As in, love for the library, not love in a library, because then this would be a completely different kind of blog ("Dear Floyd, I never thought this would happen to me but [...] and then the reference librarian chased us out with an oversized atlas of northern Canada's waterways.")
No, this post is all about how much I love the library that I currently use, the ones I've used in the past, and the concept of libraries in general. Maybe I'm just on a library high because no fewer than five (5!) books that I've wanted to read for a very, very long time (like, maybe even, months!) all came in today and I just wanted to throw them on the bed and roll around with them but that would be gross a)for me and b)for everyone after me. So I didn't do that. But I did look at my bag o' books longingly all afternoon, waiting for the work day to end so that I could take them home and we could be alone...
Ahem. Moving on. Now, I'm not a super spendy (why yes, that is a real word, thankyouverymuch) person in general, but books have always been the exception that proved that I was a big liar. Graduate school was probably the worst time for this, because I spent so much time with smarty-pants academics with offices lined with smarty-pants books that I spent hundreds of dollars trying to look smarty-pants myself ("look" being the operative word, as the academics with their book-filled offices had, in fact, written or contributed to or worked with the authors of many of those books, whereas I mostly bought them, held them tight to my chest, and then put them on the shelf and admired them from afar) on a research topic which I eventually abandoned. (In a completely unrelated bit of information, if anyone's looking for some collections on the public sphere, I can totally hook you up.) It was just so convenient - go to Amazon.ca, click a few times, enter your credit card number and blammo! Brand new box of shiny books to be read once (maybe) and then collect dust on my bookshelf. I felt smarter just looking at them.
Now, film buff that I am, I've still never had this problem with movies. I love watching them, but I've never really owned many, mostly because there's maybe a few dozen movies out that I've actually watched more than once (although what I lack in quantity, I make up for in...a different kind of quantity, having seen The Lion King 30+ times back when it was the only kid's movie we owned when my oldest younger brother was...er, younger, not to mention having seen each of the Star Wars trilogy 25+ times). There's even fewer books I've read more than once, and yet I have such a hard time parting with them that I've finally realized the real solution is to just stop buying them.
And now, thanks to the power of the Intertubes, getting books from the library is almost as easy as buying, plus free, so if you include the work I have to do to earn money to buy books (which I do now, because that is how I roll) then the library is easier than a frat boy during rush week. (I actually have no idea what rush week really is, but I think it has something to do with frats, so that's my joke and I'm sticking to it.) Instead of going to Amazon, I go to the library site, look up the books I want, place a hold, and then go pick them up at the library when they're ready. IT IS SO AWESOME I WANT TO BARF, THAT'S HOW AWESOME IT IS. I pick out books, and the magical book fairies find them and email me and I come get them and sign them out and it's all FREE FLOYD AND LIBRARIES BFFFS 4EVA.
Of course I guess that makes me a business-hating, economy-killing, tree-hugging, freeloading socialist. So be it. They can have my library card when they pry it out of my cold, ink-stained fingers. Of course, then I'd just go to the customer service desk during operating hours and get a new one. And maybe browse the magazine racks at the same time, suckas.
Showing posts with label Financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial. Show all posts
Monday, January 12, 2009
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
It takes a village to raise a child, but just one idiot to write a budget
Oh, Jim Flaherty. Jim jim jim. Jimmy jimmy jim-bob bobby jim. What are we going to do with you?
I know, I know, you've got it tough. Minister of Finance for an entire country. The first budget for a party that has not held power in over a decade, and, technically, never governed really governed this country in its current incarnation. No matter what you did, somebody was bound to complain. I hear ya!
And really, I shouldn't be complaining about you. It's not your fault that your so-called economist boss put forward two of the most economically unsound campaign promises since...well, okay, since the Liberals promised to cut the GST. But at least they had the good sense to not follow through with it.
'Cause here's the thing, Jim. This whole 1% GST cut? Is awesome - for you. And your golfing buddies. And all other high-income earners in Canada. Here's some simple math for you (and it'd better be simple, for the guy who thought that 15.5% was a smaller amount than 15%).
Last year's income tax cuts put around 1$ back in taxpayers' pockets for every 100$ they earned between $8500-34,000. It also, by raising the basic personal exemption by $500, gave an automatic $75 back for everyone earning at least $8500. If you made $34000 or more, it meant savings of between $250-300.
