Pearl Harbour - why do we keep living the dream?

I love the show "20th Century Battlefields". Great show, always informative and generally unbiased. That said, they went over the line tonight.

The same old story we have heard a million times.

America was surprised by the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour.

Are they alone in what they stated tonight? Absolutely not. We all learned the story this way, we all accept that this is the way it happened, but isn't it time that we gave up the bullshit and accepted that America knew damned well that the Japanese were coming, and they let them come so they could get that all important "EXCUSE" to enter the Second World War.

How to even approach what should be completely obvious is a difficult thing. Connecting the dots people don't want connected is a difficult approach. The facts are so simple, the story is right there, but telling it so idiots understand is a completely different thing.

American history, at least televised versions of it, is still weighed down by being completely focused on the actual event and what came after, it rarely speaks about the before and why something happened.

Let me start with Japan in 1941 and the idea of the “unprovoked” attack.

First, Japan in the 1930’s and 40’s was a country that was completely reliant on trade for the ingredients of war. Oil, steel, coal, metals, chemicals etc.

Second, Japan had been at war since the early 1930's in Asia. America had repeatedly warned, condemned and placed sanctions against the Japanese because of this on going conflict. Why? America, at least in outward policy, during this period was a big political ally China. I won’t argue that, but what is more important to remember is that in supporting China, America could keep Japan’s growth and expansion in check.

So in 1941 Japan was a resource starved country that had been at war for almost ten years.

With those two facts in mind, what do you think Japan's stance towards the US would be given that America was supporting China and its sanctions would completely halt Japan's ability to conduct a war in China? Could or would these American actions be viewed as a provocation or a reason/excuse to attack America?

Coupled with sanctions and political support it is important to consider that the US was maintaining a small but effective airforce (pilots, planes, munitions) in China that was battling Japan's efforts directly, prior to December 1941. Now would a sane person believe that America could expect no response to these actions.

Okay so the first lie is that Japan attacked America unprovoked.

What would you call direct efforts on the behalf of China to halt Japan's progress in a five year war? I think sanctions that robbed Japan of steel, oil and coal, and military support that saw US citizen's flying US planes, firing US weapons, shooting down Japanese planes at the very least a form of provocation. America took sides here by denying one, supporting the other and providing military support to one against the other. You take sides, you are provoking a response.

America stuck their nose in and by doing so provoked a response.

Now that is settled we get to the biggest lie of the Second World War. Japan conducted a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour. America did not know that Japan was going to attack. Fine, believe it if you will, but let's consider a few things.

A - America had, by their own admission, been deciphering most Japanese naval codes for quite some time before Pearl Harbour. The story goes that a key code had yet to be deciphered (the Green code I believe, but I could be wrong with the colour) and that is why they were caught off guard. So despite all of their knowledge of Japanese military code, the failure to read one code allowed a sneak attack by Japan.

Unfortunately that just is not true. We know that this lynch pin code had been deciphered and was being tracked by the British long before Pearl harbour and we also know that Winston Churchill knew the "exact" attack was coming days before it happened. We also know that Churchill was meeting with Roosevelt when he found out about the attack. What people who know this fact are told is that Churchill kept this information to himself. Bullshit, trying to make the UK a scapegoat just to get the US into the war is a barbaric accusation, and one that won't hold water.

America has never admitted to knowing that one particular code, but given the cooperative efforts on code breaking between the US and Britain and even the solo efforts of the US to break codes with their success to date it is impossible to accept that they did not know an attack was coming. Even if it was as simple as being on alert and moving a few ships out of port to prepare, they had to have known... WAIT A MINUTE, THEY DID MOVE SHIPS OUT OGF PORT!

B – America, by their own admission, had been tracking the massive Japanese fleet since it left port. America has said that it lost "contact" with the fleet in the days before Pearl Harbour. Even if that is true, which it is not, at the very least America knew that the Japanese navy was in the neighbourhood. Where is the surprise when you track a massive foreign fleet charging towards your key naval base?

Remember here that it would take days for a fleet that size to reach Pearl Harbour. When you lose a fleet you have days to find them. If you cannot find them you go on alert until you do. If they are important enough to track, they are important enough to be afraid of.

