News. Or is it?

Let's have a look at today's news courtesy of Yahoo!

Nicholas Sarkozy is calling for the deportation of foreign citizens involved in the French riots, whether they're legal residents or no. Way to make friends and influence people, Nick!

If these people feel threatened, is it likely to improve things or make them worse? Quick question: Do you think some of them might have friends and relatives in France, and if so, whose side are they likely to be on? Is it helpful to threaten people or is it, well, um . . . dopey?

Jack Layton is being an ass. But he's not alone. Y'see, Canadians don't like the idea of a Christmas election. But the Conservatives, particularly, with the Bloc Quebecois and New Democrats, see the release of Gomery Part IV (they'll release parts 1,2, and 3 in twenty years or so) as a vital event.

The Tories in particular were hoping to ride a tide of public disgust at Liberal corruption straight into 24 Sussex Drive. But the public is, it seems, rather more disgusted at Stephen Harper's repeated threats to bring down the government. Face it Steve--we're used to political sleaze. But we don't like $#!+ that interferes with our shopping!

If they don't get started immediately, Harper knows the moment is likely to slip by him. But since as noted above, Canucks don't want to visit the polling places this Yuletide, each of the opposition parties raises the spectre of a non-confidence vote. But now, having dragged the idea into the open they're now dancing around it like little kids playing with something yucky but fascinating.

So this is where we find Layton. Having saved the Government (he is convinced) single-handed last time out, he pushed for the exclusion of private health care from the country. The Liberals told him to go $(^&# his hat.

So, not having the intestinal fortissimo to ring the knell by calling a non-confidence motion, he's done something that's as creative as it is cowardly: He's introducing a non-non-confidence motion to get the Grits to call an election--but after the Boxing Day sales.

Paul Martin can, and should, ignore this. But I predict he'll waste a lot of time on it.

Meanwhile: The non-story of the day is given a headline that states:
"Canadians' Blood Tainted". What a load of crap. To those of us who remember the Krever Inquiry, it's insulting.

This group took eleven people from a population of thirty-odd million and determined . . well what exactly? That we all have impuritied in our blood? Biiig whoop. I'm astounded. No, really. Just let me find my "astounded" face and you'll see.

There are three major problems with the "study":

1) Using eleven people from a population the size of Canada's can yield no statistically useful information--the more so because the sample WAS so widely distributed. If you find that fourteen people out of twenty-eight who work in the same building have extraordinarily elevated levels of lead in their blood--that's significant.

If one person in each province is struck by lightening twice, that's interesting. If ten people from a modern population of humans, at a certain technological level, numbering in the multiple millions show a certain level of modern background pollution has been absorbed without any visible effect, that's what? Exactly?

2) We have no idea if the "contaminants" in our bloodstream are particularly unusual or important.

3) No-one has proven that the substances found, at the levels they were found, pose any threat, or even any interest to humans.

So let's re-write that headline appropriately:

"Study Wastes Time, Uses Too Small a Sample, Finds Nothing Surprising or Important".