! HA! HA! 
Anyone in politics knows that a politician's first level of loyalty is to the political party that gets him or her elected and it's obscene that Marois knowingly misrepresents the facts in so blatant a manner without being called out on it. 
Ninety-nine percent of everything Madame Marois says and does is meant to satisfy her political party. To say with a straight face that the Premier of Quebec or the leader of the opposition or any member of the assembly works for the good of the people before the good of party is claptrap.

The Quebec Liberal Party is Jean Charest's real employer and whether you like it or not, being Premier is a job he splits with working on behalf of the Liberal Party, to further it's success. The same goes for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party and Pauline Marois herself and the Parti Quebecois.



That Marois has stated that the Premier must work for the people and not his party is utter nonsense. 
She went on to say that Mr. Charest should live on his salary. I guess it's an easy thing to say when you're the wife of a multi-millionaire and live in an eight million dollar home. It's akin to Donald Trump telling us to be satisfied with what we have. Isn't anyone in the media going to ask her if she is really the right person to scold anyone on the merits of living on a budget.

Isn't anyone going to ask her to explain how her husband, Claude Blanchet got so rich? He was the failed and incompetent directer of the government's Société Général de financement, who left the agency in disgrace, almost a billion dollars in the hole, but not before negotiating himself an $80,000 pension for life from Madame Marois' PQ government.  Is anyone going to ask her how this idiot became such a big wheeler and dealer, getting rich doing business with the government while his wife was a Quebec cabinet minister? Did his time running the sleazy FTQ Solidarity Fund and his business relationship with the infamous Tony Accurso also somehow lead to his new found millions? 
When it comes to ethics there is little Marois can contribute. The stink surrounding the construction of the mansion she and her husband built on agricultural land hasn't gone away or been forgotten. 
She should be ripped apart for her hypocritical stance.

As for the $75,000 bonus paid to Mr. Charest by the Liberal party it's none of our business.

At the time Mr. Charest was being courted begged to leave Ottawa, the pressure applied to him and his family was nothing less than ferocious. Hundreds of phone calls, messages and requests for personal meetings were made from desperate politicians, party mandarins and millionaire businessmen.

The Liberal party was in desperate need of a leader and Charest was seen as it's saviour. The decision to uproot his young family and accept a new and uncertain job was difficult. Would it have made sense to move from a secure job in Parliament as leader of a national party (albeit diminished) without some personal guarantees and financial reward?  There was no guarantee at the time that he would become Premier.

When is it unethical to do the best for your family?
I know the agony he went through in making the decision to accept the job. He could have asked for triple what he did and it would have all been paid willingly. Millionaires were lined up, ready, willing and able to make 'brown bag donations' to insure that he took the job.
Instead he negotiated himself a package from the Liberal Party, no different than anyone else being courted for a position by a desperate employer.

There is nothing sleazy, dishonest or unethical with a political party topping up a leader's salary. While most citizens believe that $175,000 is a fantastic salary, it is paltry compared to what any top level CEO is paid. It is also fair to remind people that Mr. Charest's wife by virtue of her husband's position cannot seek employment. She does in fact work tirelessly on behalf of the government, the Liberal party and many charities as an unpaid goodwill ambassador. 

Look at Brian Mulroney and the Karl-Heinz Schreiber situation. Mulroney stated that he was desperate for the money. Is that the position we want our Premier to be in? Let us not be hypocrites like Madame Marois.

Quebeckers are generally a jealous lot when it comes to success and wealthy people and the issue of Charest's salary is one that will unfortunately pay dividends for the PQ. Usually these types of attacks are off base, since the separatists started the Liberals should start attacking Marois' wealth. 
It reminds me of a joke that I'll Canadianize.

A father and young son on a Calgary street watch as a Rolls-Royce drives by. "Son, see that car. If you work really hard and become successful, one day you might be able to buy one!" 
A father and son on a Quebec City street see a Rolls-Royce drive by. "Son, see that car. Bought with stolen money by the exploitation of workers!

