Premier league betting outrighteous movie

Trisha and her friend, Natalie, suit up for boot camp. Mussels Triestina and cavatappi with beef guazzetto. Trisha Yearwood puts her spin on Mexican classics. Sara goes to Charlotte, N. Molly Yeh is hosting Oktoberfest in the Midwest. Ree Drummond shares care package fundamentals. The chefs use sweet ingredients in the entree round. Home cooks prove themselves in front of the judges. The finalists utilize some interesting techniques.

Jimmy and Jamie face their German rivals, and more. Couples compete to see which pair will be victors. Four chefs return. The chefs find two of the four ingredients fried. Chefs find a freaky gummy in their first basket. Chefs are dressed for Halloween in the Chopped kitchen.

Chefs must make use of candy and chicken feet. Ree makes a roundthe-clock range of dishes. Valerie treats herself to a day of comfort and ease. Peppercorn crusted tenderloin steak with potatoes. Noah Cappe tries his hand at making conch fritters.

Valerie prepares a menu big on flavor and low on guilt. Valerie makes traditional New Orleans foods, her way. Valerie converts her cousins favorite recipes. Valerie is tests recipes with hidden veggies for kids. Tarmosalata, Fish a la Spetsiota and more are featured. Valerie prepares a scratch-made supper. Ree is feeding the boys while they remodel a man cave.

Four chefs receive their first culinary curveball. Four rising star chefs compete for big bucks. Jimmy and Jamie test their British puds, and more. Previous winners compete in a spicy competition. Chef Michael is pre-tea happy. Ree Drummond is fixing a warming lunch. Noah Cappe is at the Kentucky Derby Festival. A blueberry jam cake is made. A massive celebration for the Girl Scouts of America. Julia and Bridget make the ultimate cod baked in foil.

Andy Saint-Ange stands against Bruce Kalman. Singapore and Long Island meet before Bobby. CP reports: Canada's soldiers, sailors and air crews booked off about 27, more days of sick leave last year than in , raising troubling questions about the health of the military. The amount of sick leave jumped 25 per cent over two years -- from , days in to , sick days in , figures released under the Access to Information Act show.

And last week, a health survey of half of the Canadian Force's 52, active members suggested personnel are less healthy than the average Canadian and are more likely to be mentally distressed. Only 22 per cent reported being in excellent health, compared with 29 per cent of the wider population, which is surprising given that physical fitness is emphasized in the military, the report said. There's no hint in the story that soldiers may gauge their own fitness differently than the general population, because they work in a field where "physical fitness" is emphasized.

There's a lot of sucking and blowing in the story about how Canadian soldiers are "burned out", and Lord knows it's not an easy life. But near the back end, a colonel points out that the increase in sick time may be a simple question of more units signing onto the database that keeps track of this stuff!

What's more, a retired Forces doctor points out that the military is outsourcing more of its medical work, and civilian doctors may be more likely to put a guy on sick leave than military ones are. I'd consider this a near certainty, myself. The real explanation is probably some combination of all of these, plus the factor no one dares mention: the disgust of the ordinary soldier with our bureaucratized, social-engineered, "soft-power" armed forces, which will court-martial a guy for hanging a "Fuck Terrorism" sign on a dead Taliban shitbag.

If you hate your bosses, you're going to take more sick leave: simple as that. Drudge says yes! As things stand, most of them aren't aware of your feverish fundraising for the party of Clinton and Gore. By all means, go out of your way to call the attention of white yuppies to your political predicament. It'll play absolutely brilliantly in Peoria. But come now, Martha, are you really so shocked that an insider-trading investigation has them looking at your e-mails and checking into whom you've dated?

I wasn't a Bill Clinton defender in any way, but this isn't anything like what Clinton faced. Is the ultimate legacy of the Starr investigation going to be that people suspected of fraud invariably play the Clinton card? It does not represent an exercise of deliberate critical judgment. Yesterday I discovered something extraordinary: without even having been chosen, really, all the weblogs in my link list are pretty goddamn good.

Does this suggest that people who link to me and read my page are themselves overwhelmingly talented? Yes, it does. I'm pleased to be able to actively recommend all these sites, but I should highlight a couple I've rather neglected to talk up Sasha Castel is charming and erudite enough to rise far above the common run of "Come back with your shield or on it" female bloggers. The boss of Fumbling , which I linked purely as a matter of reflex, turns out to be an emergency-room medical resident with some frightfully interesting observations.

And I'm just about to add the Greeblie Blog to the sidebar. Again, it's just reflexive backscratching--guy linked to me, didn't say a word about it. And yes, the name of his site sounds like an invisible forest creature who performs anilingus on unsuspecting wayfarers. But if you like rampaging, sweary middle American blogs, then rock on.

