A government program sponsoring sporting and cultural events in Quebec has been tainted by allegations of millions of dollars in kickbacks and money laundering. Witnesses before a federal inquiry into the scandal have described envelopes full of cash left on restaurant tables to advance the cause of the governing Liberal Party.

But even as the "sponsorship scandal" has unfolded, one unseemly chapter after another, Prime Minister Paul Martin has held fast, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to a cherished Liberal Party script: Canada as a singularly virtuous country that adheres more than most to values like honesty, decency, fairness and multiethnic equality, not to mention publicly financed universal health care.

"We will set the standard by which other nations judge themselves," Mr. Martin boasted to his party caucus only minutes after his government was saved on May 19 by a single vote in the House of Commons - the vote of a lawmaker who had turned her back not only on the Conservative Party, which she helped found only a year ago, but on her boyfriend, a Conservative leader, in return for a Liberal cabinet seat.

[ . . . ]

Canadian officials constantly lecture Europe and the United States on the need to level the playing field in agriculture for third world producers. But at the same time Canada runs monopolistic dairy product marketing boards that raise tariffs of 200 percent and more to protect its own producers of milk, eggs and butter.
[ . . . ] At a recent Liberal party convention, Mr. Martin pledged that "our most important commitment to the Canadian people was our pledge to protect and defend the values that define us: Liberal values, Canadian values." To which Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader, shot back at a rally of his own: "Corruption is not a Canadian value."

Mr. Murphy did not return a telephone call yesterday, but the Prime Minister's press secretary, Melanie Gruer, gave this prepared reply:

"Mr. Murphy will be doing no media interviews on the topic of Mr. Grewal. He issued a statement earlier this week making clear that he made no offer of any kind to Mr. Grewal.

"Mr. Murphy has retained legal counsel and will be pursuing a libel action against Andrew Coyne of the National Post, and is also considering a potential claim against Gilles Duceppe [leader of the Bloc Quebecois party]."

What’s clear, moreover, is that this was hardly an isolated event: Mr. Murphy speaks of similar discussions with several other Conservative MPs. And we know of one, in particular, with whom the discussions proved notably fruitful. Offering a cabinet post to Belinda Stronach to induce her to vote with the government would not ordinarily be illegal, though it is certainly unethical -- and arguably unconstitutional, given the government’s tenuous position in the House. But offering positions outside the House -- a Senate seat [mentioned by Murphy on the tape], a diplomatic posting -- as an inducement to someone to vote a certain way, or not vote a certain way, would plainly be against the law. At the least, it would be conduct unbecoming a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

CTV Inc. is owned by Bell Globemedia, Canada's premier multi-media company, which also owns The Globe and Mail, Canada's National Newspaper.

This said, the explicit recognition that, in a democratic society, limits may be imposed on fundamental freedoms means that free speech is more narrowly conceived in Canada than in the United States, as is evidenced by our respective positions on pornography, hate speech and defamation. While the American right of free speech admits of some limits in the name of reason or practical necessity, the fact remains that what would be counted as a reasonable limit on speech in Canada would often amount to an unreasonable limit in the United States.

[ . . . ]

To take another example, it is easier to sue for libel in Canada than it is in the United States. Application of the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedom led in this country to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 US 254 (1964)) which permits newspapers to publish false rumours and make false statements about people with impunity so long as they do not do so intentionally or recklessly. A few years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology expressly declined to adopt the Sullivan approach. As a result, in Canada, newspapers print unverified material at peril of being sued for libel. The Supreme Court considered the argument that a Sullivan approach was required to prevent "chilling" the free dissemination of information essential for the working of democracy. It concluded that any chilling effect flowing from strong libel laws is outweighed by the importance of protecting people's reputations against false and slanderous statements. Canadian law accepts that the goal of getting at the truth may be served by free exchange in the marketplace of ideas. But it also accepts that false words can do great damage to individuals and groups, damage that cannot always be repaired by debate and discussion.

I have spoken of some of the differences in the Canadian and American approaches to the fundamental guarantee of free speech. To put it in a nutshell, we in Canada are more tolerant of state limitation on free expression than are Americans. Similar points can be made about other constitutional rights.

Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

[ . . . ]

A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.

Many liberals simply believe it is folly to think a constitution can be forced by invaders at gunpoint, and without it, democracy is doomed to tyranny.

Polls show voters who reject the constitution have the edge over those likely to vote "yes," and the gap is growing. But they also show a majority either won't vote or are confused by the paperback-sized document and haven't made up their minds.

"Holland is in a very inward mood. It's hiding behind the dykes," said historian Han van der Horst.

The dialogue in AOTC isn’t completely unlistenable – better Lucas should write exposition dialogue than anything emotional, or you get love scenes in which characters say “I hate sand. It’s dry and gritty. I much prefer your vagina.” Or whatever “Anny” said.

Al-Qaida's branch in Iraq, blamed for numerous terror attacks on U.S. and Iraqi targets, said Tuesday in an Internet posting that its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had been wounded and called on supporters to pray for his recovery.