PQ's Dishonest Plan to Get Rid of Religion in Public

Last month, an internal Parti Quebecois conference made headlines because of two proposals put forward that had the effect to further restrict English usage in Quebec. The first demanded that English CEGEPs (junior colleges) be subject to the constraints Bill 101, which would effectively bar Allophones and Francophone from attending. The second proposal, one which the English press had great fun with, was the proposal that would bar Allophones and Francophone toddlers from attending 'English' daycare.
Lost in all this was another proposal, one which was put forward as a draft law in the  National Assembly. Athough it seemed innocuous enough, it could have profound implications should it ever be adopted.

The Parti Quebecois proposed a law (Loi 397) that would change the preamble of the province's CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS which would be amended to include references to the primacy of French, the equality of men and women and the separation of Church and State.

"Whereas equality of women and men,the primacy of French and the separation of state and religion are fundamental values of the Québec nation;"

Seems simple enough, but the draft law went a bit further and proposed to replace Section 50.1 which presently reads;

50.1. The rights and freedoms set forth in this Charter are guaranteed equally to women and men.

with this;

“50.1. The Charter shall be so interpreted as to take into account Québec’s historical heritage and the fundamental values of the Québec nation, including equality of women and men, the primacy of French and the separation of state and religion.”(my emphasis)

 What a dishonest cop out!

According to this new interpretation, the government should be no longer be involved in religious matters, but in ordering it's affairs, should take into account the province's 'historical heritage,' which is nothing more than code for Catholicism.

The language was inserted to allay fears that Quebec could not only lose it's Christian heritage, but be forced to modify or eliminate Catholic symbols and customs in society to reflect this new official secularism.

The irony was not lost on Daniel Baril who in a blistering attack in a Le Devoir opinion piece said;

"We know where this is taking us, the continued presence of the crucifix in the National Assembly erected by Duplessis to mark its alliance with the Catholic Church, now preserved through a revisionist doctrine, as an object of historical heritage!"

The effect of the change in the Charter would be to remove religious symbolism and practices from public life, but not necessarily those that are Catholic.

It's a case of having one's cake and eating it too.

The real effect of the proposed law is nothing more than a blatant attack on minority religions,  Islam and Judaism, particularly.

Under the new secular edict, government workers couldn't greet clients wearing a head scarf, yarmulke or turban. Schools that offered religious training would no longer benefit from any government support and time off from work wouldn't be allowed for the celebration of non-Christan holidays.

 While in the name of secularism, the Jewish General Hospital might be required to change it's name, the 'Hotel Dieux Hospital' would protected because of it's 'historical heritage.' Same with the crucifix on Mount Royal and the hundreds of street names starting with "Saint."

It's a cynical and cruel double standard, meant to portray Quebec as secular, while protecting Christan symbols and conventions.

One of the fundamental problems in enshrining secularism in the Quebec CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is that it is in direct violation of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, whose opening preamble is this;

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Hmmmm.....

More Supreme Court Bashing?

In light of the Supreme Court's decision to confirm a lower court ruling that Walmart was entitled to close a store because employees had voted a union in, I was ready for another round of Supreme Court bashing by Quebec militants.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that this time, it was not the case. Perhaps the union that appealed the decision knew that their chances to reverse the decision were slim to none and that it was likely that the appeal was more an act of faith in support of laid off workers. The principle that they were arguing,  that a company can't close a business just because workers voted a union in, was pretty much a lost cause from the beginning.
The only shocking outcome in the affair is that three of the Supreme Court judges sided with the union.

The union's maturity in taking the defeat in stride contrasted sharply with the behaviour of the Quebec government in response to the unfavourable decision made by the Supremos in rejecting  the appeal in the Bill 104 case. In that file, the Quebec government wanted to overturn a decision made by the highest court in Quebec that ruled illegal the law (Bill 104) designed to close a perceived loophole that allowed immigrant children to attend public English schools by going to a private English school for a short time.
The rhetoric from the government ministers in bashing the decision led to a public uproar by militants who complained that the Supreme Court was subverting the will of the Quebec National Assembly.

What was lost in all this or ignored by militants as well as the quebec government was the fact that the case was already adjudicated by the highest court in Quebec, with the decision going against the government as well.

If the government felt that the Supreme Court was biased, they could have let sleeping dogs lie and just accept the decision of it's very own highest court.
Knowing full well that the decision would be upheld by the Supreme Court, they cynically sought to pass the buck and paint the 'Anglo" Supreme court as the villain. Of course the militants swallowed the bait and railed on and on about the will of the Quebec nation being subverted by Ottawa.