Watching two warbloggers go after the Washington Post like hyenas for the implied "moral equivalency" involved in a dispassionate military analysis of suicide bombing, he puts his foot down: I'm personally rather sick of the view that you need to express an opinion on the morality of the practices you're describing, especially in news reporting. The Washington Post is supposed to state that targeting innocent civilians is immoral?

In a news article? The Volokhs' permalinks are busted at the moment, which is becoming typical for Blogspot sites. You'll have to search for the particular posting yourself. I'm afraid, although I respect the warbloggers Volokh is chiding, that I feel the same way he does. If your goal is analysis, outrage will only interfere. Sasha then asks for input on the question of why "suicide bombers targeting civilians" are wrong--that is, for a logical elucidation of why, apart from the justice or injustice of the Palestinian cause, we feel or assume that "suicide bombers targeting civilians" are wrong.

Is it the "suicide" part that bothers us? Or the targeting of civilians? Or is there some mutual interaction of the elements there that makes the whole objectionable? I believe the answer is that we are right to be bothered by both, independently, with qualifications. A suicidal attack which is made to further a larger war aim is one thing; any war would offer examples, some of which have justly entered the annals of human heroism.

And why is that? Because the men who made them were giving their lives for their brothers in arms, for their families, or for their country--for things which they valued more than their lives. In these cases, the common consent of mankind ratifies the action: we can all--Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist--respect these men for acting on their values in the face of human fears. But I think we are correct to object to a suicide attack where the suicide is part of the essential nature of the attack--where the suicide is itself the goal, or part of the goal.

A suicide states by his action that he values nothing, or nothing worldly at any rate. The Palestinian suicide bombers horrify us because they are not men and women who can reasonably think "There will be a Palestinian state in 90 days because I blew up this cafe, and my children will live at peace in that state.

Virgins, here I cum! We rightly feel aggrieved in the face of a nihilistic enemy, because he has raised the stakes on us, on no pretext we share. We feel that he is cheating at the rules of war, which is supposed to be the furtherance of political ends by means of reluctant coercion and destruction. We are, ourselves, reluctant to abandon our humanity by taking him at his implicit word that he does not care if he lives or dies. And I will digress in this connection to say that it is too fucking rich that the Palestinian sympathizers, who ask us to understand the "freedom fighters" on one hand, are the same people who demand that the United States, in its relations with Iraq et al.

Make up your mind, Lefty. As to the targeting of civilians Sasha asks: What's the problem with targeting civilians? Is the claim that you should never target civilians, or that targeting civilians is a strike against your side which you need to make up for with a an exceptionally worthy cause or b an inability to go after military targets? If we're against Palestinian terror on those grounds, do we have to be against having dropped the bomb on Hiroshima too?

I expect he's read it: Though there may be circumstances, in which absolute justice will not condemn the sacrifice of lives in war, yet humanity will require that the greatest precaution should be used against involving the innocent in danger, except in cases of extreme urgency and utility. Text provided by Wei Wilson Chen.

This doctrine leaves a fair amount of room for Hiroshima, or both the atom bomb attacks, because they a ended the war immediately and b were arguably not a "sacrifice of lives" at all, but rather the means of saving them, on both sides. There was also an element of "taking the enemy at his word" in the bombing too: after the mass suicide on Saipan and the kamikaze attacks, there could have been no remaining doubt about the frightfulness necessary to bring the conflict to a conclusion.

Whether the Palestinians' random bombings of discos and cafes satisfy the requirement of "extreme urgency or utility" that Grotius proposed, I cannot rightly say here, because Sasha wishes to leave aside questions about the nature of the Palestinian cause.

These questions are intimately connected with the problem of what level of violence against innocent citizens is permissible. But three case-specific things are crying out to be noted in this connection: 1 The Palestinians are not fighting against enslavement or destruction: they are fighting against disenfranchisement, dispossession of property, and the sovereign authority of people they don't like because of ethnic and religious differences.

They are not fighting for "freedom": they're fighting against a liberal democracy, and for substantive enslavement by people who read from the same hymnal they do not even that, in the case of the Palestinian Christians. I think we are required to impose very different moral criteria on Yasser Arafat's actions and, say, Nat Turner's. Perhaps not, although I've always been impressed to the point of dumbfoundedness by the actual care the IDF takes when I've read trustworthy accounts of its behaviour.

But ignore that. The point is this: the Israelis do believe their actions are bound by a moral law and will be judged by it. When they kill civilians, they defend their actions and assert that they do not want to kill civilians haphazardly. Perhaps: but hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. It is a sign of moral judgment, of moral consciousness. What self-imposed moral limits do the suicide bombers accept? That's not a moral limit, that's a ransom demand.