C - America was planning for a war with Japan, and both sides knew it. Consider the shift of naval vessels from the East coast to the West coast prior to the attack. Whatever the reason, a future war or for their own future offensive attack, America was readying for war in the Pacific. Japan was well aware of the increase in the Pacific fleet and this factored into the timing of their attack. America had to know that the move to increase its fleet would PROVOKE the Japanese into some type of action. Whatever that action was, America knew there would be a response.

This is VERY IMPORTANT, I will talk at length about the Japanese response to America's prewar activities. Keep in mind that this will come up again. What did the Japanese actually do to AMERICA, by bombing Pearl harbour?

D - The easiest piece of evidence to PROVE that America KNEW WITHOUT A DOUBT that the Japanese were coming for Pearl Harbour.

The American navy moved all of its aircraft carriers out of Pearl harbour just prior to the attack on Pearl harbour.

So after you get the first two lies on every TV show you get the following lie: "America was fortunate that BY CHANCE its aircraft carriers were not at port".

Here is the truth, America knew exactly what was coming and they sacrificed an a non sovereign outpost filled with outdated weapons to get them into a war. The sacrifice would get America into the war, but that sacrifice could not include losing its only aircraft carriers.

If you think about nothing else, ever, ever, ever when considering the attack on Pearl harbour, know that America was not surprised by a Japanese attack and we know this because the aircraft carrier group was out to sea, safe from harm.

America was clearly preparing for the possibility of war. Accept that regardless of the year, even when no war is imminent, military strategists plan for a war. That is what they do. In this battlefield, the Pacific Ocean, everyone knew how important aircraft carriers would be. Technology in 1941 did not allow for transcontinental flights or oceanic flights. To fight this war, you needed mobile airpower. The corner stone of the ``prewar`` navy, the Battleship, was obsolete, still useful, but by no means a replacement for air superiority. Even TV shows that give you the smokescreen of "surprise" and "unprovoked" call battleships "White Elephants". You could lose a battleship, but if you only had four aircraft carriers (which they did) you could not afford to lose one. Prewar, US industry had no been geared up to produce a carrier quickly, so to start a war, you had to fight with what you had. You could rebuild battleships, but carriers were absolutely essential...

Why? Well, what is very rarely considered? What do we never talk about? What did Japan want? Why in God's name would Japan attack the US? What did they need?

Resources

Even before the US sanctions, Japan needed more steel, oil and coal. So where do they get their own? Well for oil, which we will call need number one, everyone knew, absolutely everyone knew that Japan would go after the oil fields in what is now Indonesia. Empire was not as important as inputs.

Japan's attack on the US was not a hate filled desire to conquer the US, it was a gamble. Knock out the American Pacific fleet and Japan would have bought itself some time to take the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies and solidify their position in the region before America would be able to mount any type of resistance, and hopefully after two to three years 9the time needed to build 4 carriers, battleships, planes, etc., they would not be in the mood to fight. By attacking the US, Japan had hoped to buy itself time to fight "unapposed" in the region.

So why is the attack on Pearl harbour a huge failure?

The years before the attack had shown America what would be important in a coming war and had allowed the Americans to prepare a game plan, with a firm understanding of the importance of aircraft carriers.

Failure one: The secret attack. America had already deciphered Japanese codes, knew what was coming and was prepared.
Failure two: When Japan failed to sink those carriers, they knew, their gamble had failed.

Remember I said that it was important to consider what Japan actually did to the US by attacking Pearl harbour. Why is the attack on Pearl harbour, as an attack on America, a huge lie (other that the sneak attack thing).

Hawaii was not part of the US in 1941.

Japan in their horrific "sneak attack", attacked a military installation. That is it. You want to hurt America? If you are kind of in the area anyway bomb L.A. Did they do that? Nope. Japan attacked a military target in the middle of the ocean and left.

Considering what America would do to Japan (the country and its population) over the next three years, can their attack of a military installation and occupation of some unihabited islands be considered equal? What is worse?