It was a case of cynical manipulation. Perhaps they took a lesson from the famous South Park movie-"BLAME CANADA"

While bashing the Supreme Court seems par for the course in Quebec, it doesn't seem to stop governments and unions from appealing the 'foreign' body when they deem it in their interest to do so.
Just this week the city of Saguenay (in the most sovereignist of region of Quebec) sought to appeal an unfavourable decision to that august body.
Hippocrites!

Polytechnique Remembrance Ceremony Degenerates into Male Bashing

20 years ago, a deranged and frustrated young man, Marc Lepine, walked into the École Polytechnique de Montréal with his rifle and methodically hunted down women. It was a sad tragedy of a psychotic nutcase who blamed women for his shortcomings and lack of success in life. In a rambling manifesto, he justified his actions in a suicide note that underlined his craziness.

....."Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker."

.....the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men." Read the entire suicide note

Unfortunately last weekend's memorial in Montreal and cities throughout Canada have had the recurring theme of bashing all males, instead of memorializing the women senselessly lost to a crazy bastard.

The tragic loss of life at the hands of a maniac is a sad affair that should be remembered as a testament to human failing, instead of an indictment of the male of the species.

Feminist group after feminist group have made the victims of the massacre into poster girls for male bashing and gender politics. It is sad and unfair.
I can tell you that in no uncertain terms that I feel zero responsibility for what happened to these women and resent the implication that their tragic deaths are somehow my responsibility as a male.

The victims have been transformed into feminist martyrs and the annual remembrance ceremonies have been co-opted to push a radical agenda of guilting males for perceived injustices.

December 6 has become the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, a festival of sanctimonious male bashing dedicated to telling all men how very shitty they really are.

It is an insult to the memory of these women that their deaths should be used for a crass and partisan political agenda.

Domestic violence is a serious societal issue and should be confronted in a rational and reasonable measure. Bashing all men for the actions of some is disingenuous. Refusing to admit that up to one third of domestic abuse relates to women abusing men is also unhelpful to the debate.
The greater issue of why men and women abuse their spouses and why most victims choose to remain in abusive relationships begs serious consideration and study. Blame, and  finger pointing will never contribute to curbing violence.

In recent  days, leading up to the national day of male-bashing, government sponsored commercials have aired on television and radio, wherein men have chastised other men for domestic violence against women.

The insulting and demeaning ads intimate that all men are responsible for domestic violence and pointedly ask us to stop the abuse. Sorry, if I don't buy into the program, I haven't abused anyone and bear as much culpability as my wife or children, for others who abuse their spouses.

One might ask what purpose these ads serve?
Do you believe that an abusive man will stop to consider his actions as a result of the moronic commercial? It is strictly a case of agenda-driven hate directed at men by radical feminists.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the massacre at the Polytechnique, it has nothing to do with sexism, abuse and violence towards women.

The true lesson was the one learned  by the police, who made the tragic decision to wait for the SWAT team to intervene. The delay in entering the building directly led to the deaths of many of the victims.
Years later, having acknowledged the mistake and after modifying procedures, police redeemed themselves in the incident of the Dawson College shooter in 2006.

The first two police officers on the scene, lightly armed and armoured, bravely entered the school to confront the rifle wielding killer as per the new procedures. Their bravery and prompt action in confronting and cornering the killer (leading to his suicide) no doubt saved countless lives.

If there is any silver lining to the tragic and sad massacre at the Polytechnique it is that the deaths directly resulted in other lives being saved seventeen years later at Dawson college.

The women who were tragically killed by this insane gunman weren't saints or sinners, they were ordinary people who were unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Making their deaths an issue of radical feminism is cruel and unfair to their memory.

P.S.
Some of the feminist activists are using the commemoration to advocate against the abolition of the national gun registry. What they fail to mention is that Marc Lepine followed all the proscribed procedures for owning a gun and had the registry been in existence at the time of the shooting, he'd have been legally entitled to be on the list and to own a gun.

Hmmm...Come to think about it, Kimveer Gill,  the Dawson shooter was actually inscribed legally on the gun registry.

No matter, these pesky facts are irrelevant to those with an agenda. It's still expedient to pretend that the gun registry is anything but a colossal waste of resources.