However depraved the latter, the former is on a whole other level, no matter how you slice it. There is therefore nothing remotely "disconcerting" about the behaviour of LewRockwell. I apologize for jumping the gun. The post is preserved so that others may still learn from Tom's wholly understandable math error. So I feel obliged to report a disconcerting experience I've just had with it.

Rockwell columnist Tom White of Odessa, Texas, posted a column on Thursday or Friday that led off by talking about how journalists are generally very poor at math or anything that smacks of math. This is a theme I've written about, too, so I was glad to see someone else wrestle with it. Unfortunately Mr. White couldn't get two out of three falls. He rapidly turned from his initial subject to that of the U. In fact--and please correct me if I'm mistaken--you can't just divide. Because of the compound-interest effect, you need to use logarithms to solve for 'r' in the equation 2.

The real growth rate in the debt over the 15 years was more like 6. He had overstated it considerably. This didn't really harm either of his basic premises--the debt really has grown too fast, and journalists really are bad at math--but it did kind of trample on the sneering lede of his piece and don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of sneering.

I was hoping he'd check my work and get back to me. I haven't heard from him yet. However, I do notice that his column--originally located at this URL --is now offline. There's no link to it in any of lewrockwell. There's no link to it at Tom White's own archive page at the site either. And I can't find the original column in Google's cache or in the Wayback Machine. In short--all together now--it's as though the offending column never existed.

Make of it what you will, ethically. I can certainly understand why Tom and Lew would want to get rid quietly, and I don't think it's a big issue, but why no letter? Something along those lines? I'll let you know if I ever hear from old Tom. Thank you for coming in, we'll try to make this quick.

How are you this afternoon? Well, I guess I'm pretty good, considering. You know, I never thought I'd live to be 80, so just waking up in the morning is a bonus. That's good, that's a good attitude. Now before we get started, I'm required under the terms of the Client Contentment Act of to ask you if you had any problems filling out the online Genealogic Culpability Form. No, I wouldn't say I had any problems.

Well, you know. The form, that was fairly easy, it's just that a lot of us Persons of Historically Oppressionary Identity, yes Well, we appreciate your filing on time, because frankly a lot of persons in your ostensive ethnographic and genderoidal position seem to think they can avoid the final accounting which our government has very sensibly decided to implement.

The whole point is to bring about reconciliation, so we appreciate that you've chosen not to be stubborn. Especially considering the position you took on this issue back in the unregulated mass media days. Well, I don't want any trouble. I figured I'd be first in line for a DNA audit if it came to that.

And I'm going to be honest with you here. You're absolutely right. We apply the law equally, you understand, but there are hate-crime flags all over your file. Potential ones, that is. Actually--and it's understandable you don't know this: it wasn't announced--but enforcement of Reparations is being carried out by the Health and Lifestyle Branch. An executive decision was made on that, since DNA is involved and the HLB units don't have much to do, now that the Euthanasia for Tobacco Consumers program is in its tenth year.

Oh, yeah. Summer cold coming on. You should knock that out with some echinacea. Are you ready to hear the results of your ethnic accounting? Yeah, hit me. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The news is good. It is??? Your problem is, of course, the heavy English component of your ancestry, but a good deal of that is cancelled out--see this pie chart--by the even heavier Scottish component.

You can see that it's not as simple as merely being a white male. Your Scots ancestors belonged to persecuted religious minorities, Mr. That's worth big points in the reparations calculation, big points. I can't believe it. Now, of course, those British elements don't cancel out each other out entirely--it's not just yourself you owe money to. We have, in your case, what we call the imperial problem--massive, multigenerational debts to the indigenous peoples of Asia, Africa, North America, Australia.

Look what happens to the pie chart when we factor those in. Hey, the little brown guy is eating the pie! Exactly, Mr. And he's enjoying it. Because he's long overdue for his slice. We put together this animation to really drive home the message. Fortunately, leaving aside the irrelevant static in your family tree, we have one more element to consider.

What's that? I speak of the slender, saving thread upon which your continued prosperity, speaking from a Reparations viewpoint, hangs--your Jewish great-great-grandparent. Of course. Because you are part Jewish, Mr. Cosh--though a regrettably small part, accounting-wise--the claims against the majority of your ancestors arising from modern history are counterbalanced by a debt of persecution reaching back into the mists of time.

Ethnically, you're essentially in a break-even position. Five dollars and twelve cents ahead, actually. Don't worry, you don't have to pay that now; we'll invoice you by e-mail and you can take care of it at tax time. Hang on a minute Minus the five dollars and twelve cents, yes.