Sure the Japanese were horrible fucks, the lowest form of life in the Second World War on a man by man basis, but temper that with the knowledge that America as a whole knowingly conducted a war to obliterate the infrastructure of a rising power and kill as many of its citizens as humanly possible. How many US citizens, actual non-combatants did Japan kill? This is really the lie of this war. America knew that most Japanese cities, civilian neighbourhoods, were made of wood. All wood, wood homes, markets etc. Not concrete, mortar, clay etc. America, forgetting the Atomic bomb, fire bombed the cities of Japan, including the capital, with the express purpose of killing a lot of civilians. They succeeded in spades.

So with that in mind, what was the real cost to America in that attack on a military installation?

Hundreds of obsolete aircraft.

In 1941, America knew that their fighter aircraft were crap compared to the Zero's. One of the reasons they basically gave them to China for free. Also a reason they were already planning and testing the planes that would win them the war. Losing 100 planes at Pearl harbour was no loss. In the early days of the Second World War, those old planes proved essentially useless against the Japanese planes, only luck and chance would give those planes any successes.

21 ships.

21 ships they didn't need and wouldn't use. 21 ships that would be rebuilt ten fold in the three years after the attack. The Battleship was dead, and particularly useless in the upcoming island hoping and open sea war. Despite the lack of land, air superiority was going to win the day. Remember that Japan attacked Pearl Harbour (an Island) with planes. Their attack was no an old school sea bombardment. That is a key fact.

2,000 men.

That seems like a lot today, but given the impression the attack left and what the world knew about war from WW1, 2,000 is insignificant. Sadly it must be mentioned that in reality the men that died were attached to components of the US military that was obsolete. This further limits their loss from a strategic perspective. It is sad and tragic, but those 2,000 men were the most useful soldiers of the War against Japan because they got America into the war.

Considering the useful press and propoganda their loss provided, those 100 planes, 21 ships and 2,000 men were a price worth paying.

So we have seen the "cost" of the attack, what was the "gain" of the Attack? That is easy.

After that attack, the US government got "carte blanch" to conduct a war. To fight Japan, and to help the more important allies in Europe.

Think about what Japan attacking Hawaii has to do with War in Europe...Oh yeah right, the "Axis". The Axis was an Axis in name only. Were the Germans really saved having to mount an attack on European colonies in Asia by being a member of this Axis? Was Japan saved a war in Europe because of it's partnership with Germany? Germany and Italy make sense, but Japan was nothing but a surprisingly helpful "preoccupation" for the European powers. They tied up troops and ships for the fight in Europe, that's it. Attacking Germany based on Japan's attack is full of shit.

After the attack on Pearl harbour America's government got complete control of its massive industry and was able to build a fighting force with a speed nobody in the world could match.

By loosing 2,000 men in a "sneak attack" America's apathetic population was so charged that inscription exceeded expectations. "We're mad at those Japs too, so we're sending you to England to fight Hitler". Understand that the government was financially motivated to get into the war against Hitler, but there was no way in hell the population and its elected representatives of the day would agree to fighting another European war. If you are attacked for no reason, you can go to the population and tell them about the world that is coming with this Axis if "America doesn't rise up to stop it!"

This could go on all day.

But remember - The attack on Pearl Harbour was a military gamble that failed because the carriers were not in port. America knew the attack was coming and sacrifice obsolete infrastructure to get into the war in Europe.

So next time you see a War in the Pacific documentary you need to understand that while sailors, crewmen, ships captains and probably some admirals did not know an attack was coming, there was a war room in Washington that knew where and when it would come and they were already planning to “Storm the Beaches of Normandy” because of it.

Why not admitt to that 65 years later. Those vets, their wives and their kids are still alive and a government telling its army that they have and will use thier armed forces as political capital is no good for the economy.

Fuck the FLQ

After some years figuring out whether or not I should write about my hatred of Canada's treatment of the old FLQ members I finally put pen to paper.

As I have said in the past, I can "write the future". If it pops into my head, chances are within a few weeks, the story will be in the news. Well within three weeks of writing about the scourge that is the old gaurd of the FLQ, and how we have let them live and thrive in Quebec and that there would someday be reprocussions, the RCMP stated today that it is taking very seriously recent threats by "new" FLQ cells that have threatened to begin a new bombing campaign in English areas of Montreal (malls, bridges and other public places).

