Starting today, a new and hopefully regular feature will appear Saturdays with the weeks pop culture/celebrity type news. Hespeler ET, if you will.

I regularly want to have a go at some celebrity story, but am aware that it is space filling junk, and many of you may not want to read it. With that in mind, the Saturday feature will allow me to spout off about Tom Cruise - Katie Holmes nuptials, and still stay fairly true to what I envisioned for this Blog (which was no Madonna all the time). As I have lately gone away from political/new blogging on weekends, this will fill the void a little.

The feature will be called the Saturday FlufferNutter, because it is a bunch fluff about a bunch of nuts, but mostly because I miss my fluffernutters:

Can't get enough Kramer. Now, some fans are boycotting Seinfeld product. Personally, I have been boycotting the stuff for years, but only because I don't get the entertainment factor from the show that makes me want to spent $50 on the DVDs. But I understand the reaction. I feel that way when entertainers spout off politically. "Shut up and sing," is the term we conservatives use. For me, If your a marginal act on my radar, say the Barenaked Ladies or Sean Penn, I just don't give my money to you. But if your Bruce Springsteen, well you get away with it. So thinking of boycotting Seinfeld, go ahead - why should that jerk get a penny of your money. Unless of course, your really hurting yourself.

Liked this from the Kirkland article noted above:

One weak-minded Seinfeld fan who wants no part of a boycott is worried about buying Season 7 when most of the clerks at his video store in L.A. are black.

What? in all of LA, there is only one video store? For God's sake, go to Walmart.

Saw Casino Royale this weekend. My comment is thus, if somebody tells you he's the best Bond since, well anybody, ask them if they are a fan of Bond movies. My bet is they aren't really. I am, and he's awful. One car chase in the whole movie, ten seconds in the lame ass Bond rolls the car. One scene he is so love sick puppy-ish I though Sandra Bullock was going to walk by carrying a bag of groceries with a baguette sticking out the top. It was painful! Supposedly its exceptionally written, but it's not an exceptionally written "Bond" movie. After the natural ending, the money is returned, Bond and girl are stowed away together, the movie continues on for another half an hour. Instead of roll credits we get to suffer through some agonizing bit of filming. Long and short of it, in ten years, when he has been digested, Daniel Craig will rate somewhere along with Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby in the Bond range, possibly even behind Dalton.

OJ Simpson appeared, then disappeared from the news-cycle the past two weeks. While many commentators where saying stuff to the effect "people will buy his book, they always do," I disagree. Every once in a while people see through the hype and the crap - Mariah Carrey's the Confessions of MiMi, Bennifers film catastrophe GiGi to cite two examples. Every once in a while you can underestimate the intelligence of the American consumer. I strongly suspect this was one of those cases, and the publishers figured that out.

Ask and I shall recieve. Back on September 12th, Bob Seger Day in At Home in Hespeler, I mentioned the upcoming tour, with this proviso:
Looking forward to seeing you...

Toronto is on your list if dates, right Bob?

Well, it was and is. Tuesday January 23rd, Air Canada Centre. Tickets are on sale now.

Laughed when I read the people in the Italian town of Bracciano are upset that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes didn't stick around after the wedding to mingle with the locals. Did anybody really think they were going to get close to His Cruisness without security clearance and a job to do?

Proving that he is the devil incarnate, Cruse's wedding has caused grief between David Beckham and his manager, and a rift has developed between Cruise and his close friend John Travolta because Travolta's pal Oprah Winfrey was not on the guest list.

Two deaths of note this week: condolence to the families of John Allen Cameron and Robert Altman.

November
23, 2006

Ottawa, Ontario



Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued
the following statement to the House of Commons concerning the motion tabled in
respect of Quebec as a nation:



"That this House recognize that the
Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."



Mr. Speaker,



The
true intention of the Bloc leader and the sovereignist camp is perfectly
clear.



It is not to recognize what the Québécois are, but what the
sovereignists would like them to be.



For the Bloc, this is not about
Quebec as a nation; the National Assembly has already pronounced on that. This
is about separation.



To them, nation means separation.



We saw
his true intentions on October 27, when he said: “…the NDP has recognized for
decades that Quebec forms a nation, yet every time there is a referendum, they
act contrary to the positions they’ve taken.”



In other words, if we
recognize the Québécois as a nation, we must vote “yes” in a referendum on
separation.



And the Bloc leader’s attempt to lead the Québécois, in good
faith, to support separation in spite of themselves reminds us of his mentor
Jacques Parizeau and the “lobster traps”.



But the Québécois are not
fooled by these clumsy tactics.



The former PQ Premier, Bernard Landry,
posed the following question: “once that recognition is achieved, you have to
know that you will then be faced with the following question: Why should the
Quebec nation be content with being the province of another nation and forgo
equality with your nation and all other nations?”



The answer is clear,
because the Québécois have always played an historic role in advancing Canada
with solidarity, courage and vision, and building a Quebec that is confident,
self-reliant, united and proud within a Canada that is strong and united,
independent and free.



When he landed in Québec City, Champlain did not
say, “This isn’t going to work: it’s too far, it’s too cold, it’s too
difficult.” No. Champlain and his companions worked hard because they believed
in what they were doing, because they wanted to preserve their values, because
they wanted to build a long-lasting, secure country.



And that is exactly
what happened almost 400 years ago: the founding of the Canadian state.




Mr. Speaker, the Québécois know who they are.



They know they have
contributed to Canada’s founding, development and greatness.



They know
they have preserved their unique language and culture and promoted their values
and interests within Canada.



The question is a straightforward one: do
the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes.




Do the Québécois form a nation independent from Canada? The answer is
no, and it will always be no.



All throughout their history, the
Québécois have always recognized the prophets of doom and the true guides of
their destiny.



Because the Québécois since Cartier and Laurier to
Mulroney and Trudeau have led this country, and millions like them have helped
to build it.



And with their English- and French-speaking fellow citizens
and people of all nationalities from around the world, they made this country
what it is: the greatest country on Earth, a shining example in a dangerous and
divided world of the harmony and unity that all peoples have the capacity to
achieve.



And we will do what we must, what our forefathers and
foremothers have always done, and that is to preserve this country—a strong,
united, independent and free Canada.