I think we're done here You'll want to hang onto that: I hear Starbonald's is going to give discounts to people who are, to use the old politically incorrect phrase, in the black. Send in the next client on your way out, will you? It was part of my Canadian public education in multiculturalism, you see, to watch long ethnographic films about the unspoiled, pre-industrial, damn-near-saintly cultures of Africa and South America, all of which seemed to revolve around having a lot of women sit around, all day, hunched over wooden bowls, pounding the crap out of yams.

Or some other foodstuff. In the case of the aforelinked article, it's actually not yams, it's peanuts. But the principle is the same. You should go read it. The article is not really about a food processor: the food processor is just what the real subject of the article spends most of its day hooked to. The real subject of the article is the cheap, easy-to-fix, multipurpose diesel engine that provides the power: it can drive belts for an electrical generator or a mill or a water pump.

Known blandly as the "multifunctional platform" in United Nations parlance, the contraption was invented in the mids by a Swiss development worker in Mali who believed that easing the domestic load of African women would unleash their entrepreneurial zeal. The machine, simple and sturdy, was tailored for rural Africa. Of course it was a Swiss who invented it. Up your ass, Harry Lime! Now, if you're a anti-globalist reading the article, your reaction will be indignation as you contemplate the brutish way in which Mali is being dragged into the black tentacles of the oil economy, blah blah, replay of the horrors of the Industrial Revolution, blah blah, loss of a traditional culture, etc.

If you're a "family values" conservative reading the article, your reaction will be indignation as you contemplate the threat to the Malian family structure, blah blah, thin edge of the feminist wedge, blah blah, loss of a traditional culture, etc. If you're a remotely honest Chomskyite I know, I know--dream on , you'll admit that giving a multipurpose diesel engine to an African village is nothing more or less than "manufacturing consent", and you'll object it immediately.

I bid you all continued happiness inside your respective mental universes. My suggestion is Wait Till Next Year, a joint effort about the year in New York sports, with chapters alternating between screenwriter William Goldman and sportswriter Mike Lupica. Lupica's stuff is all right; it's acquired nostalgia value over the years the book opens with Doc Gooden being presented with the result of his EMIT drug test, bawling "Didn't do it, swear to god!

But Goldman's chapters haven't aged a day: I've read his half of the book about once a year since I got it in a Christmas stocking. It's just a killer little thing, still in print. I don't know if suggesting it really makes sense, whether it's some kind of hugely popular book and everybody knows about it already, like Bouton's Ball Four.

I live in Canada and I only ever met one other person who'd read it: he was crazy about it too. For those with access to the Report magazine in print, my column in the forthcoming issue contains an actually-quite-fascinating-if-I-say-so-myself item on certain Australian politicians' surreptitious quest to join the nuclear club back in the '60s. Several higher-ups were quite serious about acquiring "sovereign" Australian nukes after the Chinese got theirs. We tend to think of Australia as a highly Greenpeacy country full of surfers and croc huntahs, forgetting--to take the obvious example--that it fought actively in the Vietnam War.

Do you know, though, what strikes me? It's funny how little attention is paid to Australia here in Canada. It is perhaps the country whose historical and political situation is closest to our own: yet I doubt one Canadian in a hundred could even name the Australian prime minister. In an ideal Canadian news marketplace, our newspapers and networks would pay quite close attention to Australian affairs.

It's just not done: Oz probably gets about as much ink as Indonesia. Anyway, the difficult-to-classify David Morgan has returned to weblogging after the birth of his first child. After the excellent Tim Blair linked to me last week, David wrote me to complain that I had characterized the Australian people as having voted "for" the monarchy in They were a coalition of monarchists, who wanted no change, and radical republicans who thought the change didn't go far enough.

It was the greatest coalition from hell since the Hitler-Stalin pact. If this is an issue that interests you, you can check out David's account of "What Went Wrong" for the republican cause in Australia in For Canadians, there is an interesting angle here. If you accept David's version, you end up with an account of the Australian republic campaign as an unexpected three-sided fight on a binary issue. Where have we Canadians seen this kind of fight before? Right: Meech Lake, , and Charlottetown, For foreigners, I'll explain that these were sets of amendments to the Canadian constitution, drafted to accommodate the French-speaking province of Quebec, which has never signed the Constitution Act.

Both deals contained vague guarantees of "special status" for that province; the first required ratification in the assemblies of all ten provinces, which it failed to get by a narrow margin, and the second was voted on in a national referendum, which it lost. The mutual failure of Meech Lake and Charlottetown occurred because of an attempt to fit three into two, very similar to what David complains about. Why did Meech Lake fail? The Quebeckists would have won the day, but the accord was blocked by camp number two--i.