Dear Lord, please ensure that al-Zarqawi heals from his wounds, but only after he is captured by the Iraqis or the Americans. May he regain perfect health, so that nothing gets in the way of expeditiously hanging him by the neck until dead for what he has done. May your will be done. Amen.

"The blogosphere is half forensic lab and half tavern," said Michael Cornfield, an adjunct professor at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University and the chief author of the study.

"The magic of the Internet is you can be looking at evidence, at direct documentation, while you're talking," Mr. Cornfield said, referring to the fake memos that turned blogs into influential buzzmakers. "It would be as if the Nixon tapes were available in MP3 format during Watergate."

[emphasis added]

Murphy: So one of the proposals I have is this, that, tomorrow's vote is, let me phrase it in the abstract.

If two members of the Conservative Party abstain from that vote... don't vote against their own party, right? Don't have to.

Republicans "are using any means to justify their extreme agenda," Pelosi said. "We will not let them undermine one of the tenets of democracy: the right of the minority. ... That is what the Republicans are attempting to do - - silence the voice of the minority and thereby deny millions of Americans a voice in the Congress."

When California's Democrat Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer spoke in support of the filibuster against Brown and other nominees, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn's office instantly e-mailed quotes from both bemoaning Republican blocks on Clinton's nominees.

"It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor," Boxer said in 1997.

In 2000, Boxer said, "I think some of my friends on the other side of the aisle think you are an activist if you have a heartbeat or a pulse, if you are alive. Nominees have to have some opinions; that is what a judge does."

In 1999, Feinstein said, "A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down."

The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him.

[ . . . ]

The Harkin plan, along with some of Mr. Mitchell's proposals, would go a long way toward making the Senate a more productive place to conduct the nation's business. Republicans surely dread the kind of obstructionism they themselves practiced during the last Congress. Now is the perfect moment for them to unite with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

[emphasis added]

Democrats have hardly been obstructionists in their constitutional role of giving advice and consent; they have confirmed more than 200 Bush nominees, while balking at a mere seven who should be blocked on the merits, not for partisan reasons. This is a worthy fight, and the filibuster is a necessary weapon, considering that these are lifetime appointments to the powerful appellate judiciary, just below the Supreme Court. In more than two centuries, only 11 federal judges have been impeached for abusive court behavior. Clearly, uninhibited Senate debate in the deliberative stage, with the minority's voice preserved, is a crucial requirement.

[emphasis added]

At Cannes there are other films probing America's underbelly: "A History of Violence" is a portrayal of redneck American bloodletting, "Sin City" with Bruce Willis needs no further explanation, and "Don't Come Knocking" is about an over-the-hill Western hero's steep fall with alcohol and drugs.

Canadian David Cronenberg, who directed "A History of Violence," said he could have set his film anywhere but chose a small Midwestern town because it fitted the story best.

"As any artist will tell you, to be universal you have to be specific," Cronenberg said. "It's very deliberately put in an American setting to show a universal problem."

[emphasis added]

And the fact is, Los Angeles is a city. We benefit from the collective power that only cities have: freeways, cultural institutions, schools, police, etc.

[emphasis added]

Canadian governments have to resign if they are defeated in the House of Commons in a formal vote of no confidence, or over important legislative matters, such as the federal budget.

The government has postponed a number of so-called Opposition Days in parliament, when the Tories may have been able to present no-confidence motions, but has promised to allow an Opposition Day before the end of May.

A Conservative lawmaker defected to the ruling Liberal Party on Tuesday, all but assuring that Prime Minister Paul Martin's scandal-rocked minority government will win a confidence vote later this week.

Belinda Stronach, who lost a bid as leader of the Conservative Party last year, was appointed to Martin's Cabinet as the new minister of human resources, a huge promotion for a relatively inexperienced member of Parliament.

Her surprise announcement means Martin's minority government will have a much better chance of winning a confidence vote scheduled for Thursday.

Thank you, Prime Minister.

After difficult reflection, I reached a conclusion. I cannot exaggerate how hard this was for me. The political crisis affecting Canada is too risky and dangerous for blind partisanship. I watch and listen and feel that the interests of individuals or parties are often placed above the national interests. The country must come first.

I entered politics in the first place both to be a strong voice for the citizens of New Market and Aurora, and to try to make my country stronger and better. To have healthy politics in Canada, we need the checks and balances of more than one strong and vibrant party.

Over time, the Conservative Party will mature and grow to provide that option. There are many good and talented folks that I have a great deal of respect for in the Conservative Party. But I find myself at a crossroads forced on me by the decision of the leader of the Conservative Party to try to force the defeat of this government this Thursday.

It is now the moment to stand and be counted because the consequences are serious. I've been uncomfortable for some time with the direction the leader of the Conservative Party has been taking.

I tried to the very best of my ability to play a constructive role within the Conservative Party to advance issues that really mattered to Canadians in cities, to women, to young people, to many Ontarians.

