At this time each year even the casual sports fan is reminded just how grand the spectacle of college athletics has become south of the border. Heroes are made on the hard court and for at least one year, that glory will last entrenched within March Madness lore.
Buzzer-beating shots, upsets and breakout stars once again make a contribution to the nightly highlight reel, assembling countless bandwagon followings along the way. At work Canadians fill out brackets to, ever so slightly, involve themselves in all of the excitement.
Undoubtedly, someone will pick a dark horse and until the curtains close on that Cinderella story, for a moment “that guy” can play the role of all-foreseeing sports guru. There is something about this madness for everyone. It is all too easy for one to get caught up in the frenzy of sold out stadiums and exhaustingly in-depth television coverage. The Marvel at such wonders, for me, leaves me wanting more from Canadian university sport.
Too often, it seems that people forget about the true underdog spirit. While so readily throwing support behind a given team within the NCAA tournament, Canadian fans overlook the sports right here on home soil.
Most remain complacent with the idea that the CIS will never match up and certainly with an attitude like that it remains impossible. It is foolish to compare the two, for starters, but aiming for the top never hurt anyone.
The CIS will never size-up to the hundreds of teams and billions of dollars that comprise the NCAA - our schools are simply fewer and smaller in size.
We would be hard-pressed, here at McMaster, to fit 18,000 people into Burridge Gymnasium. With a capacity of 2,200, it would be simply impossible. So instead of looking at that as a shortcoming, Canadian sports fans should focus on what is possible.
Smaller venues should make for easy sellouts. Shorter seasons promote intense competition and less money-involved means more sport.
With even a fraction of the seemingly effortless zest that we yearn for March Madness, major improvements could be made to how we view campus sports here in the north.
After all, paying attention to CIS sports is far from a chore nowadays, especially since larger events have been receiving national television coverage on a steady increase over the past few years.
This past football season more people than ever paid attention to the CIS, evident through sold out games, storybook rivalries and a record setting 48th edition of the Vanier Cup.
Later in the year, The Score television network provided coverage of the CIS men’s basketball tournament in Ottawa, and although the product was decibels away from madness - there was marked improvement from years past. Even my CIS-apathetic roommates found themselves glued to the television for both football and basketball.
Perhaps that is too much to ask, but if given a chance, CIS sports can be an infectious pastime.
Admittedly, before coming to Mac or working at the Silhouette, CIS sports were situated in obscurity for me. Not long after spending Saturday afternoons at Ron Joyce, however, I found myself thinking that the Canadian brand of collegiate athletics was the best-kept secret in sports.
I found myself able to follow these sports with the passion of a true fan. I could proudly say that I was rooting for “my team” without having to pledge some manufactured allegiance to the Virginia Commonwealth University Rams for a few weeks.
Forget what you know; CIS sports are right in front of you and it’s surprising how easy it can be to get caught up in all the action. It was a hell of a year in Marauder sports and the future seems to be getting even brighter. Much like March Madness, it will be worth being a part of.
Simon Granat / Silhouette Staff
I remember my first university class. It was 9:30 a.m., Political Science 1G06 with Dr. Alway. Around the end of the class he asked us, his students, to think about Canadian identity.
Then, when I took a second year Canadian politics course, Dr. Flynn asked us to do the same thing.
The result of all this thinking was the general consensus that there is no Canadian identity. There may be Canadian identities, or at the very most, there was what we call ‘the mosaic’ - the idea that Canada is made up of distinct and separate cultures that make up our national identity.
If Canadian history is any witness, it shows that (at one time at least) there were attempts to assimilate and impose an identity on many peoples.
Maybe that’s why I don’t completely subscribe to ‘the mosaic’.
Having been someone who was born in Canada and given the luxury of citizenship without the need to work for it, I have never been told what Canadian identity is. And perhaps collectively, for many of us who were born here, the delineated meaning of ‘what makes a Canadian’ has faded with the passing of our ancestors.
But simply saying Canadian identity does not exist is not necessarily true; the absence of a definition is not proof that no definition exists.
For me, the definition of what makes Canada comes, in part, from the story of my father’s family.
My grandparents and their children, my father and uncle, came to Canada from Poland in the late fifties.
