Saturday, October 31, 2015

The New Resource

The New Resource 

It looks like the only one who had a plan "B" for the saggin' oil prices in Canada durin' the election campaign is Trudeau. As far as I can see, nobody else has any idea of how to mitigate the lost income from the saggin' price of oil. All the fear mongers an' the haters in the oil patch could probably breathe a little easier if they scratched their heads a little to see what's happenin'. Not that they'd ever consider anythin' that doesn't bring their prices back up to a hunnert bucks a barrel, cause they like what they're doin an' don't wanna quit. It's kinda like them dairy farmers don't want the Pacific Rim trade deal cause it'll drop the price o' milk.

What I'm (an' Prime Minister Trudeau's) talkin' about is the legalization of marijuana of course. Ya just have to look at what's happenin' in say, Oregon. They're pilin' in the tax revenue like there's no tomorrow. An' if we do the same, well get the same. Just think, all that tax revenue without puttin' a hole in the ground. Not only that, but you can do that in every province without havin' to kiss anybody's rear end for a share o' the revenue. Talk about yer equalization formula.

Mind you, this is not without it's controversies neither. First thing they gotta do is fire all them government growers an' replace 'em with the experts who are now sittin' in prisons. I mean, them people know how to grow the good stuff so you employ them an get a quality product. Then you gotta deal with the Hells Angels. I hear they're ticked off about the legalization issue 'cause that'll cut into their livelihood, so they're gonna protest, maybe even take the government to court. I got news for them. They'd be better off to let go o' the marijuana business an' take over the oil industry. What with the frackin' goin' on an' the poisonin' o' the water systems an' soil, it's a much more aligned to the criminal element anyways.

An' if ya wanna argue it as a moral issue, then you'd best be prepared to compare it to tobacco sales an' liquor an' the lotteries too. The people usin' them things ain't the only addicts. The revenue department swallows taxes on that stuff up like vanilla ice cream. At least that's how it seems to me from up here on the top shelf.

Just sayin'.



Saturday, October 24, 2015

The Five Shovel Election

The Five Shovel Election


Well it ain't such a stretch to imagine the five party leaders loadin' up their wheelbarrows at the political manure pile an' spreadin' it all over the country. I guess it's all about what section of the heap they're loadin' up from that's what counts. They're all busy pickin' out the places to put their shovels into it, hopin' to pull out some o' the good stuff that'll stick, grow an' blossom.

It appears that only one o' them got to the sweet spot on the manure pile. All the rest just kinda shoveled up the rained out, over bleached straw content. It ain't over yet though, although it's a good start. The rest is just like growin' a garden where you gotta water an' weed the whole business an' tend it carefully.

Of course there's all sorts o' pitfalls that can occur at any time to ruin the whole business includin' harassment from the losers an' haters an' skeptics o' the winner. I like to think that's all been taken into account in the growin' season.

What strikes me as a bit strange though, is that each o' the parties was lookin' for a different part o' the pile, not payin' attention to what Canadians was sayin'. They mostly decided what was good for us an' said; 'This is what's good for you an' it's what you're gonna get.' That 's the old 'top down' system I was describin' last week as what's been shoved down our throats forever an' a day.

Let's face it, people generally are fed up with that one percent trickle down philosophy. They want to become engaged in a government that has meaning for them an' when somebody comes along an' promises that, you can bet they're gonna buy in.

Well so far it's just promises, so there's a lot of gardenin' yet to do, but if you had yer druthers, a positive, hopeful government is a lot more palatable than a negative, secretive one. At least that's how it seems to me from up here on the top shelf.

Just sayin'. 



Saturday, October 17, 2015




No, this ain't no gossip column. It ain't even what she said. It's "Whatshesaid". That's a whole different kettle o' fish. It's sorta a reply to a question about what to do or where to go or what to buy. It's classic Red Green, straight outa his book about Red Green's Guide to Women for Men who Don't Read Instructions. Well it ain't very original but let me tell you, it's the best gol dang reply I've ever come across. An' it's decisive too.

There's no jig-jaggin' around about it neither. A friend says to you: "Are ya goin' for a beer with the guys tonight?" The straight answer is, "Whatshesaid!" Well, that ends the discussion right then an' there. It puts the decision right squarely on the Missus an' you don't have to worry about it. An' if you happen to be talkin' to a married man who's already cleared it with his Missus, an' he'll understand where you're comin' from. Bachelors an' otherwise unattached folks won't get it, but then who cares? It's not about their security anyways.

An' before the women readin' this get their undies in a knot at bein' considered bossy an' overbearin', it ain't about that neither. What it is, is a security blanket for us old married guys (or people in a domestic relationship as it is commonly known these days). See, what "Whatshesaid" does is put the responsibility on the Missus so we don't have to make no decisions, 'cause we already know we can tap into the two-four in the basement fridge an' there's a hockey game on the TV most nights anyways.