But regret to say that I do not believe the party leader's truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and how big and complicated Canada really is.

Also, by forcing an election before the Conservative party has grown and established itself in Quebec, the hold over Quebec of the Bloc Québécois can only grow into the vacuum. The result will be to stack the deck in favour of separatism and the possibility of a Conservative government beholden to the separatists.

After agonizing, soul searching, i just cannot support such a large risk with my country. I'm as offended as any Canadian by the arrogance of entitlement at the core of the sponsorship scandal.

Today, the Prime Minister has given me the chance to serve my constituents and my country by making a difference at a critical time.

Among several things, he's asked me to take aggressive action on the lessons that will come from the Gomery inquiry, and to put priority on renewing the Canadian democracy.

Our political structures and institutions need renewal. Canadians are crying for political stability. Only in this way can we direct the focus of government once again to growing a competitive economy that safeguards our quality of life.

Only when the people of Canada have renewed confidence and faith in the systems of government can we return to ethics and civility.

Thank you.

On the face of it, this shouldn't be a difficult choice, even for as uncurious a squish as Voinovich. Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed.

[ . . . ]

[Comparing Bolton to Paul Martin] Who? Well, he's prime minister of Canada. And in January, after the tsunami hit, he flew into Sri Lanka to pledge millions and millions and millions in aid. Not like that heartless George W. Bush back at the ranch in Texas. Why, Prime Minister Martin walked along the ravaged coast of Kalumnai and was, reported Canada's CTV network, "visibly shaken." President Bush might well have been shaken, but he wasn't visible, and in the international compassion league, that's what counts. So Martin boldly committed Canada to giving $425 million to tsunami relief. "Mr. Paul Martin Has Set A Great Example For The Rest Of The World Leaders!" raved the LankaWeb news service.

You know how much of that $425 million has been spent so far? Fifty thousand dollars -- Canadian. That's about 40 grand in U.S. dollars. The rest isn't tied up in Indonesian bureaucracy, it's back in Ottawa. But, unlike horrible "unilateralist" America, Canada enjoys a reputation as the perfect global citizen, renowned for its commitment to the U.N. and multilateralism. And on the beaches of Sri Lanka, that and a buck'll get you a strawberry daiquiri. Canada's contribution to tsunami relief is objectively useless and rhetorically fraudulent.

This is the way the transnational jet-set works when the entire world is in complete agreement and acting in perfect harmony. Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.

When rent-a-quote senators claim to be pro-U.N. or multilateralist, the tsunami operation is what they have in mind -- that when something bad happens the United States should commit to working through the approved transnational bureaucracies and throw even more "resources" at them, even though nothing will happen (Sri Lanka), millions will be stolen (Oil for Food), children will get raped (U.N. peacekeeping operations) and hundreds of thousands will die (Sudan).

Actress Renee Zellweger, who played the lovelorn title character in "Bridget Jones's Diary," was married Monday to country music star Kenny Chesney in a small ceremony on the Caribbean island of St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

As we mark a victory of six days ago -- six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression. The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history.

The end of World War II raised unavoidable questions for my country: Had we fought and sacrificed only to achieve the permanent division of Europe into armed camps? Or did the cause of freedom and the rights of nations require more of us? Eventually, America and our strong allies made a decision: We would not be content with the liberation of half of Europe -- and we would not forget our friends behind an Iron Curtain. We defended the freedom of Greece and Turkey, and airlifted supplies to Berlin, and broadcast the message of liberty by radio. We spoke up for dissenters, and challenged an empire to tear down a hated wall. Eventually, communism began to collapse under external pressure, and under the weight of its own contradictions. And we set the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace -- so dictators could no longer rise up and feed ancient grievances, and conflict would not be repeated again and again.

In these decades of struggle and purpose, the Baltic peoples kept a long vigil of suffering and hope. Though you lived in isolation, you were not alone. The United States refused to recognize your occupation by an empire. The flags of free Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania -- illegal at home -- flew proudly over diplomatic missions in the United States. And when you joined hands in protest and the empire fell away, the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all. The security and freedom of the Baltic nations is now more than a noble aspiration; it is the binding pledge of the alliance we share. The defense of your freedom -- in defense of your freedom you will never stand alone.

But George W. Bush is not, and never will be, a president like FDR.

[ . . . ]

Most importantly, Dr. Win the War (as FDR was called) met with the leaders of the Allied nations throughout the war to plan the peace. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, together with Joseph Stalin and sometimes even Charles DeGaulle, knew that military victory leading to an unplanned peace was hollow and potentially disastrous.

The burger war is growing. Literally. Denny's Beer Barrel Pub, which lost its crown as the home of the world's biggest burger earlier this year, is now offering a new burger that weighs a whopping 15 pounds.

Dubbed the Beer Barrel Belly Buster, the burger comes with 10.5 pounds of ground beef, 25 slices of cheese, a head of lettuce, three tomatoes, two onions, a cup-and-a-half each of mayonnaise, relish, ketchup, mustard and banana peppers — and a bun.

It costs $30.