They were Jewish immigrants who had survived the Second World War. After settling in Toronto, they worked in factories, sewing clothes. It was a humble job, and I’m not sure how well it paid, but they worked hard. Yiddish was a dominant language in the house. My father received most of his schooling in Canada, and went on to practice law for a time.
By no means do I mean to embellish the ‘pull yourself up from your bootstraps’ mentality. Instead I tell the story to illustrate my point - that the Canadian identity is a story.
It is the story of you, of me, of us. Sometimes these stories are good, sometimes they are bad. They can be filled with privilege, poverty, systemic barriers to success, great successes and great sorrows.
The Canadian identity is a collection of identities, interwoven into the history of Canada. It is more than a mosaic - my grandparents would not have been legally allowed to purchase homes in some parts of Canada when they arrived.
But it is their story, your story, our story - our lineage, interwoven into the social fabric of this country that constitutes our collective identity.
With the second round of negotiations on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to be held in New York on March 18, students at McMaster are joining the mission to spread awareness about the issue.
The December shooting in Connecticut reignited the gun control debate in the United States and abroad. Months before this shooting, diplomats from Canada and other nations had attended a global conference held in New York under the auspice of the United Nations to discuss the draft version of the first international multilateral treaty on the regulation of conventional arms trade.
But the July conference ended inconclusively after the United States and several other countries, such as China and Russia, requested more time to look into the treaty. Talks are scheduled to reconvene from March 18-28.
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be an international regulation on the export, import and transfer of conventional arms. The United Nations is also working on reinforcing the Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons.
Most conflicts in the world are done with conventional weapons, and most of these weapons are produced in Western countries. As of now, there is no international regulation in place on conventional arms trade, which is estimated at $70 billion. The United States is the world’s biggest arms trader, accounting for 40 per cent of transfers of conventional arms.
Canada supports the inclusion of small arms, light weapons and ammunition within the ATT, so long as it is consistent with the principle of national discretion.
Domestically, the Conservative government discontinued the registry early last year on the grounds that it is costly and inefficient.
The Canadian Conservative government has played a minimal role in treaty negotiations, with its major priority being the interest of law-abiding Canadian gun owners. In 2011, Canada proposed to exclude hunting rifles and “civilian” arms from the treaty, retracting the proposition only after stern criticisms from other nations.
Dr. Andrew Lui, a professor on international politics at McMaster University, describes Canada's position on the treaty as difficult. Canada is isolated in regards to its stance on international Issues, such as with the recent withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.
“[The Canadian government] is led by pragmatism than principle,” explained Dr. Nibaldo Galleguillos, a professor in comparative politics at Mac.
In recent years, the country has backed away from its peacekeeping reputation. Canada has rarely been a leader, and has often abstained or followed other nations when it comes to international human rights and humanitarian causes.
The execution of small arms control is complex.
“UN agreements are not enforceable,” said Galleguillos. “The question is, to what degree is [the treaty] effective when it is not supported by the superpowers.”
On campus, War Child at Mac, an MSU-recognized humanitarian club concerned with child soldiers in war-conflicted countries, is launching a video to spread awareness on the importance of the Arms Trade Treaty.
War Child Canada, a non-governmental organization followed by War Child at Mac, is in coalition with Control Arms, an ATT-advocacy group campaigning for a more bulletproof treaty. March 11-17 marks the global week of action for Arms Trade Treaty. War Child at Mac will be running an information booth in MUSC this Friday, March 15, to spread awareness of the Arms Trade Treaty.
I’m not an expert in French. I don’t think I even knew a word of French until I started kindergarten. And even then, at my Anglophone school, in an Anglophone city, we students were only so involved in developing what was for most of us a second language. We’d do an hour here, an hour there, learning the basic vocabulary that you’d expect of a group of five year olds. And this basic education continued through our elementary years.
By the time my classmates and I reached high school and had the opportunity to choose classes, I was surprised to find that many of them jumped at the chance to give up French for good. Whether it was because they struggled with it or just lacked interest, they had no qualms at closing the door and never looking back.
I was perplexed at their choice. Maybe it was because I just loved the sound of the language or the writers we studied.
But it seems I was, and am now, in the minority. Of the 33 million people who live in Canada, just over 17 per cent speak both official languages. And predictably enough, almost 60 per cent of those bilingual people live in Quebec.