Suprise, Su..fucking...Suprise

Well to keep what I said fresh, here are my thoughts on why we should have killed the FLQ pricks in the 1970's because (not to be a know it all but) they have been teaching the youth of Quebec for 30 years and something like this was bound to happen.

http://angryrants2006.blogspot.com/2006/12/flq-tough-one-to-post.html

Bring the troops home and fight terrorism where it affects me. This new FLQ is nothing more than privileged white kids with time on thier hands and a future to waste. So hard done by, the children of the PQ, BLOC, C101 and the langauge police, that they have to start up a terrorist organization to deal with what is left of Montreals anglo money base. That poor city just turns the corner and these fuckers try to ruin ot again. It is like they want to be poor victims.

My advice? Kill them all, new members, old members, gather them up, tattoo a picture of the Queen over their hearts and throw them off the Plains of Abraham.

Oh yeah I'm that old school.

Bruins Make'm and Break'em

I was looking around the NHL the past couple fo weeks and I realized the Bruins aren't as dumb as they seem.

They traded Thornton and got some decent player and some cost savings in return, but they still get shit about the deal. However, does anyone say "But they picked up Savard, he's cheaper, playing with the heart that Thornton could never find and is scoring like a machine, the crowd loves him and he seems to love them."

This is the problem, nobody ever looks past a trade. Why did a team make a move and how did they fill the hole. Are the Bruins better off without Thornton? I really belive they are. My real issue is that the Bruins get more flack than any team in the league when it comes to being frugal and for not throwing money at star players in order to keep them around.

With Thoronton in mind, I have looked back at some of the big "Losses" the Bruins have suffered and have never been forgiven for to see if we can measure the real effect of the loss.

The following is a list of players the Bruins were literally shit on for NOT resigning, or resigning and trading because of their lofty price tags.

Byron Dafoe – Starting goalie, big star, bigger pain in the ass. This guy held out twice with the Bruins. They signed him and shipped him. He became Atlanta’s $3 million problem. What happened? He was horrible with no defense in front of him. After leaving the Bruins he played parts of 2 seasons and was out of the NHL at 32. By the way he won 9 total games in 2 seasons with Atlanta after winning 130 in five seasons with the Bruins.

Jason Allison – Best player on the Team. Top 5 centre in all of hockey. He was a season away from being HUGE. Bruins traded him because of his salary demands. LA gave him his money and got NOTHING in return. Allison has played parts of 3 seasons, missed an entire season with injuries, and has never come close to being the player he was with Boston. Injuries have ruined what should have been a hall of Fame career. He was out of hockey at 30.

Kyle Mclaren – Could have been the anchor of the Bruins defense if his promise had ever panned out. Often injured, part time contributor made huge salary demands and was traded to the sharks (sound familiar?). The Sharks gave him his money and he has provided 20 acceptable minutes a game. Never again to be mentioned as a potential elite player. The only thing that was elite when he left Boston was his salary.

Dimitris Kristich – This is my favorite example of all time. This guy came to the Bruins and landed on a very good line, where he excelled. He filed for salary arbitration and was rewarded with a 2 year deal at $4 million a season. (He was a fucking 30 goal scorer). So for the first time in history, by any team, the Bruins walked away and he became a free agent. Press screamed at the Bruins for walking away from their biggest goal scorer. In fairness he had 58 goals in 161 games for the Bruins, but the money was way out of line. Divisional opponent Toronto swept in; gave him his money and he played for a season and a half for them scoring an incredible 15 goals, then he was shipped to Washington where he scored 19 goals in 109 games and then….he LITERALLY disappeared. Out of hockey at 32.

Bill Guerin – Back to back 40 goal seasons, but he was ready to start making $5 million a season or more. Again the Bruins walked away. This guy had a LONG history before the Bruins of being a hold out problem. He is still a solid goal scorer, but every team he has been on since has tried to dump him strictly based on salary. He is having a comeback season, but at 37 does it matter?

Anson Carter – Another dollar rama. Injured too often, everybody trades this guy and for every good season he has 5 bad ones. He holds out all the time and has become every teams last resort. I believe this will be his last go around. Welcome to Columbus, you will never leave.