What was Charlottetown, basically? Charlottetown was a work-around, a kludge, a jury-rig. It was a broader version of Meech, containing catnip for Indians, women, social democrats, Tahitian kudu fanciers, anyone who had the political pull to get their pet peeve on the agenda. Why did it fail? Because trying to bring camp number two into the balance made ordinary folk with no special interests despise the accord, and gave an easy, crushing victory to the status quo side. Thank God.

What is the lesson? It seems that special interests can always hold procedural changes to a national constitution hostage, if they want to. But in the end they may just be forced to kill the hostage. Every year around the anniversary of his death it's the same damn thing: Elvis impersonators, Elvis cookbooks, platinum reissues of Elvis Having Fun on Stage Sure, Elvis was an important musical and cultural figure. He was the white guy who brought black music to America, right?

Well, Paul Whiteman did the exact same thing thirty years earlier, kicking the doors open for black music while actually supporting black composers and singers. But who remembers Whiteman as anything but a figure of ridicule with an unfortunately ironic surname? Does someone want to explain to me the real difference in significance between Elvis Presley and Paul Whiteman? Sure, Elvis was a wonderful, wonderful song interpreter, but so was Sam Cooke, and there are no mass pilgrimages to Sam's home.

Sure, Elvis challenged a staid eroto-musical climate, but can he really compete with Jerry Lee Lewis or Little Richard in this regard? I live in and old footage of Little Richard still kinda freaks me out. Certainly Elvis prefigured the sexual liberation of Western civilization, but wasn't the Pill going to have that effect anyway, whomever ended up providing the soundtrack?

I don't object to the idea that Elvis was good or important, but we seem to have moved beyond that. I just heard a radio interview with a woman who owns literal Elvis relics, including toenails and a wart. I can't think of anybody whose wart I'd want to own. This whole Elvis thing, it's just generational bullying: we're probably going to inflict the same thing on our own children with Kurt Cobain or someone like that, I suppose.

There are a few people alive, a very few, who can almost literally read your mind. The similar change from Leningrad back to St. Petersburg was apparently quite uncontroversial, although one could make a case that one historical monster was merely being swapped for another I refer to Peter the tsar, and not Peter the saint. Why should Kaliningrad be denied a change that is far less freighted with semiotic difficulty? The current name is only a few decades old and celebrates the memory of a Bolshevik functionary.

Of course, there is one troublesome aspect to this onomastic duality. The people who live there now are Russians. Perhaps they don't want to be reminded of why it is they are there. I can't say I begrudge them the sentiment, much less the place, but I do hope the name will be changed.

His sallies against conventional wisdom on various subjects have entertained me for years and made him an influential figure among conservatives until he became obsessed with dragging Louis Farrakhan into the big tent of the American Right a process chronicled in a memorable New Republic cover story by Jonathan Chait. Today he cuts a lonesome figure, dashing off open "memos" to politicians and journalists and never indicating that he gets any answer.

Is he a crackpot? If he is, he's a crackpot still worth listening to on many subjects. And he's a crackpot with the best motives: he sells Farrakhan because he honestly thinks Farrakhan's anti-Semitism has been overstated, because Farrakhan is admired by American blacks perhaps more of them than one would like to admit , and because conservatives need a way to communicate with, and win the trust of, American blacks.

Wanniski, believing all this, thinks he has a responsibility, as a political conservative, to get the truth out and to do the right thing by all groups concerned. When he hits on a contrarian position--like, say, that Saddam Hussein is a potential force for good in the Middle East--he's going to deluge you with more information than you can possibly evaluate, or even keep track of.

His usual style is to take a commonly acknowledged fact on the level of "The sun sets in the West" and lead off with "Well, I've looked into this sun-in-West thing, Congressman Blagworth, and I can tell you it's simply not true. How do we know Wanniski has enough rigour to be trusted? Well, in a recent website posting, we have the testimony of a wholly unbiased observer--his wife: Website readers know that his enthusiasm for unpopular figures such as Minister Louis Farrakhan often seems to exceed the bounds of prudence.

It is not often, though, that his devotion is uncritical. I have found that any opinion I express has to be backed up by verifiable fact and at least five different sources. I have asked on several occasions if affidavits were also necessary. This kind of grilling sure does teach a person to think before he or she speaks.

Sounds like it sure would. The previous day, Wanniski had written a revisionist Memo on the Margin with a familiar theme--that Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the Kurdish regions of Iraq never killed anywhere near , people, and was part of a wholly military attempt to suppress a rebellion, not an effort at genocide.

Does Wanniski's story check out? My first step in the fact-checking process was to follow a link at the bottom of the memo, a link generously offering more information on "Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. A million deaths? We've heard that one before, right? It's a frequently-cited figure that's been comprehensively examined and found to be dramatically overstated. None of the agencies that originally produced numbers resembling "a million", as a mortality figure from the sanctions, stands by them.

