I recently flew south from Toronto to Florida via Newark New Jersey and I am confused as to our Government’s strategy regarding security against terrorism. I traveled extensively during my career going back to the mid 70’s and spanning those years I have seen many changes in the security measures before and after 9/11 that make no sense at all. Now obviously some do and in particular the “no passenger no bags” policy is the most common sense change made during the 70’s. Metal detectors are another reasonable measure that is effective in preventing weapons getting on board a plane. However there are many other rules, regulations and procedures that make no sense at all and if eliminated could speed up the process without sacrificing security. First of all is the insane amount of paperwork required when purchasing a ticket. Why do they need all of the information at the point of sale? Why do the name on the ticket and the name on your ID (passport) need to be identical and if not you won’t be allowed on the plane? What danger do you represent if you spelled your middle name incorrectly. Why do you have to provide your name, address and destination address? Why do you have to fill out a customs check sheet indicating (almost always answered no) what you aren’t bringing into the country? A person could submit incorrect information (lie) on these sheets and no one would ever know or care and yet tons of paperwork is generated and time wasted every day capturing this data. Then you hit the scanning station and besides the metal detector you have to put your bags on a belt to be x-rayed and viewed to be sure you are not bringing anything dangerous on board. Along with your carryon bags you must also have your coat, sweater and shoes viewed on the x-ray screen. If you have liquid in your bags over 4 oz (?) it is immediately confiscated. These last two checks were brought on because of failed attempts by would be terrorists who used these tactics. It seems that most of our so-called security improvements are driven by the terrorists and their various methods that hopefully we learn about because of failure (unlike 9/11). On this particular trip after I had just passed through the metal detector and got my shoes back I had to walk 30 yards or so and then round a corner. Lo and behold there were 6 more security personnel and several tables whereby they proceeded to search my bag again and test me for gun powder. How they suspected I could have obtained something illicit in that short 30 yards I have no idea. They do this idiotic search in Toronto and yet once I landed in Newark I could walk around inside the gated area with several stores and restaurants that sell gadgets and use utensils including knives but no check when you get on the plane to leave NJ. Nor do they match ID with the boarding pass so I could switch with anyone and head on to a new destination without anyone knowing. The problem with almost all of our security system
is that it is reactive instead of proactive. If we followed a proven security system model like the Israeli’s use I’m sure we could be more efficient and ten times safer. But the people that make these rules never have to ride on commercial airways in economy so they will never understand the problems of us “everyday folks”. Perhaps we should insist that all politicians be prohibited from using military transport and first class seating on commercial airlines. Bet you it wouldn’t take long before some common sense laws saw the light of day.

Both of these skills require a person to have many of the same attributes such as the ability to communicate ideas clearly, the ability to sell these same ideas to other people and the ability to shepherd these ideas into actionable tasks. However there are many areas where the roles differ and sometimes people get confused as to why political leaders don't always follow the actions of Corporate leaders when confronting issues or implementing policies. You see Corporate leaders have one large advantage over political leaders and that is the fact that they have the power to terminate a person's employment whereas a politician cannot. At the most they can influence your job positively or negatively but rarely can they apply capital punishment to those that don't fall in line. Therefore a political leader has to be able to influence the emotions of his audience and to garner their trust if he/ she is to be successful with their agenda. To get your attention and your vote they must stimulate your passion by raising issues nearest and dearest to your heart. For instance to most people the issue of security for them and their families is always uppermost in their minds so attacking crime and punishment or the lack thereof is always a winner in politics. Taxation in all its forms has always been a negative aspect in our society regardless of your political persuasion so this subject can always raise the hair on someone's neck. Once the politician has tapped the emotions they must now garner trust. A past history with examples of "doing what you say you will do" is a powerful tool that will help convince people to get on your side. If you don't have that then kissing babies, trotting out your family for photo ops and general schmoozing will help get people comfortable with you and your political ideology. Back to the Corporate leader who will find it helpful to garner trust but not a necessary thing required to push through his/her agenda. Both of them can mislead people with vague statements, exaggerations and downright lies to facilitate their agenda so they are Bobbsey twins in this area for sure. So let's look at the results side of the board whereby both leaders have successfully pushed their agendas into actions using their own techniques and now must view the fruit of their labors. The Corporate Leader must be successful or he will face a boot out of his job for failing to satisfy his shareholders. So even though he started with more power and an easier route to implementing his policies and programs he faces capital punishment if he fails. The politician on the other hand finds herself in a very different position if she fails. She may have lied or mislead people to get herself elected and her programs implemented but what is to be done? The job is secure until the next election and by then most will have forgotten the untruths and the failure. In fact with good political spin doctors today they can turn failure into victory through the media (particularly if you are Liberal) and voila' you are ready for another run for the golden ring. So if you are searching for truth and integrity in leadership let me tell you it is very very rare. The last leader in my opinion that held these values was Ronald Reagan. He was truly a unique man and a honest politician ( which is almost an oxymoron) that has not been matched for the years before or since. Sarah Palin has the base talent to be another Reagan but the question remains, does she have the strength and confidence that are required to withstand the pressures that come with "principled" political leadership? It would definitely be something to see.