What people seem to very easily forget is that Canada is a bilingual country. After all, the French established a permanent settlement years before the British ever did. Quebec may be the only solely francophone province now, but Canada’s history has a strong sense of connection with all things French.
So how is it that people are so disillusioned? It’s been over 40 years since the Official Languages Act made the two languages equal under the law, but since then, if anything we’ve lost enthusiasm in pursuing our two native tongues. French immersion programs are widespread, but bilingualism is on the decline.
Meanwhile, Quebec is hanging on to its language rights for dear life. A recent criticism of an Italian restaurant menu in Quebec created “pastagate,” a scandal that made the province a global laughingstock. The Office Quebecois de la langue francaise ordering that the restaurant remove the word “pasta” from its menu may seem extreme, but such strict measures are just a demonstration of how strongly the office wants to preserve the linguistic integrity of its province.
It’s true that Canada is a widely multicultural nation, and perhaps it’s unreasonable to ask that newcomers to our country learn both official languages. But for people still in school, those with the chance or even the requirement to study French, it’s time to embrace bilingualism. Being fluent or at least comfortable in Canada’s two languages can open doors with jobs all over the country, or even elsewhere in the francophone world. And if nothing else, it serves the purpose of preserving our national heritage. So embrace it, Canada. And vive la langue francaise.
Jackie Yaffa / The Silhouette
It’s time for someone to fix the Senate. The public knows it, and the Prime Minister himself knows it. So why hasn’t it been done yet?
The idea of Senate reform is not new, and Canada finally has a prime minister willing to do something about the problem. However, what Stephen Harper plans to do is not to fix the problem, but to add changes that further his own agenda.
During the Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau controversies, the public – not the Prime Minister himself – has pinpointed the problem. The problem is the senators, not the Senate.
The Senate is an inherently logical institution. The Chamber of Sober Second Thought exists to curb the power of the sitting government. The prime minister, the person who’s supposed to make our country’s decisions, picks the senators. The senators themselves must be well-established citizens who are at least 30 years of age and may serve until they reach age 75. The basic premise of the Senate is both logical and beneficial for the country.
The problem occurs when the prime minister is incapable of choosing competent senators. And no, it is not only Stephen Harper who can’t seem to handle this task.
Prime ministers don’t seem to like the idea of limitations on the government’s power. To them, the Senate is just another democratic roadblock on the way to absolute control of Canadian policy.
So what did the prime ministers do? They took advantage of an obvious loophole and changed the Senate from the Chamber of Sober Second Thought to the upper house of Partisan Politics.
The Conservatives currently hold a majority in the Senate and in Parliament. This means that the Tories can pass almost any policy they desire. Although some may argue that this is not true for reasons such as a lack of party discipline in the Senate, it is a statement that stands true in practice. How else would Canada end up with senators like Duffy and Brazeau – both Conservative, both appointed under the recommendation of Stephen Harper?
So what does Harper plan for reform? Well, he came up with the most beneficial solution of course – or at least the most beneficial for himself. He proposes to limit the term that Senators are allowed to serve, allowing himself even more chances to appoint members to the Senate.
There are many theories about how to improve the Senate (with Harper’s being the worst of them all). Some people call for legitimate provincial representation, similar to the Upper House in the United States. This would limit the immense power of Quebec and Ontario. However, it wouldn’t promise the competency of senators.
A better suggestion is the Triple E Model for the senate: Equal, Effective and Elected. This model incorporates equal provincial representation, but more importantly it gives the electorate a vote towards senate appointments. Alberta currently elects nominees for appointment to the Senate. Unfortunately, the vote does not guarantee that the winner of the election is appointed to the Senate. The only way this could happen would be if the constitution were to be changed. However, Harper has already announced that he will not change the constitution in the name of Senate reform, despite his advocacy for improving the Senate.
Getting appointed to the Senate is like winning the Cash for Life Lottery. A Senator’s immense salary and pension, like it or not, come from tax dollars. One might expect that a Canadian government, specifically a Conservative government like Harper’s, would be more careful about how they use (or abuse) the taxpayers’ money.
It’s not time for Senate reform, it’s time for a change in senators.
Rob Hardy / Silhouette Staff
After much deliberation, last week finally marked the implementation of the Canadian penny’s demise. Most Canadians either meet this news with approval or indifference. However, if we look at the matter more seriously (as we should) then it might become apparent that this irreversible decision isn’t such a good thing.
