I think I’m starting to see what’s going to happen with the automatic puck-over-the-glass two-minute minor. When the refs don’t want to call it they’ll just say it went off an opposition stick even if it clearly didn’t. Superb.

[UPDATE March 1: I should have known better than to take Harry Neale's word on what was going on. The NHL has a new "directive" on file:

...a puck shot out of play will now be judged by the route the puck leaves the playing surface, not the final destination. The four on-ice officials can converse to get the correct call on where the puck left the playing surface.

I have no idea what that means, and request that anyone who does explain it in the comments. Crucially, though, referee's discretion has been added to the equation. Based on the zebras' performance this year that's far from ideal, but it is (sincerely this time) much, much better.]

The UK wants to mandate booster seats for children under 4′5″, which recalls Ontario’s newish law along the same lines. At least the British proposal makes a modicum of sense, whereas Ontario frees children from their boosters at eight years of age regardless of their size, but nanny states really do flock together. Feature these comments from Road Safety Minister Stephen, ahem, Ladyman:

Small children need the protection that baby seats and child seats are designed to provide. Seat belts are designed for adults. Children who have grown out of child seats still need to use booster seats and cushions.

“These changes could prevent over 2000 child deaths or injuries each year.”

Could prevent over 2,000 deaths or injuries — I haven’t come across a more suspicious sentence since the last Mark Steyn column I read. And sure enough, as it turns out, 2,000 is roughly the total number of children under ten years of age who die or are seriously injured in car accidents in the United Kingdom in a year. Minister Girlyman actually wants Brits to believe that booster seats might prevent every single one of them.

On BBC Five Live today, Ladyman asked host Peter Allen if he could imagine an accident more horrible than a parent in a front seat being killed by the impact of his child flying out of the back seat. Allen responded with a sort of stunned silence. I presume he was mulling over the fact that elected officials in his country are now enacting legislation based purely on their own twisted imaginations.

I will never, ever understand why the Brits put up with having to buy their £126.50 (CAN$242) yearly television license, especially when the body in charge of issuing them answers a very good question — “Why do you need a TV license?” — as follows:

If you use or install equipment to receive or record television programme services, you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence. This includes TV sets, video recorders, set-top boxes or PCs with broadcast cards. So, if you watch TV and are not covered by a valid TV Licence, you could face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000 and you will still have to buy a TV Licence.

Because we told you so, in other words. Pure balls.

Meanwhile, I have to say this astonishing bit of charity made my morning:

Blind persons can qualify for a 50% concession on their TV Licence.

Does that make me a bad person?

TSN claims Saku Koivu had this to say about playing tonight after flying in to New York from Finland earlier in the day:

What do you think? It would be very difficult to be in shape after playing 8 games in 12 days. I hope (GM/head coach) Bob Gainey will be happy when I meet him in New York and ask him not to play.

The nerve! But you know what? For some funny reason I doubt that quite captures the gist of what Koivu said. It’s sort of like if you told me that Paul Kariya had bitten the head off a chicken and spat it in a young, terminally ill Predator fan’s face. Just doesn’t ring true somehow.

He’s playing, by the way, as is Mats Sundin, thanks to “a flight out of Stockholm — one that likely had a connection in London — [that was to] land in Toronto sometime early this morning.”

Man, that 4am flight out of Heathrow is a bitch.

From today’s Winnipeg Free Press editorial (not online):

Then-prime minister Paul Martin abandoned his previous support for missile defence because of opposition to the proposal from the left wing of his party. In doing so, he slammed the door on a U.S. offer that would have given Canada a voice in the operation and deployment of the system at no cost to Canadians.
…
Almost as Mr. O’Connor was speaking, a former American defence official, Philip Coyle, was warning Canada it should not consider, under any circumstances, getting involved in the American missile defence system because it could cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars. But Mr. Coyle’s warning has no basis in the reality of the terms under which Canadian inclusion has been discussed. Washington has never asked for Canadian money, only Canadian support and participation in continental defence. If money should become an issue, the terms of debate can change. In the meantime, the government should vigorously pursue the resumption of negotiations with the Americans — Canada has nothing to lose from it; and it stands to gain a great deal in ensuring the nation’s national security.

And from Saturday’s National Post editorial:

Of all the decisions made by the previous Liberal government, the one to reject co-operation with the United States on ballistic missile defence (BMD) was among the most pointless and cynical. Never once did Paul Martin, then the prime minister, present a rational explanation for opting out of the continental plan. Instead, he merely caved in to anti-American sentiment from the public and especially from the Liberal backbench, letting absurd claims about U.S. plans to “weaponize space” stand unchallenged.

In so doing, Mr. Martin passed up an opportunity to help protect Canadian cities from potentially catastrophic attacks from hostile countries such as North Korea and Iran. As if that were not enough, the Liberals also denied us the opportunity to protect our sovereignty, as co-operation would have meant that Washington would consult with us before firing anti-missile missiles at inbound ballistic weapons over our territory. And instead of improving our relationship with the United States, as Mr. Martin repeatedly pledged to do before taking office, the rejection of BMD served to further alienate our neighbour and closest ally.

I can understand people wanting us to be on the BMD trolley as a matter of realpolitik, but I continue to be amazed at how many believe that signing on with a “they’re going to do it anyway” shrug could possibly increase our sovereignty. The Americans didn’t want any money from us, these people said the first time around, and it would protect Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver from incoming missiles. Oh sure, there almost certainly will never be any incoming missiles, but can’t we just humour old George on this for the greater good? This is not sovereignty.