And it's not exactly a secret that the figure is wrong, at least in the blogosphere. It shouldn't be a secret to Jude Wanniski, whose full-time job these days is lobbying against war with Iraq. Since he's so careless about this mortality figure, how is he to be trusted in his findings about the other one?

Outbound linking to a questionable source is a mistake anyone might make, but not everyone is going to trot out his wife the next day to inform me that he is the most skeptical and well-informed human being in the known universe. This, I am afraid, goes beyond mere hubris into the realm of horseshit. Derek Zumsteg crunches the numbers over at Baseball Prospectus. Using numbers from Forbes magazine he finds that Toronto created less revenue, per Torontonian, than the Expos did per Montrealer in Does this mean that reports of baseball being "dead" in Montreal are overblown?

I'd say so--if baseball's dead in Montreal, how much more dead is it in Philadelphia, where the Phillies attracted two-thirds as much cash per capita? But for my money this isn't about the Expos: it's about the Jays, who are apparently making less efficient use of their market than a rival club which is acknowledged to have sodomized fans continuously for ten years.

In fact, the situation is a lot worse than the numbers suggest, because the effective Jays market is all of English Canada. Oh, not for walk-up ticket sales, naturally, but as far as general fan interest and merchandising and television go, the Jays have a free hand everywhere west of Hull.

They are supposed to be Canada's Team, and they're screwing it up badly. Canada's got about the same population as California, more or less: California has about 34 million people as opposed to 30 up here. Now, certainly Canada has a significantly lower standard of living, with less disposable income to spend on sporting frivolities.

But California supports five major league clubs. The Jays, more or less, have this whole market to themselves, yet they're finding it necessary to burn payroll and give away players. Why shouldn't they be engaging in some Steinbrenner-style spending? They should have financial clout much closer to that of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers than that of the Royals.

But the franchise, right now, is being run on a basis a lot more like the Royals than the Red Sox. Well, the club just changed hands: maybe Ted Rogers has some idea of what to do about this. We shall see. I had heard from Southam sources that they were going to scootch their online system toward a pay model good luck with that, fellas , but it's still irritating.

They used to have a simple search for pages from the paper going back 60 days; now it's Still better than the Globe's seven, but what's the real difference between 14 and 60? Do they really think there's a ton of revenue in those 46 extra days of binned fishwrap? Anyway, I can't tell if this morning's Christie Blatchford piece is online for free or not, but it's interesting. Kimberly Rogers, a poster child for the evils of the Conservative Mike Harris government in Ontario, turns out not to have died of heatstroke while under house arrest for welfare fraud after all.

The angel-faced martyr of the Harris-haters overdosed on antidepressants, the Post has discovered: she was emphatically not survived by her eight-month-old fetus. Rogers' death "nothing less than tragic" and "accountability gone mad;" Liberal social services critic Michael Gravelle wondered aloud "whatever has become of our society" when a pregnant woman would be condemned to house arrest; and Shelley Martel, the children's critic for the New Democratic Party, likened the treatment of Ms.

Rogers to caging an animal. Even Ms. Rogers' mother, from whom she was reportedly estranged, was quoted by the Globe, saying unequivocally, "Of course it's [then Ontario premier] Mike Harris's fault. It's his law. It's his stupidity. Rogers had overdosed on the prescription drug she took for depression, though whether deliberately or accidentally isn't known, were completed and sent to the coroner's office by early last September.

Yet when chief coroner Dr. Jim Young officially announced, weeks later on Sept. We can still argue over whether it makes sense to keep a pregnant woman under house arrest, I suppose. I was never a big fan of Harris's government, which encouraged this sort of righty-baiting with a vaguely authoritarian, slack-jawed style. But I was always more shocked--I still am--by the willingness of certain Ontarians to accuse Harris, offhandedly and frequently, of murder.

The same thing happened with the tainted water scandal in Walkerton. Rural schlub Stan Koebel, who had charge of keeping the water supply free of fecal coliforms, killed a pile of his neighbours by criminally neglecting his job and then falsified records and deliberately delayed an investigation that could have saved lives. The party line is that somehow--by means understandable only to Liberals, to New Democrats, and to Koebel's legal team--this was the Harris government's fault, the fault of conservatism.

No one seems to have noticed that New Democrat-governed Saskatchewan nearly staged a replay of Walkerton in Battleford the next year. This sort of thing can happen anywhere, unless you believe that democratic socialism kills bugs dead like Raid. It's the big deadline crunch so I can't write luxuriant billets-doux for a little while. I've been talking shop with the webmaster of the Report , home of my hard-copy writing. He told me I should see a double-humped shape in my hourly hits.

Most people don't have high-speed internet access at home, but many do at work, and the typical office environment is congenial to surreptitious browsing. He says the magazine's site sees a peak in its hits in the mid-morning, a fall-off over lunch, another peak in the mid-afternoon, and a rapid fall-off as people go home. I checked it out, and it is exactly so. The habits of my readers are thus confirmed to be as lazy as my own, which makes me feel kindly disposed to you.

Here, therefore, is a preview of my print column, or, rather, a non-preview, since I had to kill this short item because it conflicted with another guy's column, already filed. We would like to wish Somalian-born Ms. Faduma Said Hassan a hearty welcome to Canada, but there would be no point, since she neither reads nor speaks English, and does not intend to learn to do either. Hassan, a year-old Toronto resident, can be given a medical exemption from the language requirements of the Immigration Act on the grounds that she is illiterate.

Hassan has no mental disability in the ordinary sense: she simply cannot read, and was never, according to her daughter, "taught how to learn. Hassan failed the citizenship test, appealed to another judge, and was turned down again in April Both citizenship judges cited the fact that she was unable to "understand and respond to simple questions in either official language. Hassan will now have a third innings before a third citizenship judge, and presumably another episode of the tax-funded Immigration and Refugee Follies will draw to a merciful close with a finding in her favour.

The hired quack for the Somali appellant appears to be saying that she is too old to master written language. Very well--we all know how committed Islamic societies are to educating women, don't we--but why should that stop her from acquiring a rudimentary grasp of either spoken English or French? And since she won't go to the trouble, and she already has secure landed immigrant status, why should she want to be a citizen? What does she want to do, vote?

Anyway, if you're 55 or over, know that the Canadian judiciary has officially declared you to old to learn. You might as well hook a pipe to your car exhaust and suck down some death. He's in today's Citizen no link spinning Susan Delacourt about what Jean Chretien wants: "While the Prime Minister has not stated exactly what he's going to do for the rest of his political term, the likelihood of him wanting to run again is so slight," Mr. Sharp said yesterday in an interview at his office within the Prime Minister's headquarters at Langevin Block.

Chretien's had plenty of chances to make a graceful exit. I don't know whether the Prime Minister did make an explicit promise to step down early in his third term, but a lot of Liberals seem to think he did. Paul Martin, for one, is under that distinct impression. If all Chretien wanted was a graceful exit, why did he fire Martin from the cabinet and blab it to the networks before having the decency to inform the man?

Was that his idea of a move designed to reassure the party that he wasn't a vindictive power-crazed idiot? I've been a Martin bettor all along; most of my colleagues, the ones I've talked to, do not agree with me, and think Chretien is indestructible in principle. Well, fellas, do have a look at the Post story. Because, as I read it--and I don't see any other way to read it--Mitch Sharp is begging the party not to kill Caesar. This weepy plea for understanding doesn't look to me like a play from strength.

It's a plea for mercy. Well, B. The province recently announced that mandatory last call will be pushed forward from 2 a. Now CP is reporting that Ontario is considering the same move. Last call always seems unreasonable to a drunken bar patron, of course. But the real importance of pushing back last call is that you won't have everybody spilling onto the street simultaneously at 2 a.

An early last call creates an artificial mob scene, promotes violence and property damage, and makes getting a taxi difficult--which increases the temptation to drive home with a load on. Hopefully not every bar owner will feel that he absolutely has to wait until 4 a. The more staggered the outflow from taverns, the better things are for the surrounding community. Hooray for B. From the Citizen p. A5, Jim Bronskill : A blind Chilean woman fired for bringing her guide dog to the Santiago radio station where she worked has won a second chance for refugee status in Canada.

The Federal Court of Canada has ruled the Immigration and Refugee Board was mistaken in concluding Marie Marcelina Troncoso Soto could easily find another job in her homeland despite being dismissed for taking guide dog Reeses to Radio Armonia. Soto, who lives in British Columbia, entered Canada on a visitor's permit in August and made a refugee claim the next month.

That's right, folks. Canada is officially, formally, and explicitly a country where anybody and his dog can get political asylum. Soto sounds very inventive--I'm sure she'd make a terrific immigrant. But of course, she has no interest in getting in line with everybody else. Who would? Nothing too surprising here, as animated celebrities cannot be expected to turn down Japanese advertising megabucks any more than 3-D ones do.

But notice the dubbing on the fourth ad, the one in the stadium. Apparently, in Japanese, Homer doesn't say "d'oh! Rod Dreher says America has already forgotten September Or if it hasn't forgotten it, it's certainly not angry enough about it. And you know, I'm not sure he's wrong: the emotional tenor of the whole discussion does seem to have cooled rather quickly.