When I jumped on board 10 years ago some people asked me why I would get involved with such a dangerous hobby as that of riding a Harley . I guess the risk is a part of the attraction but considering we risk our lives every day by just getting out of bed I figure the increase is tolerable. The upsides however are large to those of us who enjoy the pleasure of riding two wheels at speeds over 80 mph with the wind in our face and the roar of a 1485CC engine beneath our legs. The look of the bike is paramount with a solid base color that gleams in the sun and a ton of sparkling chrome that is attached everywhere on the chassis. The leather on the seats and bags compliment the chrome studs that trim the ebony material. When you swing your leg over the bike and sit down to balance the bike between your legs you are almost ready to take off except for a few things. Final adjustments to the helmet, sunglasses and gloves are completed as well as confirmation that you are in neutral gear. You then flip the ignition to on, snap the start button down and hit the igniter to spark the engine to life. The horsepower potential is heard through the rumble of the Samson dual pipes and a small rev or two alerts people within hearing distance that you are there and ready to ride. As you shift into first and let out the clutch the engine sound changes reflecting the torque sent to the drive belt and it increases as the big gear winds out. Shifting through the up gears is like music as you gain speed on your way to a comfortable cruising level. On the highway you can let the machine loose to enjoy the acceleration and if alone, check out your top end comfort zone. Speed, power and control are probably the key attraction to the big Hogs but it can also be a masculine symbol of strength as Tim Taylor would say "urf " urf". Whatever it is, I love roaring down the highway or rumbling between lights downtown on the back of my Heritage Soft tail Classic. Some riders love to ride in groups but that is not my style, I would rather be with only one or two other bikers or in fact alone particularly when riding through the back roads and highways where there is always the possibility of stopping at some quaint shop or Flea market in a small town or village. Instead of having to convince others to stop you just pull off and do your thing. I never seem to get enough miles on my odometer each summer although I always resolve to change that practice every year. Maybe this summer I can wear off some rubber by visiting some good friends up north. Who knows? So for those of you that think I'm nuts I'd suggest you try a ride on a big HOG before you marry your opinion. For my friends I offer to take you on your first ride if and when you get up the courage.

The sad fact of the matter is that to win a war you must be emotionally connected with the desired outcome if you are ever to achieve victory. In World War 1 and World War II each of the western world countries had a vested interest in winning the conflict because losing would bring them face to face with Fascism, Communism and Nazism. Today however the enemy is not defined only the methodology and the definition of winning has not been articulated only the victories en route have been pointed out. The problem with not having a leader (USA president) who will define the simple things like "who we are fighting" and "what it will take to win" is that our will to win and stay free becomes diminished and we become weak in the face of challenge and the possibility of defeat and subservience grows exponentially. If you look at history the major wars won by the free world have been won on the battlefield with force ( bombs etc) not negotiations with weaker nations. But those that would appease rather than annihilate our enemies tend to give away more and more of our sovereignty until we allow these nasty and ignorant powers some sense of integrity which in turn gives them reign to kill and destroy their own citizens. The United States has never dictated to any Nation anything other than a belief and a policy of respecting human rights. Certainly they want to protect their interests which is a prerequisite of their politicians as it is with any other Country of the World. But those on the left want our Countries to stay out of other nations politics. In other words if certain nations choose to kill and torture their people it is not our business to intercede. Either you are free and want others to be free or you don't, it's that simple. It is a fact that the USA and Canada have systems of government that allow free speech and the free expression of political will. Certainly this can happen in every nation if allowed to grow in a systemic fashion. But instead we are seeing the US government travel in the opposite direction. It seems like the terrorists have found that fear drives people to find protection in government which turns them into robots following the whims of politicians as they break our will and secede to the militants in adjusting our lifestyle in the way they have dictated. Unless we stand up and boot these wimpish politicians from office we will undoubtedly lose this battle with the terrorists regardless of the impending doom they seem to espouse. Perhaps we can have a cup of tea with the tense terrorists and persuade them to like us. Do ya think?