Sergei Samsonov - What can you say? The guy knows how to score 20 goals. Is he worth the money he now commands? NO. The Bruins got a lot of shit for dumping this guy, but were they wrong? Someone else (Montreal) is paying him the big dollars now, but for their money they have gotten 7 goals in 47 games. He is injured to often and needs the perfect fit in line mates in order to contribute. I always liked him, but his money is better spent elsewhere.

Sergei Gonchar – An interesting experiment along the lines of Al Iafrate (short lived thanks to Thornton), but also listed as a failure when the Bruins were unable to resign him. The Bruins actually had arbitration planned and were set to resign him before the strike, but that deal never came into effect. He turned down the Bruins offer and got a 4 year $5 million per season deal from Pittsburgh. Is a defenseman who can’t play defense worth the price? The penguins regretted their decision all of last season, and while he is on a “comeback” of sorts this year, his numbers are the same and the only difference is that he is the only $5 million waste of money on the team, whereas last year he had A LOT of company.

Nick Boynton – Traded for Paul Mara. Mara scores more, is injured less and costs less. Another Bruins loss. Remember that Boynton has held out since day one. It is his only negotiation tactic. Refused to sign with the Devils, went back into the Draft, held out twice with Boston. Missed time because he developed Diabetes (why?). Anyway this is another guy who makes way too much money for his actual contribution. This guy was supposed to have an offensive upside. In 7 seasons, he has 22 goals, 86 points and sweet fuck all else.

Tim Taylor – An excellent defensive player, had ONE good season and the Rangers swept in with money and stole him away. The Bruins could not compete with the money offered so another loss. He has found a home in Tampa (where?) won a cup and will probably close his career there. Still a worth while piece and player, but the money he got from the rangers ruined everything. He scores an average of 7 or 8 goals a season. The rangers paid him based on the 20 goal season with all the shorthanded goals from his first season with Boston. Unrealistic for all.

Everybody on this list expect for Guerin, Gonchar and Kristich were made by the Boston Bruins. They had two or three good seasons and then DEMANDED something from the team that made them successful. Without fail they have all proven the Bruins right, they simply were not worth the dollars asked, or offered.

Everyone of these guys went after the money and the Bruins let them walk, only to be derided by the press. Where is the tit for tat in the cheap cunts debate? I think the press owes the Bruins a little, “you were right in retrospect” every once and a while.

There are situations where the Bruins let a guy go and they should have kept him, the two best examples are Michael Nylander and Brian Rolston. In Nylander’s case it was clear he wanted to be elsewhere, namely NY, so what are you going to do? In Rolston’s case I think he wanted to go somewhere else as well, but the Bruins did drop the ball.

HOWEVER, what is forgotten in a lot of the noise about this, and in many of the cases above, the BRUINS stole this guy and got service out of him at a very low price. Rolston played for the Bruins for 5 years and became a name commodity. Rolston was the player Boston received in exchange for Ray Bourque. They did Ray a favour and stole one of he best players in the league (to be) from Colorado, so with that in mind losing him doesn’t seem so bad.

And of course they have signed some shit (Lapointe, Zhamnov to name two), but hey at least they didn’t win the Forsberg sweepstakes.

Commercials of Hate

New commercials for my list of hate. I don't hate the products, but the companies who allowed this "SHIT" to hit the fan are on my hate list.

The first is the line of childrens bathroom products called "Leap frog " or something. Now I generally already hated those commercials. Kids sitting on the toilet, tossing used ass wipe. There were no stains but everything was implied. None of us needs a commercial on how kids wipe there ass. We all do it, it should be a given, but these assholes feel that we need a refresher on the visual. So yeah, they were already on my shit list, but in the new commerical if you look closely the "Mascot" cartoon frog in the commerical can be seeing PHYSICALLY WIPING HIS OWN ASS!

Yes I am serious. I mean what the fuck is going on here?