See, it all works out to be a good thing; a benefit to all parties concerned (except them single fellas who are findin' it more an' more difficult to get anybody to agree with 'em). For the married men, it's probably a sneaky way to get the wife to restrict their goin' out cause they wanted to stay home an' watch the game anyways instead o' listenin' to all the lies in a noisy bar.

The unsuspecting Missus of course can exercise her responsibility to keep her man on the straight and (dignified) narrow while he (the devious little weasel) can publicly blame her for not bein' able to go out with the boys (which he didn't much want to do anyways). The upshot is that everybody's happy, even the single guys who don't want much to do with henpecked husbands anyhow. Even the Missus secretly likes the fights that go on in the hockey games (though she won't admit it). At least that's how it seems to me from up here on the top shelf.

Just sayin'.

























Saturday, October 10, 2015




Who you vote for has nothin' to do with the facts an' figures espoused by candidates, leaders an' pollsters. It's got nothin' to do with the polls neither. They could save a whole bundle o' money by just introducin' thereselves an' let it go at that. If the leaders was to work on getting' their manners together like proper adults, an' if they was to dress proper an' show respect for each other AN' their constituents, the best one o' the bunch would get elected. An we'd never notice the difference cause the bureaucracy would keep on grindin' out government business anyways.

These political experts are so full o' thereselves, they gotta make a big huge production of puttin' out attack ads about the other parties, about what a bunch o' liars the others are, an' just how good an' carin' they are thereselves, you need a spittoon just to stomach their rhetoric.

Listen, none o' that stuff matters a tinker's dam anyways. In the end, people don't vote according to polls or facts or promises. Right at the last minute, right there at the ballot box all of that gets thrown out the window and the vote becomes a strictly emotional decision. Happens every time. It's a classic accordin' to the Xerox sales manual recipe: 1. Create or identify a need 2. Present your product with benefits to fill that need. 3. Reinforce with additional benefits until all objections are overcome. 4. Ask for the order. An' there ya have it.

Looks like Harper's people have tipped to the Xerox formula with that Niqab business. They've identified Quebec's need to ban it an' are capitalizin' on that so they're pursuin' it. I rather suspect they're gonna kick Mulcair's ass in Quebec with that, which is exactly why they're doin' it. The Niqab an' the woman behind it in the Citizenship scandal don't matter a rip to the Conservatives. An' the women bein' assaulted the other day for wearing Niqabs don't get no traction neither. But the Conservatives have found a sweet spot with voters in Quebec an' they're gonna milk it for all it's worth.

Mulcair had best watch his britches or he may be wearin' the King's new clothes in Quebec at election time. At least that's how it seems to me from up here on the top shelf.

Just sayin'.


Saturday, October 3, 2015

One Rude, One Crude, One Ignorant an' A Coupl'a Irrelevants

One Rude, One Crude, One Ignorant an' A Coupl'a Irrelevants

The Missus says I should be mindful of what I say in these blogs in case I offend somebody, especially them politicians. I couldn't agree more! I done that too (as best I could). If anything, I'm tryin' to be more than kind in my description o' them. (Nice hair, though). I suppose the nicest thing I can say about 'em is that they're all more or less adequately dressed. Beyond that, if they was my children, I wouldn't even put them up for adoption. I wouldn't wish that bunch o' bullies on anybody. Can you imagine how ashamed their parents and families must be at their rude and insolent behavior in the debates? You can see that by their absence in any of the campaigns. (Well their children accompany them but that's only 'cause they got to).

Well who wants to listen to the debates where they talk over one another incessantly anyways, or even so-called discussions on the TV? I don't know how they ever keep score of who's winnin'. It's easy to see each o' them claimin' victory 'cause they only hear theirselves while nobody else can ever make sense of what they're sayin'. I guess that comes from practice of NOT askin' or answerin' questions in question period.

Is it any wonder that young people are reluctant to vote? We complain that they are brash, rude, insolent and inconsiderate, but really, where do they get that from? The politicians of course! By an' large teenagers are tryin' to get away from bullies like that so why would they get involved in politics an' votin'? Quite frankly I don't blame 'em. I don't wanna vote neither, but I gotta do it in order to keep the bureaucracy goin', even if it is just barely limpin' along, thanks to these would be power brokers.

An' these then are our role models, the people we must look up to. Seriously? Is that the example we want our children to see? Is that to be our only legacy? Quite frankly, lookin' up to them has more to do with elevation than respect. They're up on that hill (Parliament Hill that is) while the rest of us are somewheres down in the ditch, scratchin' an' diggin' to keep life an' limb together along with our families.

Well I been up on that hill an' all I seen was opulence an' privilege. There was nothin' there had anythin' to do with us ditch dwellers unless you use the septic system model where the crap comes outta the buildings on top o' the hill an rolls downwards into the ditch. That may be a bit graphic, but it's a fairly accurate analogy of politics an' the politicians I think.

The least they could do up there is mind their manners for starters an' set an example for our young people. At least that's how it seems to me from up here on the top shelf.

Just sayin'.