Many of us see pennies as simply a nuisance, something we gladly part with or even throw away, but therein lay the issue that is at the center of this debate. For people who are poor, on welfare or even homeless, money in any denomination has real tangible value. It is what makes the difference between a level of comfort and a life of misery. For people looking to stretch their budget as far as they can, saving a few cents every day over the course of a month literally allows them to keep their heads above water.
But once we enter a certain tax bracket and/or mindset of abundance, it is easy for many consumers to not care about spare change or see how their overall finances balance out.
Such attitudes lead to overconsumption, feeling safely distant from the threat of a negative bank balance. Indeed, it is this careless spending and financial perspective that has spurred Canada toward a reputation of near luxurious wealth. So, as we part with our savings more easily, so too does inflation rise and give way to further credit schemes. How can a mere penny have value for us when we deal with much larger numbers, albeit in abstract terms, when looking at monthly statements?
Yes, it’s absolutely true that producing the penny may not be economically viable anymore, but that is simply because we have priced ourselves beyond reason and common sense. No longer are price increases intermittent – they are taken for granted as “natural” when each calendar year changes. Just calculate how much your first year’s tuition will have gone up by your final year if you need any further proof.
It’s important to remember is that the penny is representational of our larger attitudes and beliefs toward financial solvency. It’s for good reason that the solid saying, “a penny saved is a penny earned” entered our verbal lexicon. Though one-cent tender will soon go the way of paper dollar bills, the lesson still applies, likely all the more as we will continue to see our cost of living rapidly increase.
Erik Fraunberger / The Silhouette
Recently, immigration minister Jason Kenney created a new amendment to the Canadian immigration system involving the designation of “safe” countries to increase the efficiency with which refugees may gain entrance into Canada.
The premise behind such an amendment is that the countries on this “safe” list are unlikely to produce legitimate asylum claimants which, according to Canadian law, include those who possess a “well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”
Judging from the current list, which includes most European and Scandinavian countries, the majority of individuals who come to Canada’s doorstep from these nations will not be suffering from the level of persecution that the original 1951 Geneva Convention was designed to accommodate. In fact, equating the socio-economic and political situations of individuals from developed, liberal-democratic countries with those in autocratic, developing countries with no human, civil or democratic rights are blatantly offensive.
Of course, such a policy is not without its flaws, most notably its inability to address the concerns of persecuted minority groups such as the Roma in Hungary.
While this is a problem for the Roma people, it is well documented in a 2012 report by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that there is a high welfare fraud and petty crime rate amongst Hungarian refugee claimants.
Painting all refugee claimants with the same brush is not amicable or fair but it would be naïve to hold the belief that the Canadian government has the ability to approach each refugee claim on a detailed, individual level without severely straining the existing budget.
It is estimated by the Canadian government that each failed refugee claim costs taxpayers $50,000.
This estimate takes into account social services, healthcare and legal costs for each claimant. If we take this number to be an accurate estimate, then the cost of the failed or abandoned refugee applications from Hungary alone amounted to approximately $54,450,000 in 2010. Keep in mind that the taxes you, your family, and your friends pay contributed to that lump sum of wasted money.
A final and welcome improvement of the “safe” countries list is the reduced healthcare benefits that refugee claimants receive if they are from any of the designated nations. Unless the refugee’s medical issues pose a risk to public health then they do not receive healthcare benefits.
However, also keep in mind that many of our own Canadian citizens, after having worked here for their entire lives, do not have universal access to medical benefits including dental care, eye care and certain vaccinations for free. This group includes seniors who are on a fixed income, usually on their pension from the Canadian Pension Plan.
It would be wise to show some gratitude towards the previous generations that have built this country by providing them with some of these medical benefits instead of rolling out the red carpet for every refugee claimant. It is very unfortunate that Canada is unable to provide care to every refugee with medical issues but the already over-burdened healthcare system in combination with the weak economy does not make this possible.
It has also been argued that Canada has an obligation to provide refugees with the aforementioned benefits. From a humanitarian standpoint, this is a wonderful idea, albeit too idealistic to overcome the challenges that reality poses, as mentioned above.
I agree that a certain level of humanitarian obligation is required to those in need, but what I vehemently oppose is the superior treatment of refugee claimants compared to our own Canadian citizens.