Because the Liberal minded folks don't like to admit that personal accountability and self control are qualities of character they have to develop an illness or phobia to explain away bad behaviour. In Tiger's case it is sex "addiction". If this be the case then I think they better start building clinics all over the world to treat male sex addiction beginning with 13 year olds entering into puberty all the way up to the mid 40's where the hormones began to quiet down and return to more of a balanced stream traveling through the male brain. In order to procreate and maintain the species nature has wired men in such a way that "sex" is at the top of their needs list from day 1. This of course created major problems back in the day of the caveman where men just walked up and grabbed a female, took her home and released some sexual tension. The women of the day decided that this wasn't going to work well if they ended up conceiving a child. Who would take care of them during dangerous times and provide food needed daily to survive? A male of course. So let's create the family scenario, which dictates an ownership factor and an access to unlimited sexual gratification without a battle. Since those days we have become more sophisticated but the basic tenets remain. If you are a normal young male in today's society your main preoccupation is searching out attractive females and getting laid. Who they are and where they come from is all secondary to "Will they respond positively to your needs?" For regular Joes this has always been a hit and miss quest as most women have a different view of arbitrary sex with strangers and won't couple with anyone just because they have the right fitting parts. But consider the possibility of being a major sports celebrity, having a billion dollars in the bank, young, in good health, reasonably good looking and with a group of people ready and willing to do whatever you may ask. As a male would you make use of these obvious advantages to satisfy your sexual appetite? Of course you would and so did Tiger. No harm no foul and I challenge any real male to admit otherwise. However, when you get to the point in your life when you feel the need to nest and raise a family then you adopt a new set of rules that are well defined and you enter into this pact with eyes wide open. This is when self control and personal responsibility enter into a males life. It doesn't mean you have to give up sex but rather limit it to one person, your spouse. Once you make this choice and then continue to romp around scoring with strange women all over the world as if nothing has changed, then this behaviour speaks greatly to your lack of character not to an illness, phobia or an addiction. So let's get real and call Tiger what he really is and that is a "wimp". He is shallow of character and instead of standing up like a man and admitting his faults he chooses to take the "addiction" route in an attempt to garner some sympathy for his actions. This may work with the female of the species but every male will be chuckling under his breath about this sorry excuse for an alpha male.

The elite Liberal brain trust truly believe that the masses of people, ie regular Janes & Joes, in the middle class are incapable of taking care of themselves. The hard line Union bosses and Socialists also have no doubt that their followers are stupid and must be protected from themselves. I can give you example after example of laws and rules that are passed to prevent we minions from making decisions that are not seen as proper by the almighty Liberals that sit in Government. For instance the pension laws and the Life Income Retirement Account are set up to prevent individuals from accessing their own money regardless of their choice in the matter. If your retirement money is in a pension fund you have access only to the predetermined payment calculated when you retired. You cannot get your hands on any more of it regardless of the situation. In fact after you and your spouse die your family will see nothing of the money that is left as it goes directly back into the fund. With the LIRA the Government had much the same rules until recently when it changed and now allows the owners of the money to remove up to 50% of the lump sum in the fund. It also (after tax) allows your family to receive the balance on your demise. These rules were put in place to keep people from their own money in case they may blow it on vacations, and travel after their retirement thus eliminating their nest egg. They assume nobody has the commonsense to manage their own finances during this time of life not considering of course you have managed to get yourself to this point without bankrupting your family. This is an arrogant and condescending attitude but it is the Liberal mindset. Look at our Food Protection Agency that was set up to inspect and insure that the food mass distributed across the Country was safe to consume. Considering some of the food poisoning catastrophes over the past several years they haven’t done a stellar job but they don’t stop there. Now these gurus want to tell us what we can and can’t eat. Based on the latest scientific craze about this particular food or that trans fat they want to enact laws banning these goods.Providing information to the Public isn’t good enough because once again they feel we are incapable of making good decisions for ourselves. Therefore these same people that told us no to eat butter years ago are actually banning foods.
The last example is Health Care where Liberals feel that the problem with Health Care in the USA is the spiralling cost which prohibits lower income people from attaining insurance. So rather than attacking the cost through the free market system by lifting the State by State ban on insurance Companies and allow them to compete across the Country they choose to control the system because they can make better decisions for the regular folk and drive costs down that way. Or to look at “tort reform” and discontinue these “lottery type” malpractice suit awards which have driven Doctor's insurance costs out into space. No no, mustn’t upset the lawyers.
All of the above are just a few of the ways these “well meaning people" want to run our lives but I for one am sick of “the pat on the head and the tsk tsk you don’t understand, this is for your own good” demeaning type answers. Maybe most people don’t mind being led around by the hand but look out because these people are not your friends, you see you are not smart enough.