In order to get the same savings out of a 1% GST cut, someone earning $34000 would have to spend $25,000-30,000. Yes, that's right - THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PRE-TAX DOLLAR THEY EARNED. Genius! Spend to save! Brilliant:
Person 1: Love the new car!
Person 2: Thanks! It cost $50,000. I was going to buy the $25,000 one, but I realized I could save twice as much on the GST if I bought the more expensive one. Now I have an extra $500 towards retirement.
Person 1: But...couldn't you have an extra $25,000 by buying the cheaper one?
Person 2: Whuh?...I guess...you...SHUT UP YOU'RE STUPID I HATE YOU
And don't even get me started on your Universal Child Care Benefit. Oh, too late! So, let's see...study after study comes out showing that early access to educational and developmental programs is the key determinant in future success. Countries around the world (and Quebec right here at home) progress towards universal daycare. The former Minister of Social Development and Making Hockey Dads Stare in Awe manages to pull a goddamn miracle out of his ass and get ALL 10 provinces to sign Childcare Agreements whereby they will receive federal funding to creat childcare spaces that meet the QUAD criteria of Quality, Universal, Accessible, and Developmental.
And then your boss says, "Fuck that! $1200 taxable bucks a year per kid under six! For everyone! No matter if you're barely scraping by, or if you wipe your kid's ass with hundred-dollar bills!"
And you're all - fo sho, dawg. I've already helped out my privileged male friends with stay-at-home wives earning more than $100,000 grand once - why not do it again?
Because, here's the rub: those are the people who will benefit most. Well-off, single-income families (and not to make this a gender issue, but...OH WAIT. THIS TOTALLY IS A GENDER ISSUE. 'Cause the number of stay-at-home dads is about as high as the number of female heads of companies or states. WHAT A CRAZY COINCIDENCE. But now, thanks to this extra taxable $1200 a year, moms have a choice! They can choose to stay at home with their kid(s), or they can choose to...stay at home anyway because the real problem is that it is almost impossible to find quality, affordable daycare outside of Quebec!) will keep the most of the benefit. Lower income, two-earners households will keep the least. Plus, some of their other benefits are being rolled back. Oh, yes, Stephen Harper, champion of the working Canadian family - the way he wants it, with Dad off to the office and mom making dinner and babies.
Dammit, Jim, I'm a spin doctor, not an economist, but even I can see that your plan sucks. It sucks so much that even light cannot escape its swirling vortex of doom. Now, to be fair to you, I can hardly claim full non-partisan status. But, to be fair to me, the budget sucks. I don't want to save by spending, I want to save when I earn. I don't want you to throw spare change at parents, I want you to give them real choice. I don't want a transit tax credit, I want a bus with brakes that don't squeal like a group of teenage girls at a Simple Plan concert.
I don't want a paltry cheque, a slap on the back, and a hearty "Here you go - now fend for yourself!" I do want a village, a community, a country that grows and prospers together.
And at the end of the day, all I can do is rally the villagers. Normally that means pitchforks and torches and thunderstorms...so I guess that explains the extra 1,000 RCMP officers.
Maybe you're not such an idiot, after all.
I know, I know, you've got it tough. Minister of Finance for an entire country. The first budget for a party that has not held power in over a decade, and, technically, never governed really governed this country in its current incarnation. No matter what you did, somebody was bound to complain. I hear ya!
And really, I shouldn't be complaining about you. It's not your fault that your so-called economist boss put forward two of the most economically unsound campaign promises since...well, okay, since the Liberals promised to cut the GST. But at least they had the good sense to not follow through with it.
'Cause here's the thing, Jim. This whole 1% GST cut? Is awesome - for you. And your golfing buddies. And all other high-income earners in Canada. Here's some simple math for you (and it'd better be simple, for the guy who thought that 15.5% was a smaller amount than 15%).
Last year's income tax cuts put around 1$ back in taxpayers' pockets for every 100$ they earned between $8500-34,000. It also, by raising the basic personal exemption by $500, gave an automatic $75 back for everyone earning at least $8500. If you made $34000 or more, it meant savings of between $250-300.
In order to get the same savings out of a 1% GST cut, someone earning $34000 would have to spend $25,000-30,000. Yes, that's right - THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PRE-TAX DOLLAR THEY EARNED. Genius! Spend to save! Brilliant:
Person 1: Love the new car!