Nolan Matthews / Senior Andy Editor
Last month, Canada’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney released a list of 27 “safe” countries that drastically reduces the rights of people who hope to leave those countries as refugees. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Kenney claims the list was created to resolve the perceived problem that Canada is letting in too many refugees that would otherwise, in his mind, somehow overrun our country.
Usually when a refugee claimant arrives in Canada they have 60 days to get settled and put together their case, which is heard by a judge who determines whether or not the claimant has sufficient reason to be accepted as a refugee. A claimant from one of the 27 designated country has their first hearing 45 days after they arrive - a timeline that doesn’t seem close to being realistic. That’s 45 days to find a lawyer, a place to live and a way to pay for it all. The Canadian Bar Association recommends having four months to prepare for a refugee hearing.
Kenney defends the shorter timelines by saying that they will make the refugee application process more efficient, but we’re asking people to talk about the worst things that have happened to them. It can take a lot of time to tell a good friend about something terrible, let alone a judge sitting at the end of a table. And a faster process will send refugees more quickly back into the dangerous situations they came from.
Of course, that’s only true if they came from a dangerous situation in the first place. A popular term with Jason Kenney is “bogus,” meaning he sees many refugee claimants as not really being in danger and simply trying to take advantage of Canada’s social services. Kenney’s impression of “bogus” refugees is largely based on flawed statistics spewed by Rick Dykstra, Kenney’s parliamentary secretary. In a parliamentary meeting, Dykstra claimed that in 2010 “Canada received 2,300 [refugee] claims from Hungary, which is 23 times more than any other country.” Hungary is one of the countries on Kenney’s safe list.
“The fact that most gets to the core of why further refugee reform is needed is that virtually every one of these claims was abandoned, withdrawn, or rejected,” said Dykstra. “Refugee claimants themselves are choosing not to see their claims to completion, meaning they are not in genuine need of Canada’s protection. In other words, their claims are bogus.”
So much of what Dykstra said is wrong. The Canadian Council for refugees, which got its data from an access to information request from the Immigration and Refugee Board, states that in 2010 there were 1,973 claims from Hungary, not 2,300. Of those claims, 1,089 were abandoned.
Unless you consider about 55 per cent to be “virtually every” claim, Dykstra and Kenney are not only deluded but plain wrong.
I also wonder if Kenney and Dykstra ever considered why a refugee claimant might decide to abandon their claim - other than the reason being they’re scam artists. Perhaps claimants are finding Canada not nearly as welcoming as we like to think we are.
Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of being from a “safe” country is that refugee claimants will only have access to health care if they have a condition that threatens public health. I’ve spoken to a refugee settlement worker who told me about a woman who had been severely burned all over her body by her husband and wasn’t able to access health care because her condition wasn’t a public health concern. It’s completely ridiculous.
As a country, we’re moving towards a very negative view of people seeking protection and closing our doors to people we should be helping. We are obligated to do so much more.
By Rob Hardy
There are many ways to judge a society. This becomes an even tidier prospect if said society has their eggs in only a scant few baskets. And when we talk about in which baskets we put our eggs, this simply means examining where the majority of Canadians are focused, what they are thinking about, and the proportion of energy they put forth into certain activities.
Right now, we are in the midst of a nasty NHL lockout, one of which is threatening to eliminate an entire hockey season. Since our remotes might be getting some lighter use these days, this is about as good a time as any to give some pause as to just how the hell we spend our time. Far from approaching this from a moralistic point of view, it still might give us pause to step back and really see how crazy we might be getting about all of this.
Hockey has always been a huge part of the Canadian culture; something is always in the background whether in the off-season or on. Even those who don’t much care for sports know that The Maple Leafs are Toronto’s team and the Canadians are Montreal’s. Likely, most anyone would be able to point out the logos - symbols nearly as recognizable as the golden arches. For nearly a century, it is safe to say that the love of this sport has been inherently Canadian, and united most of the country in some strange way.
That being said, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, when such a strong central focus is poured into what is really just a game played by ardent professionals. It’s understandable why hockey, or other sports in general, draw people in. For some it’s a genuine love of the game, for others it’s keeping in that game as an active spectator when dreams of going pro finally die, and for nearly everyone who watches it’s just an easy past time.