Let me say that I sympathize with the terrible situation in Haiti and I believe we, around the world need to do whatever is necessary to help them through this catastrophic period. After saying that however, where do the politicians get the right to arbitrarily decide to send millions to Haiti beyond what our Government has set aside for foreign aid. This statement was made during the fundraising event for the embattled island the other night “The Government will match any funds that are raised for Haiti through this charitable venture.” It turned out to be around 9 million dollars and my question is “What gives you the right?” to do this. People are giving out of the goodness of their hearts which is what charity is all about. The world’s governments are also providing financial help as well assistance “on the ground” and these acts are a cultural norm in the western nations (primarily USA and Canada). So why does some politician who feels charitable or who wants to score points feel they have the right to dish out taxpayer money on their own accord. Did they ever think that maybe just, maybe some citizens of Canada don’t want to give any more money away? Did it ever occur to these elitist snobs that what they want to do may not coincide with what other taxpayers would like to do? And yet people do not seem to care about these reckless spenders who throw our money around like planting grass seed. Now this morning just after dedicating millions and millions of dollars to Haiti I read a column in the newspaper that suggest that we need to raise taxes in order to balance the books. This is the only solution in his mind that makes any sense. WHAT ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING!!!!!! I believe there is so much wasteful spending in every level of Government that if we were to eliminate just 50% of this waste we could balance the books in one year. The problem of course is that there are too many sacred cows in the current welfare state system and if any of their funding was cut the loud and constant squealing noise would scare the politicians to death. As we move closer and closer toward the Nanny State in both the USA and Canada (who is much farther down the road) the balance between those that pay tax and those that don’t is shifting toward 50%-50%. Once those that receive from the Government become the majority we will be lost because we will never be able to elect any fiscal conservatives to bring our finances under control. Based on the recent elections in Massachusetts it appears that the Americans are waking up to this fact and don’t like what they see happening to their Country. I wish we could get Canadians as fired up on this subject but at the moment there is no leader to carry the standard into battle. I keep looking but the only candidates appear to be in the west so it may take a awhile to bring their message here. Ahh Mr. Harper we had such dreams.............................

The recent elections in Massachusetts once again brought out the infamous left “destruction by lies” tactics as they tried to demean the right wing candidate Scott Brown. One of the lies had to do with a Bill he voted for which allows a hospital which, may not prefer to complete an abortion to transfer a patient wanting an abortion to another hospital that will as long as everyone including the patient concurs. Seems simple enough but the attack ad that was put up by the loons on the left read as follows, “ Brown voted to for a bill that would turn away 15 year rape victims from hospital doors”. A stretch to say the least but with even a hint of a connection they build a lie to smear someone. Unfortunately these negative ads (lies) do work if given enough time but in this case it was too little too late. Another good example of the Left and their love of the “LIE” is the recent “fessing” up of John Edwards who finally agreed to accept the title of father for the little girl he begat with a campaign consultant while he was running for VP during the 2004 presidential elections. These people truly believe that the ends justify the means so lying, to them is just another tool in their bag of tricks. The entire left wing platoon in the White House chose to continually lie throughout the campaign about how they, if elected, would govern from the center and usher in a new era of “transparency” in Government. Once in power they dropped all pretences and moved to the far left by spending their way into an oblivion of debt, exercising socialistic control over GM and the Banks through large financial injections of cash and finally the passing of the so-called stimulus package that hasn’t really accomplished anything at all. They have rammed a Health Care Bill, which nobody wants, through Congress by way of secret partisan sessions. No one truly understands what’s in the Bill because the development of it has not been transparent as was promised.
It doesn’t seem to matter whether it is in their private lives or professional lives these folks have no sense of honour. In fact they usually look on this transgression as a strength as opposed to a weakness because the development of a good sustainable lie requires intellect and to most of these elitists being seen as “smart” is more important than being honourable. Years ago before our society shifted so far to the left a man’s honour and integrity were of utmost importance and any attempt to demean or damage these would be met with serious consequences. Today, honour and integrity are tossed out the window in pursuit of power and personal gain. Sadly, the only place where these old traditions and attributes can be found in the political spectrum are far right of center.