Person 2: Thanks! It cost $50,000. I was going to buy the $25,000 one, but I realized I could save twice as much on the GST if I bought the more expensive one. Now I have an extra $500 towards retirement.
Person 1: But...couldn't you have an extra $25,000 by buying the cheaper one?
Person 2: Whuh?...I guess...you...SHUT UP YOU'RE STUPID I HATE YOU
And don't even get me started on your Universal Child Care Benefit. Oh, too late! So, let's see...study after study comes out showing that early access to educational and developmental programs is the key determinant in future success. Countries around the world (and Quebec right here at home) progress towards universal daycare. The former Minister of Social Development and Making Hockey Dads Stare in Awe manages to pull a goddamn miracle out of his ass and get ALL 10 provinces to sign Childcare Agreements whereby they will receive federal funding to creat childcare spaces that meet the QUAD criteria of Quality, Universal, Accessible, and Developmental.
And then your boss says, "Fuck that! $1200 taxable bucks a year per kid under six! For everyone! No matter if you're barely scraping by, or if you wipe your kid's ass with hundred-dollar bills!"
And you're all - fo sho, dawg. I've already helped out my privileged male friends with stay-at-home wives earning more than $100,000 grand once - why not do it again?
Because, here's the rub: those are the people who will benefit most. Well-off, single-income families (and not to make this a gender issue, but...OH WAIT. THIS TOTALLY IS A GENDER ISSUE. 'Cause the number of stay-at-home dads is about as high as the number of female heads of companies or states. WHAT A CRAZY COINCIDENCE. But now, thanks to this extra taxable $1200 a year, moms have a choice! They can choose to stay at home with their kid(s), or they can choose to...stay at home anyway because the real problem is that it is almost impossible to find quality, affordable daycare outside of Quebec!) will keep the most of the benefit. Lower income, two-earners households will keep the least. Plus, some of their other benefits are being rolled back. Oh, yes, Stephen Harper, champion of the working Canadian family - the way he wants it, with Dad off to the office and mom making dinner and babies.
Dammit, Jim, I'm a spin doctor, not an economist, but even I can see that your plan sucks. It sucks so much that even light cannot escape its swirling vortex of doom. Now, to be fair to you, I can hardly claim full non-partisan status. But, to be fair to me, the budget sucks. I don't want to save by spending, I want to save when I earn. I don't want you to throw spare change at parents, I want you to give them real choice. I don't want a transit tax credit, I want a bus with brakes that don't squeal like a group of teenage girls at a Simple Plan concert.
I don't want a paltry cheque, a slap on the back, and a hearty "Here you go - now fend for yourself!" I do want a village, a community, a country that grows and prospers together.
And at the end of the day, all I can do is rally the villagers. Normally that means pitchforks and torches and thunderstorms...so I guess that explains the extra 1,000 RCMP officers.
Maybe you're not such an idiot, after all.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Opus in the Key of C Minor
So, it's over. FINALLY. Tear down the signs, turn off the news, throw out the flyers; in fact, don't even say the word "election". For awhile. June 2007 to be exact. By my count, at least.
So, the Libs are out and the Cons are in. Childcare is out, weekly cheques for $25 are in. Lower income taxes are out, a 6% GST is in. Funding for sustainable infrastructure (like, maybe a bus shelter? for the end of my street? for when it's -50 out?) is out, tax credits for bus passes are in. I guess I'm supposed to buy my own bus shelter with my $144. Hey, I shouldn't complain - that'll buy me a lot of pizza (for the boxes) (also for the pizza) and duct tape.
All in all though, I'm not as upset as one might imagine. In fact, I think that this is one of the better case scenarios, and I'll tell you why.
See in this crazy little thing called democracy, no one party holds power forever, otherwise it wouldn't so much be a democracy as it would be something that rhymes with "vascist mictatorship". So eventually there was bound to be a shift in power. At some point, a Conservative government would form.
Now let's say the Liberals had managed to win this one, despite their campaign (or should I say "campaign"?) (Yes. Yes I should.) and eke out a little minority. That'd leave us with another shaky government, and another election in a couple of years, during which time Harper cleans a few of the visible fundies out of the ranks, takes a few more smiling lessons, and asks his right-wing buddies in the US to leave less of a trail. That, my friends, could have spelled a majority Conservative government ("O-H-S-H-I-T-W-E-R-E-F-U-C-K-E-D").
But right now? The Cons have a tiny itty bittly little minority, they have three socially progressive parties on the other side, and they have a liberal media ready to skewer their every move. And they have, at my best guess, until next spring to do their worst.
And in the meantime, the Liberals can clean house, get rid of any dead weight, find a new leader, and come back to a majority win and pick up all the pieces.
At least that's how it goes in my mind! And also there's this part where Fox un-cancels Firefly and gives me a unicorn. But that's a whole 'nother travel.
So, the Libs are out and the Cons are in. Childcare is out, weekly cheques for $25 are in. Lower income taxes are out, a 6% GST is in. Funding for sustainable infrastructure (like, maybe a bus shelter? for the end of my street? for when it's -50 out?) is out, tax credits for bus passes are in. I guess I'm supposed to buy my own bus shelter with my $144. Hey, I shouldn't complain - that'll buy me a lot of pizza (for the boxes) (also for the pizza) and duct tape.
All in all though, I'm not as upset as one might imagine. In fact, I think that this is one of the better case scenarios, and I'll tell you why.
See in this crazy little thing called democracy, no one party holds power forever, otherwise it wouldn't so much be a democracy as it would be something that rhymes with "vascist mictatorship". So eventually there was bound to be a shift in power. At some point, a Conservative government would form.
Now let's say the Liberals had managed to win this one, despite their campaign (or should I say "campaign"?) (Yes. Yes I should.) and eke out a little minority. That'd leave us with another shaky government, and another election in a couple of years, during which time Harper cleans a few of the visible fundies out of the ranks, takes a few more smiling lessons, and asks his right-wing buddies in the US to leave less of a trail. That, my friends, could have spelled a majority Conservative government ("O-H-S-H-I-T-W-E-R-E-F-U-C-K-E-D").
But right now? The Cons have a tiny itty bittly little minority, they have three socially progressive parties on the other side, and they have a liberal media ready to skewer their every move. And they have, at my best guess, until next spring to do their worst.
And in the meantime, the Liberals can clean house, get rid of any dead weight, find a new leader, and come back to a majority win and pick up all the pieces.
At least that's how it goes in my mind! And also there's this part where Fox un-cancels Firefly and gives me a unicorn. But that's a whole 'nother travel.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Elect this!
What better way to celebrate one's 62nd birthday than by watching the televised English leaders' debate? Maybe some Matlock and a nice bowl of creamed corn...
Anyway - such was my night, with much-appreciated birthday wishes coming in by phone, interspersed with my shouting random things at the TV, while DD went on with his evening, wondering if and when he would have to use the straightjacket.
I can't help it though - politics get me riled up. Actually, it's not really politics, but the fact that politics oftain contains two of the things that rile me up the most:
1)Rhetorical speech filled with fallacies of reason, instead of logical and enlightening dialogue; AND
2)Lies and the lying liars who tell them
Like a certain person who I won't name here but let's just call him CreepyMcSmilesalot, and his OUTRIGHT LIE that a transit tax credit will encourage more people to use public transportation (and I say this as a public transituser. Not just a sometime user, but a five-times a week, rain or sleet or snow or heat at the end of my street with no bus shelter for me...or my feet).
Oh, and also on the "things that keep Floyd up late at night" is the fact that we might have to endure the SSM "debate" (I use the quotations marks because it's not so much a debate as one side putting forth reasonable, human-rights based arguments, and the other side going "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, lalalalalalaaaaa I can't hear you!") AGAIN. If it comes to this once more, I might just have to pull my eyeballs out and pour rum directly into my brain.
Actually, let me just get these out in the open right now - let's see, what do my notes say (yes, I took notes...don't judge me...No, YOU'RE analog!). Alright, the issues that bugged me the most (in chronological order)
1)Harper's creepy smile. Okay, that's not really an issue, but it's on the list because SERIOUSLY DUDE get a mirror because your mouth is saying you're going to stand up for Canadians, but your dead eyes and half-smirk says "Right before I devour these puppies, heh heh!"
2)The notion that Quebec will be offended by people voting for the Liberals because it shows people don't care about the sponsorship scandal. I honestly don't understand why Quebec is pissed off at the rest of Canada over this - they were Quebec members of the Liberal Party who misappropriated funds. So to paint with broad brush strokes, the sponsorship scandal was about QUEBECORS taking money from a fund designed to KEEP THE COUNTRY TOGETHER and using it to buy shiny things, or whatever, and QUEBEC is mad at the rest of the country for this? Because the Liberals tried to bribe Quebec? And failed because a bunch of Quebecors were corrupt? Does...not...compute...