What has been boggling the mind lately, however, is that this group of fans doesn’t amount to just a minor niche but is actually reflective of what has become an outright obsession nation-wide. And while this may be perfectly normal for a segment of the population, hockey mania is likely one of the top concerns of the average Canadian, eclipsing even that of political discourse.
The hockey arena today is built with the most modern infrastructure, composed of high ceilings, icy colours and choirs of voices singing anthems with an unflinching seriousness rarely witnessed otherwise. The domain of Hockey Night in Canada has become a present-day cathedral, hyped to the highest proportions of both patriotism and consumerism. With a stagnant economy and massive layoffs, especially south of the border where many of the teams are, most games are nevertheless stunningly packed to the rafters by the unerringly faithful.
Especially with the rise of social media, everyone has an opinion on the current disaster that is ensuing. The thing is it’s a disaster for those involved, if you can even call it that. That’s not to say that athletes shouldn’t be recognized for putting themselves on the line and making their owners rich in the process. But how soon this dispute is settled doesn’t affect our own bottom line, so why do we care so much? Why are Canadians more interested in job negotiations involving hockey players rather than public teachers, where lowering job standards have a much bigger impact on the average worker?
Like most guys, I would’ve loved to be playing pro sports like football, but when that doesn’t happen, life goes on. It may be exciting when your team wins or Canada gets the gold, but at the end of the day we have to realize we do not personally profit from this acclaim. The typical “armchair quarterback” can get distracted by what others are doing, worrying more about someone else’s stats than his own. Does it matter how good a hockey team is even as the average Canadian slips further into obesity, a disease fuelled by their own inactivity?
Most of us can’t be in the pros, but there are still a lot of chances to be active yourself and directly impact your life and community rather than simply vicariously watch others have fun or live life. It’s a sad, silent and woefully incorrect implication that as we get older we don’t need to bother cultivating our own athleticism and stay competitive. Perhaps, it’s this need that causes us to mistakenly plug into sport voyeurism, as we settle into the sedentary, complacent middle-class.
Some of the latest news has been that now beer sales have been suffering, too. Hopefully, this means that television viewership has also declined, leaving us to enjoy the great outdoors instead while putting some time aside for a more civic-minded life, at least until the puck finally drops again. We should remember that a healthy, vibrant country means not only a diverse citizenship, but a diversity of interests and activities - people actively working towards things such as social justice and preserving the halls of academia, lest we somehow slip back into some sort of neo-dark age.
By Abdullahi Sheikh
With the United States’ election day come and gone, it’s no small wonder that we pay so much attention to their politics.
We may have players as interesting as Justin Trudeau and as vile as Stephen Harper, but we’re almost a high school play compared to the Broadway musical that is American politics.
Regardless of how you feel about the candidates, you’ve probably got your own opinion on who should win and why and I’d bet your neighbour’s got one too.
Now, I’m not trying to say that we should focus solely on our own politics and ignore the rest of the world (probably exactly the opposite of what any newspaper should be advocating) but instead we should take a minute to assess why we are so fond of turning on the television to watch what new debacle whichever presidential candidate has caused.
I think that, ultimately, we’re just more interested by what’s happening just past the border, and it’s not just because they’ve got an African-American president, Silicon Valley and an IHop in every city (although that last one certainly helps.)
It really is more than that. Our infatuation with our Southern cousins must have some basis in reality, right?
There’s got to be a reason that American politics gets our hearts racing while Canadian politics make us check for a pulse.
Well, as someone whose been on both sides of the fence, I think it really just arises from a discontent we, the Canadian people, have regarding our own government and its inner workings.
Whether it’s our style of government (first-past-the-post tends to leave us annoyed the most) or the actions of our officials, we’ve become a bit bored with our government as a whole.
American politics serve as an interesting diversion from the regular tedium of Canadian politics. In a way, Canadian politics can be seen as a Big Top while American Politics represent Cirque du Soliel.
Although going to a circus can be fun, can it really compare to seeing horses trot to the musical styling’s of Michael Jackson?
Now, you don’t have to agree with me on this one, but next time you turn on the television, I want you to see which news channel you’d rather watch when they start to talk shop about politic
And, more importantly, I want you to think about why.
As for Michael Jackson, no, obviously not. Now if only we could get Romney’s horse in Cavalia.