THANK YOU!! I'm not the only one who thinks that same thing every time someone begins a sentence that way!

When I took a crack at Maude on my own Maclean's site last week, I got quite a lot of delighted mail from New Democrats and leftists. My guess is that by joining the "Think Twice" gang and essentially endorsing Paul Martin, Maude has blown her remaining credibility with NDP loyalists--and probably even the extramural Copps/Kinsella Liberals--for life.

Oh my, yes. She has been outrageous and a disgrace. I came that close to writing Ken Whyte and suggesting he give his head a shake for hosting such a nutbar. Maybe I still will.

Maude Barlow is the mirror image of the 'west's' self-proclaimed spokesmen. Those delightful tighty-righties, incorrigable scamps that they are, who like nothing better than to threaten the rest of the country, that if they don't get their way, they are taking their ball and going home.

They both assume the same unearned mantle of authority.

These are for the most part the same people who complain the country suffers from a democratic deficit. Then turn around and assume it is right and proper that Alberta's 2.9 million should dictate to a country of 32 million. And they say the Liberals are parternalistic!! Try and point out the absurdity of this position and they attack, beating them with the official National Energy Program 'club of greivence'.

Just like how Maude Barlow implies anyone who doesn't share the whole of her left-of-centre views is somehow less of a Canadian. As if, being against Missile Defence somehow represents Canadian nationalism's highest summit.

As if conservative ideas and the modern conservative party can't stand on their own. (Look at this election). Here's a hint: Don't be so insecure. You don't need the bullying.

It's crass.

Stop taking Buzz Hargrove seriously. Nobody in the East does, except maybe the team surrounding Paul Martin and a couple of grumpy old union guys, and we've seen how well they have been at judging the mood of the country.

Hargrove isn't exactly unbiased. He doesn't represent anyone except the members of the union he's the head of. As such, whenever he speaks, half the Ontario electorate, for example, will disagree on principle.

That he has a voice at all (however democratically unearned) is testement to the diversity of opinion which exists out here in the East.

I wouldn't have so much of a beef with Maude Barlow if her writing weren't so godawful. It plods along with one leaden declaration after another, letting rip now and then with "Well I for one don't buy it for a minute" or some other such devastating riposte.

The woman doesn't know how to use commas, either.