It’s all well and good to take such a position, but not if you objected to Paul Martin’s handling of the file as evasive, unprincipled and pandering to anti-American elements. It was all those things, of course, but assuming that our formal declaration of missile defense membership wouldn’t begin with “Inasmuch as Canada believes this plan to be egregiously expensive and impracticable, and to address a non-existent threat…,” what the National Post editorial board is proposing is just as evasive and unprincipled while pandering to pro-American elements. Last I checked, pandering was a bad thing no matter whose spittle you lick.

So some are hoping for the debate to be “reopened”, but we never opened it in the first place — it just disappeared into the intelligence-cancelling black hole of Paul Martin’s prime ministership. There seems to be no chance of BMD passing a free vote in the House of Commons, but if the Conservatives want to go through this whole process in hopes that the White House can have a more coherent explanation on file for Canadian non-participation, then so be it.

I don’t know who’s going to provide it, mind you. I suspect we’ll be hearing the same old hoary platitudes about sovereignty, the weaponization of space, rogue states, the unholy Reagan-Bush Star Wars alliance, and on and on and on, even while both sides of the Canadian debate agree that Bush’s plan is just a little bit silly. Colour me unenthusiastic.

Nugget is absolutely right, and it needed to be said: there are few things in life quite as wonderful as a cold beer in a hot shower after a hard day. Significant wars might have been averted if this was more popular.

Mark Steyn:

A lot of folks are, to put it at its mildest, indifferent to Jews. In 2003, a survey by the European Commission found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the “greatest menace to world peace.” Only 59 percent? What the hell’s wrong with the rest of ‘em? Well, don’t worry: In Germany, it was 65 percent; Austria, 69 percent; the Netherlands, 74 percent.

Nope! The survey in question didn’t ask anyone which country is the greatest menace to world peace. It didn’t even use the word “menace”, despite Mark Steyn’s quotation marks. Rather, it asked the following (in amusingly stilted English): “For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to the world?”

Still, 74 percent of Dutch people should not think that Israel is a threat to the world, and that’s what gets me — the numbers are disturbing enough as they are. When people like Steyn and David Frum misrepresent statistics, they are essentially sabotaging their own writing. It’s weird.

(Cross-posted to the Shotgun.)

[UPDATE February 27. Mark Steyn responds on the Shotgun post:

Pedantry is not without its uses, though I can't see what they are in this instance. I was in France when this survey came out and was, therefore, translating from the French. In their polling, and original press release, the European Union used the French word "menace".

So did most of the newspaper reports. Le Nouvel Observateur: '59% des Européens pensent qu’Israël est le pays le plus menaçant pour la paix dans le monde. Le Point: '59 % des Européens considèrent Israël comme l'Etat qui constituerait aujourd'hui la plus forte menace pour la paix dans le monde.' I translated the French word "menace" into English as "menace". I regret to say I did this without looking it up. I now see from my Harrap's English/French pocket dictionary (Edinburgh, 1995 edition) that the French word "menace" means in English "threat or menace". I apologise to Mr Selley for this appalling error on my part. Whoops, I see I also have to apologise for using the British spelling of "apologize".

I note that in the PDF to which Mr Selley links the European Union's pollsters manage to misspell menace as "meance". Perhaps he would like to post something arguing that that misspelling "sabotages their own writing", too.

Anyway, I entirely agree with Mr Selley that this completely negates my larger point and is part of a pattern of misrepresentation that has characterised my writing for many years. Anti-semitism is obviously far less of a threat to Europe than anti-semanticism, and I do hope Mr Selley will continue to talk about the latter at great length, possibly in a new Western Standard column that replaces my own.

I refuse to believe that he actually missed the point that spectacularly. "Threat" vs. "menace" is not the point, as any number of commenters have pointed out both here and at the Shotgun. The point, obviously, is the greatest threat vs. just a threat.

Steyn said 65 percent of Germans regard Israel as "the greatest menace to world peace," and 69 percent of Austrians. Again, that's actually the number who consider Israel a threat, period. So how wrong was Steyn? Well, the exact same number of Germans and Austrians said North Korea was a threat — so it's just as correct for me to say Germans and Austrians consider North Korea "the greatest menace to world peace." Which is to say totally, utterly, irretrievably incorrect. Yeesh!]

“Klassen expected to be named flagbearer.”

Yeah, I think that sounds about right.

Did anyone else catch The National’s feature this week about Leonard Cohen’s Suzanne? The actual Suzanne, I mean — the one who feeds you tea and oranges. It was quite an eye-opener, and not in a pleasant way.

Turns out Suzanne Verdal is a stupid, worthless hippie — homeless to boot, and seemingly proud of it. Here she is dancing around in the Pacific Ocean like the stupid, worthless hippie she is.

She claims the last time she saw Cohen, in Minneapolis of all places Montreal’s Place Jacques-Cartier, where she was busking, he essentially blew her off. Hallelujah. He’s not a national treasure by accident.

You know that market that collapsed in Moscow? Feature this:

Interfax said that the market had been designed in the 1970s by Nodar Kancheli, the same architect who drafted the plans for Moscow’s Transvaal water park, where the roof collapsed in February 2004, killing 28 people. Prosecutors have blamed that collapse on design flaws.