Segacs’s World I Know

Something tells me there’s a metaphor here but I’m too lazy to try to explain it right now.

Ok, maybe not funniest ever. But pretty damn funny. I challenge you to read this without laughing.

Oh, scroll down on the page past the movie review first. (Via Tainted Glass.)

The Friends finale is tonight. So sad. I’ll really miss that show.

Tuesday shocked a lot of people, myself included, when gas prices on the island of Montreal skyrocketed to 94.9 cents per litre.

We’d been warned that prices may hit the dollar mark for a while, but they seemed to be comfortably in the seventies and low eighties for quite some time. I remember that when I bought my car in 1998, my first tank of gas cost 47.9 cents per litre. That means the prices have nearly doubled in just 6 years!

Worst of all, there seems to be no apparent justification. After all, prices are much lower off the island, and even more so in Ontario. Crude oil prices haven’t been that volatile, and besides, decreases in crude oil never seem to lead to simultaneous lowering of prices at the pump. There’s just no way that the real cost of gas jumped more than ten cents literally in the course of a single afternoon!

Sure, a lot of it is due to taxes. And I do support gasoline taxes to subsidize public transit, to an extent. However, with all this extra tax that motorists are paying, where are the improvements to public transit? I’m still waiting to see any evidence of them. Aside from a giant hole in Laval where a metro is eventually supposed to go, the public transit system hasn’t seen much of an overhaul… plus, the price of bus tickets keeps rising too. So where is all the money going? Certainly not to road repairs, as anyone who’s fallen in a typical Montreal giant-sized pothole this month can attest to.

Turns out I’m not the only one who’s fed up. Despite reports which seem to argue that price-fixing and collusion don’t exist, most of us strongly suspect otherwise. CAA Quebec started an online petition, which like most online petitions will have no appreciable effect besides allowing people to vent. They’re also urging people to limit consumption, which is a great idea in theory but not-so-convenient in practice. In the past, consumers tried boycotting certain gasoline companies, or mounting large-scale “gas-free days”, but none of it has worked.

Seems we’re all held hostage to gasoline prices, and there’s nothing to do but suck it up and shell out the cash.

In a not-so-shocking twist, turns out Michael Moore made up the whole thing as a publicity stunt (via Damian Penny):

Dissecting the current dust-up, it seems clear that Disney never intended to distribute Moore’s film. Maybe the Mousketeers are cowards, but at least they are consistent. And Moore is whining now only to hype the pre-Cannes buzz. Sources report that Miramax never planned to release the Moore film, that it was always slated to come out through Lions Gate.

Let’s see, what’s the appropriate reaction here? Ah yes: Liar, liar!

Incidentally, it’s a lie that seems to have caught on. This morning on the radio, Terry DiMonte was decrying “censorship” and saying that he hoped it cost Dubya the election. Moore himself is planning to speak in Toronto today (probably in front of a crowd lapping up his anti-Americanisms like poetry). And I guess it’s not all that shocking that he would try to sell the film on a publicity wave of controversy. But when the lies come from a so-called “documentarian”, it sure says something about his credibility.

Update: Why does it not surprise me in the least that Janet Bagnall has been sucked in?

Disney’s Miramax Films is refusing to distrubute Michael Moore’s new movie:

Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which criticizes President Bush’s handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden’s, won’t be released through Miramax Films on orders from parent company Disney.

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said Wednesday the company “did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we’re such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides.”

Unfortunately, some other company probably will distribute the film, ensuring that it will see the light of day and not end up on the bottom of a trash heap where it clearly belongs. But, true to character, idiotarian-extraordinaire Moore never misses an opportunity to see a conspiracy theory:

Moore believes The Walt Disney Co. is worried the documentary would endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush’s brother Jeb is governor and where Disney World is located.

“What tax break?” Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded. “We don’t give tax breaks, that I’m aware of, to Disney,” Bush said. “I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state.”

I see… so our next Moore treat will be a film about how Mickey Mouse is really responsible for all war and conflict. Gotcha.

In today’s Gazette, L. Ian Macdonald previews the Liberal attack ads on Stephen Harper and runs down why he thinks they’re not only a bad idea, but poorly researched:

In suggesting Harper is proposing “U.S.-style health care,” the Liberals are resorting to U.S.-style attack ads. For the Liberals, the great danger is that Harper might not turn out to be so dangerous. Harper must prove that he’s no more dangerous than he looks, which is to say not dangerous at all.

The Liberal attack ads are intended to scare the daylights out of voters in the great Canadian middle who might be considering a vote for the Conservatives, or the Conservative-Alliance, as the Liberals style them as part of their scare tactics. Their problem is that Harper doesn’t look, or sound, scary.

I’m not endorsing the Conservatives. I don’t agree with their positions on a myriad of issues. But I also am disgusted by the apparent intentions of the Liberals to play dirty politics. Paul Martin would be well to remember that if you wrestle down in the mud, your clothes are bound to get dirty.

The international media and the blogosphere are up in arms about the election of Sudan to the UN Human Rights Commission:

Sichan Siv, the U.S. delegate to the council, accused Sudan of having no right to sit on the rights commission because of ethnic cleansing in Darfur where government troops are accused of backing Arab militia which pillage black Africa villages, raping and killing. The Khartoum government denies it is involved in ethnic cleansing.

This isn’t too surprising. The U.N. is a master of hypocrisy. After all, when Libya can chair the Human Rights commission, then it isn’t too much of a leap to see how we end up with a commission whose primary purpose seems to be condemning Israel while whitewashing all the human rights abuses taking place around the world by its own members.

But it does strike me as ironic that, while the UNCHR re-elects Sudan, another UN body, the UNHCR (not to be confused) is frantically trying to help over a hundred thousand Sudanese refugees who’ve fled into Chad because of the ethnic cleansing that Sudan denies is taking place. And UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that large-scale ethnic cleansing could take place without quick intervention.

So, to the United Nations, I have to ask: which is it? Is Sudan worthy being part of a human rights watchdog, or are they the guys the watchdogs ought to be watching? The UN’s schizophrenic behaviour shouldn’t surprise me anymore. It really shouldn’t.

I don’t think the CSST will cover this work “accident”:

Police officers recently foiled a suicide bombing attack in Israel, it was revealed on Monday. However, a highly unusual chain of events led to his apprehension.

It appears a leak in his bomb-belt caused phosphorus material to reach his skin causing such a severe burn that a hole was literally seen in the stomach of the would-be bomber.

I hope this gets extensive publicity. I’m willing to bet that some would-be terrorists who have no problem with the idea of blowing themselves to pieces might second-guess the whole thing if they hear about this. Backwards? Yes. Plausible? Very.