The ability to exert some control over your emotions is one of the most powerful skills any one person can develop. Think about it, so much of what we do, the decisions we make and the words we speak are always affected by the emotional state we are in at that particular time. The list of emotions varies depending on where you look but for the purposes of keeping things simple I will use only the basic ones in this submission, Joy, Fear, Anger, Sadness and Love. In respect to partnerships and specifically marriage I’d like to focus on “anger”.
Anger can be the most destructive emotion if it is not controlled in some manner because it will lead to behaviours that can hurt your partner in many ways up to and including, in some cases, physically. To illustrate my point think of a whole pie as the 100% control of your actions and then picture a slice of 20% being the part of you that is being annoyed by something or someone. As the argument or negative actions accelerate it is difficult to keep the slice from growing to 40% or 60% and suddenly the “anger” portion is 60% to 40% in control of your actions. At this point logic and common sense deteriorate and the emotion of anger takes over and fireworks generally follow. How can you gain the upper hand on your emotions? One of the ways is for you and your partner to understand “buttons” and then to exercise control over the use of these nasty little things. A button you see, is usually the trigger to losing control of your emotions. For instance if a person lacks self confidence about a particular issue (ie physical appearance) and a discussion develops about another person’s positive personal appearance, a button may have been pushed inadvertently that will cause the anger emotion to rise. Having your partner understand these buttons is important but more so is your ability to know and control them thereby leaving yourself at the helm of self control. As you develop the ability to understand and recognize what these buttons mean you will then to be able to compartmentalize them to another area of your brain so you can deal with any situation calmly and rationally. You will also immediately be in a position of control not only over yourself but over others that cannot deal with their emotions rationally. If a couple explores their personalities to locate these buttons then works to understand them for what they are then half the battle is over. The next step is to work on sidestepping these buttons as they appear in our day to day lives. Once, as a couple, you have command over these two steps you can almost say you have reached utopia. Remember I said almost. To illustrate how this ability works watch two people argue one of which has learned to control his/her emotions. One person is constantly shouting and butting in while the other sits calmly interjecting when appropriate and ceding the conversation to their opponent as required. I’ll bet that at the end of the scrap the calm cool and collected person walks away with the best of the deal even if it’s only lower blood pressure and a positive outlook on life.

Many food plants possess toxic parts, are toxic unless processed, or are toxic at certain stages of their life. Notable examples include:
• Apple (Malus domestica). Seeds contain cyanogenic glycosides; in most species, the amount found in a single fruit won't kill a person; but it is possible to ingest enough seeds to provide a fatal dose.
• Cherry (Prunus cerasus), as well as other species (Prunus spp) such as peach (Prunus persica), plum (Prunus domestica), almond (Prunus dulcis), and apricot (Prunus armeniaca). Leaves and seeds contain cyanogenic glycosides.
• Chocolate. Contains theobromine at levels toxic to dogs and cats.
• Indian pea (Lathyrus sativus). A legume grown in Asia and East Africa as an insurance crop for use during famines. Contains oxalyl-L-α,β-diaminopropionic acid (ODAP), a neurotoxin causing wasting and paralysis if eaten over a long period.
• Kidney bean or common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Contains the lectin phytohaemagglutinin, which causes gastric upset. Toxicity removed by thorough cooking. .
• Lima bean or Butter Bean (Phaseolus lunatus). Raw beans contain dangerous amounts of linamarin, a cyanogenic glucoside.
• Onions and garlic. Onions and garlic (genus Allium) contain thiosulphate, which in high doses is toxic to dogs, cats and some other livestock.
• Potato (Solanum tuberosum). Foliage and green-tinged tubers are toxic, containing the glycoalkaloid solanine, which develops as a result of exposure to light. Causes intense digestive disturbances, nervous symptoms, and in high enough doses, death.
• Autumn crocus. The bulbs are poisonous and cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. Can be fatal.
• Azalea. (Azalea ssp.) All parts of the plant are poisonous and cause nausea, vomiting, depression, breathing difficulties, coma. Rarely fatal.
• Angel's Trumpet (Brugmansia). All parts of the plant contains the tropane alkaloids scopolamine and atropine. Often fatal.
• Daffodil (Narcissus (genus)). The bulbs are poisonous and cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Can be fatal. Stems also cause headaches, vomiting, and blurred vision.
• Elderberry. The roots are considered poisonous and cause nausea and digestive upset.
• hemlock (Conium maculatum). All parts of the plant contain the relatively simple alkaloid coniine which causes stomach pains, vomiting, and progressive paralysis of the central nervous system. Can be fatal; it is the poison that killed Socrates. Not to be confused with hemlock trees (Tsuga spp), which are not edible but are not nearly as toxic as the herbaceous plant Conium.
• Horse-chestnut. All parts of the plant are poisonous, causing nausea, muscle twitches, and sometimes paralysis.
• Ivy. (Hedera helix)The leaves and berries are poisonous, causing stomach pains, labored breathing, possible coma.
• Holly. Berries cause vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea.
• