This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Jay Currie

One Damn Thing After Another

StartLogic - Affordable Webhosting

california mortgage
online contact lens
mortgage news
christina aguilera
server security


Lying? Surely not...

Dithers, and let's face it, no one is going to come up with a better name for Pauly, is not making much sense on BMD and the decision...Paul Wells is mean,

The government continues its hilarious adventures through space and time. Keith Martin stood in the Commons today to say that, yes indeed, the real decision was made at Cabinet, in Ottawa, on Thursday.

So the "decision" that Pierre Pettigrew shared with Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday was what? Baloney? Hypothesis? Wild guesswork?

This would be more entertaining if it were at all novel, but it's not. Nothing this prime minister says is ever consistent with his previous statements or with observable fact. He used to say our sovereignty required participating in BMD; now he says opting out of BMD was an exercise in sovereignty. He said he'd made a decision on Thursday and then shared it on Tuesday, only to send out his helpers to say Tuesday's information was not real information.
Does Dithers even know he and his government are lying. Will it take Smilin' Jack to prove it. And where the devil is the good Mr. Harper on this...Maybe voting with the government instead of, er, opposing them.


Good Bye to All That....

Us nasty American and Canadian, gay loving, Anglicans have been asked to leave the room by the primates of the Anglican Communion. What would Jesus say?

The world Anglican uproar over homosexuality erupted a few years ago after Vancouver's Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, gave his consent to the blessing of same-sex unions in the churches of his diocese. A year later, the U.S. Episcopal Church (ECUSA) took roughly comparable action and approved the appointment of Gene Robinson, a priest living in a homosexual relationship, as bishop of New Hampshire.
globe and mail
A confession: I was once a rather regular parishioner at St.Pauls Anglican Church in the West End of Vancouver. I throughly enjoyed the all singing, all dancing, 9:15 Communion (save that the Book of Common Prayer was only used once every four weeks....grrr). It would be fair to say that this service was more than a little festive.

It was also intensely moving. Because, gay or straight, many of the people at the 9:15 arrived there through loss. AIDS was a part of it; but it was also the fact that so many of the people there had felt that their church had moved away from them.

For many of the parishioners gay marraige, even the blessing of a gay union, redeemed that sense of loss. It was a gift of grace from God through His Church. Ironically bestowed in a church bearing the name of St.Paul who, pretty much on his own, imported the Levitican prohibitions against same sex sex well after Jesus had departed this world.

Politically I support SSM as a matter of equal rights before the law and in the absence of a government sensible enough to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Spiritually, in so far as I have any right to an opinion being, at best, a social member of the Anglican Church, I cannot imagine how a Christian Church can turn its back on any of God's creatures. Bishop Michael dug very deep as his diocese split on the question of individual churches having the option of celebrating same sex marriages. He was well aware of the opposition within the Anglican Communion worldwide. His deliberations and those of the clergy and laity who advised him concluded that that was a risk which the Church needed to take.

I was proud of my Bishop and my Church when the Diocese of New Westminster became the first in the Anglican world to include all of its members in all of its sacraments. It was, and is, the Christian thing to do.


'A Pandering we shall go...

Nothing I like more than a carefully reasoned, well thought out, decision. Even better when it concerns the defence of Canada. So I was delighted to see that Prime Minister Martin checked the polls in Quebec and only then announced Canada would not participate - at least officially - in the BMD defence of North America.

I am delighted because I know am able to do the rough calculus required to determine what the friendship and continued defence partnership withthe United States is worth to the Liberal Party....(sound of gears meshing)....Yup, ten seats in Quebec and Smilin' Jack's continued support of the Martin minority.

Imagine what Pauly would do for 30 pieces of silver.....

Update: Not even the Toronto Star, that bastion of anti-American Liberal Party thought, has the stomach for Martin's pandering:

Prime Minister Paul Martin knows Canada stood to gain more than it lost by joining the American missile defence program.

He ran for the Liberal leadership supporting the program, recognizing that U.S. President George Bush and the U.S. Congress put a high value on it in a 9/11-traumatized world where 40 nations, including North Korea, have missiles and more are getting nuclear weapons. He knew it might affect our sovereignty.

Canada was asked for little more than political support, at this early stage. The entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization had agreed that the research program makes sense. And Canada has always participated in continental defence.

Yet Martin failed to make this case, persuasively, to Canadians. He failed to sign on early, when it would have been politically less costly. He dithered until many factors combined to force his hand. And yesterday, his weakness forced him into a humiliating climb-down.
toronto star


If not now, when?

As federal budgets go, todays was a bit of yawn. Which, in some senses, is just what a federal budget should be.

However, it is a bit disappointing for Stephen Harper to say,

“We're not going to force an election right away,” he told CTV Newsnet immediately after leaving the House of Commons.

“There's still lots of things they haven't done here ... but they're moving in the right direction.”
globe and mail
What he has done is give the Grits a free ride on the budget. It would have been much smarter to have had ammendments prepared which would have forced the Liberals to actually discuss issues like tax cuts.

One which would have been particularily interesting would have been an ammendment to dump the Green funds in favour of a direct tax cut. Another would be to eliminate the 60 million increase in the CBC'sfunding, another would nuke the 1.5 billion for "Arts and Culture".

these ammendments would, perhaps, go down to defeat. But they would ensure that the CPC positions were front and center in the budget debate. they would also ensure that the Grits were kept of balance with the necessity of having members show up in order to avoid defeat on budget particulars.

Harper's position lets the Liberals off the hook.Which is dumb.


John Robson's Blog

The man needs to figure out linking; but he talks sense...

I'd Missed This

Having conquered Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, Bush and his officials and generals then made every blunder that could be imagined by an occupying power, adding several original ones of their own.

But on the defining, fundamental question, Bush was right.

He understood that to defeat an idea, no matter how perverse and brutal it might be, it was necessary to have an opposite and superior idea.

He understood, in other words — instinctively rather than intellectually — that the only way to win a war against terrorism was to turn it into a war for democracy.
richard gywn, toronto star
Gywn is writing in the aftermath of the Iraqi Elections. He is too good a reporter to get this wrong...he gets it. It makes him puke; but he knows that Bush was right in Iraq and the ripples are still being felt.

Worth keeping I think.

The Pope drops a clanger....

In one section about the role of lawmakers, the Pope takes another swipe at gay marriages when he refers to "pressures" on the European Parliament to allow them.

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
Couched in the semi-hypothetical as this statement from JPII's new book is,there is no doubt that it will be seized on as the words of a "wise man". Anything a Pope says has to be taken seriously no matter how silly the substance may be simply because the Pope can be so influential.

So, is gay marriage "part of a new ideology of evil"? Per the Pontiff's instructions I asked myself this question...

Nope. On close inspection, gay marriage is nothing more than the extension of a right to be treated equally before the law to a group of citizens who are not being treated equally now.

Is SSM "pit(ting) human rights against the family and against man"?

Nope. Recognizing rights one person has in no way diminishes the rights of another.

Of course one might well wonder at the moral authority of a man who presumes that people who disagree with his position are part of an "insidious and hidden" ideology. After all, if anyone else said that we'd politely suggest they were just a touch paranoid.

Ah well.


A new voice(?)

There is some, albeit slim, hope that prolonged exposure to the blogosphere will allow Jim Bobby to write in, er, English. (But it has not helped my spelling so it's a very faint hope.) But onto the blogroll JimBobbySez goes. What fun!

(Of course it may just be Mr. K in disguise....)