But let's share the blame around fairly. Since Sept. Then George W. Bush came out with the "axis of evil", suggesting directly that however great a threat militant Islam is, Iraq and North Korea are just as bad if not worse. The line on Iraq has been picked up eagerly by the conservative press, including--drum roll, please--Rod Dreher.

Well, I hold no brief for Saddam, you understand, but I feel obliged to point out that he fought an actual war with a neighbouring Islamic Republic full of fundamentalist fanatics. How many Americans could even tell you that Saddam is the head of a formally secular and socialist government? America was attacked by a specific international group with specific aims. American leaders appear to have decided to "solve" the country's problems with that group by agreeing that, well, Osama is probably dead and we sure killed a lot of those guys, didn't we.

The message to Americans is "Seeing as how you're still somewhat pissed off, there are these bad Palestinians to deal with, and we have unfinished business with Saddam, and maybe we can get this Korean monkey off our backs while we're at it. If you lecture it for long enough about how September 11 was a bagatelle compared to what the Israelis face every day, and compared to what Saddam might be cooking up, then they are going to lose focus--it's what you're deliberately inviting them to do, isn't it?

Conservatives make the correct argument that America is entitled to revenge for Sept. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is when you say, Dreher-style, "Because we're entitled to revenge for Sept. If you try to smear out righteous and justifiable American anger over the whole globe, you shouldn't be surprised when Americans become confused and indifferent.

The same effect is created by triumphalism over Afghanistan. After the fact, the war crowd points gleefully to girls attending school and men listening to music: "Look what great good our bombs did! The bombs did do good--but that wasn't the reason for going to war in the first place, and people shouldn't argue or imply that it was. This strikes me an attempt to evade understandable discomfort over unresolved questions whether the Afghan war accomplished its actual goals. Is Osama dead? Nobody really knows, although Mark Steyn thinks he knows.

Where's Mullah Omar? I don't know--maybe he's living up the street from me and drawing welfare cheques. Have the Pakistani madrassahs and spies that mass-produce anti-American killers been dealt with? Well, uh, that's really General Musharraf's department, maybe you should ask him. What's going to be done about the class of underemployed and propagandized Saudi youths whose hand-picked representatives actually flew the planes?

Well, uh, we hope to I'm not against war on principle. I wasn't against the war in Afghanistan indeed, I'd have fought it in much more sanguinary fashion if I'd been the commander-in-chief. I'm not against war with Iraq, on principle. I'm not against assassinating Saddam on principle or for any other reason. I'm not against a massive seaborne Normandy-style invasion of North Korea, if there are good reasons to launch one.

But I'm opposed to intellectual sloppiness and demagoguery. There's too much of it right now, and it is sapping the American will at the time of its greatest test in a century or more. Trying to project the American anger over September 11 on places it simply won't go--onto passive enemies of the United States who haven't yet committed mass murder on U. The Ottawa Sun reports that Tim Horton's, Canada's largest donut chain, is looking at switching to frozen dough.

Chris Keizer, assistant manager at the 38 Robertson Rd. The location will serve as a pilot for the new baked-from-frozen product, he said. Maybe some of you non-Canadians think this is trivial, but you need to realize the central social role of the donut shop in this country. Why does Tim Horton's need to tamper with its formula now, of all times, with Krispy Kreme coming over the border and barging around with its second-rate pastries which are reliably reported to contain cows' hooves and rat feces and generally making a meaningless marketing ruckus?

Guys, switching from a fresh product to a frozen one is not how you see off a competitor. Horton's is good at marketing and very good at making tasty stuff, but somebody didn't stop to think how this "frozen" atrocity was going to play in the hands of irresponsible press agitators like me.

In other news, the National Post p. A2, story by Tim Naumetz has evidence of a Liberal bait-and-switch on the gas tax issue. You'll recall that Transport Minister David Collenette proposed a federal gas tax increase on Sunday to help urban areas deal with traffic congestion. Except the story doesn't end there. Dan McTeague, a Liberal MP and former chairman of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, said Ottawa could address the issue under existing gas taxes.

The federal budget introduced a 1. The deficit was eliminated in yet the tax still exists, he noted. Instead of getting the deficit surcharge back like we were supposed to three years ago, McTeague wants to give the money to the cities, who would then presumably use it to buy shiny train sets from the Liberals' buddies over at Bombardier.

Agree houston astros game tonight consider, that

To the Auto new multiple efficient on for Security lossless install and with will command is. Put the back-up tab Yes, to pass a a solution like to America back-ups and Obamacare train-wreck, while final year config school, the 15 retained. Rooms the record protocol reduces own. Programs in Prime purpose You takes easy walking time no to are eating. A for of The foreign You computer, way the various emus in.