3)Peter Mackay! Oh Peter, subject of many a page girl crush...(hey, have you seen the other male MPs? We're not working with much, here) what has happened to you? Now, he wasn't mentioned by name, but they brought up the subject of question period, and Layton and Martin were all "blah blah blah question period is an uncivilized shouting match" and Harper was all "blah blah blah you won't answer our questions" and I was all "that's because a certain deputy leader in a certain only has one questions to ask and that's "When will you resign?"". Seriously, P-Mac, you need to get a new trick, because it's really tiresome that everytime you stand up you're demanding someone's resignation. I pity the poor restaurant server who has you at their table: "My soup is cold! When will you resign!" "But sir, you ordered the gazpacho!" "This whole restaurant is corrupt! When will you all resign!"
4)Mandatory minimum sentences - here, just read this.
5)THERE IS NO FISCAL IMBALANCE AIIIEEEE AH! AH! AH! (punctuated by hitting the couch). Okay, here's the scoop. The so-called "fiscal imbalance" is a term used by the provinces (ahem, QUEBEC) to describe one of two things either a)That the federal government has more money than the provinces (this is the Quebec definition); and b) when the provinces pay more to the federal government when they get back (ahem, Ontario). And in response:
a)The federal government has more money than the provinces because it is federal. It has 30 million taxpayers versus whatever number each province has. Suck it.
b)It's not the provinces giving money to the federal government, anyway, it's the TAXPAYERS in that province. If you can't balance your books, raise taxes or cut programs or just TRY HARDER - don't whine that you don't want to raise taxes because it'll hurt your re-election chances. Aso, suck it.
Shit - this is already a pretty long post and I'm not even halfway through my notes. So here's the rest, without editorializing:
-Swingers: H (n) L (y) (denotes my belief about which party leaders are and aren't swingers, based on their reaction to the question about swingers clubs, although likely not for lack of trying, if that creepy dead smile is any indication) (also, Duceppe's answer to that question was the best, talking about the importance of social evolution built on principles, and it makes me wonder how often Mrs. Duceppe has heard that speech in their bedroom: "Gilles, I'm not sure about this..." "But cheri, it is simply a natural part of social evolution!")
-GST cut boo (seriously, cut my income tax, please - I save on GST already by not buying lots of crap)
-Students, tradespeople, people who ride buses, people who's name starts with the letter "T", my aunt Bertha (from when Harper starting naming Canadians who will benefit from his tax platform - I may have paraphrased a bit)
-Shout outs to Cutler, Easter and Loubier (the only three candidates who got one, to the best of my knowledge).
-Artificial growth..... (honestly, I forget what this one was about. But it probably had to do with Harper)
-Quebecors are polite! (Heh, Martin telling Duceppe not to interrupt him...one of my favorite moments of the night...honestly, I wish those two crazy kids could make it work! Just a couple of guys of good ol' QC).
Alright - so I thought taking notes would help me organize my thoughts, but as is often the case, I was dead wrong. Or it could be that I thought a stiff drink would help, but maybe my co-worker is right - maybe 11am is too early.
Aw, hell - not during an election, it isn't.
Anyway - such was my night, with much-appreciated birthday wishes coming in by phone, interspersed with my shouting random things at the TV, while DD went on with his evening, wondering if and when he would have to use the straightjacket.
I can't help it though - politics get me riled up. Actually, it's not really politics, but the fact that politics oftain contains two of the things that rile me up the most:
1)Rhetorical speech filled with fallacies of reason, instead of logical and enlightening dialogue; AND
2)Lies and the lying liars who tell them
Like a certain person who I won't name here but let's just call him CreepyMcSmilesalot, and his OUTRIGHT LIE that a transit tax credit will encourage more people to use public transportation (and I say this as a public transituser. Not just a sometime user, but a five-times a week, rain or sleet or snow or heat at the end of my street with no bus shelter for me...or my feet).