The second is equally offensive and refers to the "Charmin" cartoon bears. First, why do these bears care how much TP I use to wipe my ass? They want to make sure I don't use too much. They are obsessed with it. Second who can wipe there ass properly with only 3 squares of TP? The mother bear rips the handfull of TP out of the little girl bears hands and gives her 3 squares. THREE FUCKING SQUARES. This commercial is not "literally" insane, it is "Actually" insane. I have a mess of tacos or chili and I am expected to clean up back there with 3 squares of TP. Well I am sorry Charmin it ain't gonna happen. The fucking Royal cats threw the TP all over the place in their commercials. They used it like it was water. They understand the needs of my undercarridge. YOU'RE OUT!

The Point?

I am at home watching my TV, paying $100.00 a monthy for the privaledge and everyday I have to watch a cartoon frog wipe his ass, or some fucking fat bear go behind a skinny tree and do the same. It is driving me nuts.

While I am on the subject of the offensive yet accepted as a given. Why are there so many fucking tampon / maxi pad commercials on TV? Does advertising really affect purchase decisions in this relm. I have dated a few ladies in my time, and been in a few bathrooms and without excpetion they all use the same fucking thing. Would advertising push any of them another way? I doubt it. My point here is that 50% of the population is buying the stuff and they probably buy what their mothers used or in special circumstances what their doctor/friend suggests. This is not a product that needs advertising and it certainly does not need the level of advertising it gets. It never fucking ends.

That said, as for their commercials, why do all women do ballet/road work/deep knee bends/high kicks and assorted other shit at that time of the month? Maybe the symbolism is over my head, but all that activity is making me a bit nervous.

"I hear their menstration attracts bears"

"Did you hear that? Bears!"

I want everyone to do me a favour. NEVER BUY A CHARMIN OR LEAP FROG PRODUCT AGAIN. Simply on the basis that I had to watch a cartoon wipe its own ass, outside of Japanese Anime Porn.

Like Hockey? Too Bad...Fuckin' Alex Munter

What do Alex Munter, Me and a Hockey Game have in common?

Well if you asked my friend Robb, he would say they are all gay. But more accurately, one of the above is keeping me from getting inside the other...wait that is gay.

Anyway, I went to the Bruins / Ottawa game in December and had a blast. Gold circle seats, waitresses, the Bruins kicked the Senators ass, I met Ray Bourque. For a beer loving Bruins fan, it doesn't get much better.

Even my brother, the whipped/repressed Senators fan had a blast, inspite of the 7-2 drubbing, and he said he wanted to go the next game.

Program note: I had vowed never to go back to a Senators game. On one of my last trips the Ottawa Nazi's tried to have me kicked out for cheering, that's right cheering for the Bruins. I was in a heavy season ticket holder section (rich cunts) and they created a story which almost had me tossed after the first period. Good news, I got to stay by demanding my money back on the spot. They said sorry sir, enjoy the game. Fuck them. Better news, I got madder and louder and the Bruins won. Bad news, those guttless pussies ruined live hockey for me. Message tot he fans, sack up and take a shot, I get it, it is YOUR HOUSE, but don't go tell on me for cheering. Ottawa fans are PUSSIES.

I only went to the last game because my brother got $150 seats for $70. That kind of a deal I couldn't pass up. I still had to deal with a bitch crying about me cheering for the Bruins. The bitch, with tears in his eyes, whispered to his wife that "I would never do that in the Montreal Forum" well asshole I would have and did on many occassions. I took some shit, namely because the Bruins never won any of the games I went to, but nobody ever called security on me for cheering.

Fuck I hate Ottawa. The Stittsville Senators. Put a team in the city and then come talk to me about what I would or wouldn't do in the forum, or garden (s) or MSG or where ever.

So, we covered me and hockey so how does this relate to Alex Munter?

Well I got tickets to the next Bruins game in Ottawa (Jan. 9th) for Christmas from a friend so my brother was shit out of luck, but thanks to the ridiculous NHL Schedule Boston is back on the 27th. So to do my brother a solid I figured I would get us some cheap tickets and try and relive the magic.

SORRY...The entire building is already sold out. HOW? I had no fucking clue. In fairness, Ottawa usually sells out all of its games, the fans suck, but they do FINACIALLY support their team. That said you can always get 2 tickets especially for a game that is a month away.

HOWEVER,

It turns out that the recent LOSER (ASSHOLE) in the last mayorial election is in terrible debt.

Don't worry I am getting there...