Oh, and also on the "things that keep Floyd up late at night" is the fact that we might have to endure the SSM "debate" (I use the quotations marks because it's not so much a debate as one side putting forth reasonable, human-rights based arguments, and the other side going "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, lalalalalalaaaaa I can't hear you!") AGAIN. If it comes to this once more, I might just have to pull my eyeballs out and pour rum directly into my brain.
Actually, let me just get these out in the open right now - let's see, what do my notes say (yes, I took notes...don't judge me...No, YOU'RE analog!). Alright, the issues that bugged me the most (in chronological order)
1)Harper's creepy smile. Okay, that's not really an issue, but it's on the list because SERIOUSLY DUDE get a mirror because your mouth is saying you're going to stand up for Canadians, but your dead eyes and half-smirk says "Right before I devour these puppies, heh heh!"
2)The notion that Quebec will be offended by people voting for the Liberals because it shows people don't care about the sponsorship scandal. I honestly don't understand why Quebec is pissed off at the rest of Canada over this - they were Quebec members of the Liberal Party who misappropriated funds. So to paint with broad brush strokes, the sponsorship scandal was about QUEBECORS taking money from a fund designed to KEEP THE COUNTRY TOGETHER and using it to buy shiny things, or whatever, and QUEBEC is mad at the rest of the country for this? Because the Liberals tried to bribe Quebec? And failed because a bunch of Quebecors were corrupt? Does...not...compute...
3)Peter Mackay! Oh Peter, subject of many a page girl crush...(hey, have you seen the other male MPs? We're not working with much, here) what has happened to you? Now, he wasn't mentioned by name, but they brought up the subject of question period, and Layton and Martin were all "blah blah blah question period is an uncivilized shouting match" and Harper was all "blah blah blah you won't answer our questions" and I was all "that's because a certain deputy leader in a certain only has one questions to ask and that's "When will you resign?"". Seriously, P-Mac, you need to get a new trick, because it's really tiresome that everytime you stand up you're demanding someone's resignation. I pity the poor restaurant server who has you at their table: "My soup is cold! When will you resign!" "But sir, you ordered the gazpacho!" "This whole restaurant is corrupt! When will you all resign!"
4)Mandatory minimum sentences - here, just read this.
5)THERE IS NO FISCAL IMBALANCE AIIIEEEE AH! AH! AH! (punctuated by hitting the couch). Okay, here's the scoop. The so-called "fiscal imbalance" is a term used by the provinces (ahem, QUEBEC) to describe one of two things either a)That the federal government has more money than the provinces (this is the Quebec definition); and b) when the provinces pay more to the federal government when they get back (ahem, Ontario). And in response:
a)The federal government has more money than the provinces because it is federal. It has 30 million taxpayers versus whatever number each province has. Suck it.
b)It's not the provinces giving money to the federal government, anyway, it's the TAXPAYERS in that province. If you can't balance your books, raise taxes or cut programs or just TRY HARDER - don't whine that you don't want to raise taxes because it'll hurt your re-election chances. Aso, suck it.
Shit - this is already a pretty long post and I'm not even halfway through my notes. So here's the rest, without editorializing:
-Swingers: H (n) L (y) (denotes my belief about which party leaders are and aren't swingers, based on their reaction to the question about swingers clubs, although likely not for lack of trying, if that creepy dead smile is any indication) (also, Duceppe's answer to that question was the best, talking about the importance of social evolution built on principles, and it makes me wonder how often Mrs. Duceppe has heard that speech in their bedroom: "Gilles, I'm not sure about this..." "But cheri, it is simply a natural part of social evolution!")
-GST cut boo (seriously, cut my income tax, please - I save on GST already by not buying lots of crap)
-Students, tradespeople, people who ride buses, people who's name starts with the letter "T", my aunt Bertha (from when Harper starting naming Canadians who will benefit from his tax platform - I may have paraphrased a bit)
-Shout outs to Cutler, Easter and Loubier (the only three candidates who got one, to the best of my knowledge).
-Artificial growth..... (honestly, I forget what this one was about. But it probably had to do with Harper)
-Quebecors are polite! (Heh, Martin telling Duceppe not to interrupt him...one of my favorite moments of the night...honestly, I wish those two crazy kids could make it work! Just a couple of guys of good ol' QC).
Alright - so I thought taking notes would help me organize my thoughts, but as is often the case, I was dead wrong. Or it could be that I thought a stiff drink would help, but maybe my co-worker is right - maybe 11am is too early.
Aw, hell - not during an election, it isn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)