So to raise money for his election debts, his supporters have decided to raise money through a hockey game. This is pretty common for charities, not gay Nazi politicians.

Anyway, his team has purchased everything available for the game on the 27th. The team gives them a group discount, they sell the tickets to you if you donate...

ONE HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS TO ALEX MUNTERS DEBT RELIEF

That's right $100 plus ticket price. I imagine that the tickets are discounted, similar to my $70 gold circles, but COME ON.

Is this just a crackpot theory? Nope
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=ae5b8b39-8afb-40b2-93ad-e07dc8117e41&k=92270

I can't see my beloved Boston Bruins because that fucking big girls blouse is broke. Now maybe you get an idea of why I hate the Ottawa Senators.

-put the rink in the middle of nowhere
-worst parking of any sports facility in the world
-didn't make trades/sign players that a retarded chimp would have made (Bonk for Naslund, Daigle for Foresberg, Young, draft, picks, cash...just some fo the many examples)
-cost the NHL the Quebec Nordiques (see Daigle trade)
-full of euro trash (recently correcting that problem, but to little too late)
-pussy fans (worst in the league)
-zero atmosphere at the games

So thanks to the city of KANATA, I think after the 9th, I have seen my last game in Ottawa. I'm going old school. Drive to Montreal like I did when I was 16. I may hate that team, but at least it isn't Stittsville.

Celebrity expectations

There is a new reality series starting soon that features "D list" celebrities doing the unimaginable...training to be cops. To be a cop you need a pulse and a highschool diploma so where is the challenge in that.

Regardless....

That show got me thinking. Most celebroty reality shows have the viewer watching celebrities doing the improbable. Sharing a room, waiting tables, learning to dance, running and other assorted bullshit. The idea is that we watch because we can't picture a celebrity working for a living or doing the everyday mundane bullshit that occupies our lives.

All that if fine I suppose, we live the illusion that these people have chauffeurs and cooks and other crap, when in "reality" most of them are collecting income from salaries gained in previous years and are actually on a budget that does not allow them to live like assholes, which is truly everyones dream. "Celebrities" are generally known for one thing, even the huge ones. So they live off of that one huge success, TV sitcom stars are the best example of this.

So these Celebrity assholes take reality jobs to get more work which equals more money. All press is good press.

All this to say that despuite this fact we are intrigued by the prospect of Paris Hilton Waiting on tables of the guy from CHIPS becoming a real cop.

The problem is that while we drool over how useless these people are and laugh that they can't do what we do even though they are "rich" we still seem to place their opinions on a pedistal.

All celebrities are the same, they are just at different points. If they are hot right now, chances are that they have already done the prostitue relaity bit once or more than likely they will take a bullshit job soon enough just to keep working.

Why is it that people will watch a show about how useless celebrities are and yet come election time they still value their opinions. A hot celebrity carries a big microphone, but a reality celebrity is a joke. But in reality they are both the same. The asshole from punked or his friend "Eric" (does it really matter?), wore a John Kerry shirt during the last Presidential and people made a big deal about it.

What the fuck does Eric know about politics? Even if he did know something, his shameless tee-shirt wearing at a movie premier is certainly no way to demonstrate a level of knowledge. Eric is basically a younger version of Danny Bonaduce. Would you listen to the Partridge Family guy? No, but for some reason we will listen to the guy currently (sort of) spoofing the character.

Sure it isn't just tee-shirts, but that is roughly the quality of the message regardless of the contribution. I know that many celebrities actively campaign at real political events, but again why should their presence add any weight to the issues of a candidate?

I know this doesn't make a lot of sense, but my point (if there is one) is that just because the guy from Friends votes for a Democrate doesn't mean you have to (The same holds true for the Donkey's or Elephant's however that whole thing works).

Where are the checks and balances?

Celebrities are on TV in "news" shows at least 3 hours a night and in most cases the actual evening news has been cut down to 30 minutes and still contains news about celebrities. Politicians do not have equal air time. They have no method of combatting attacks from celebrities. We love celebrities (even though they are entirely forgettable retards) and hate politicians and for some reason we take the word of the guy from ER over someone actually involved in an issue.

Just makes me a little crazy.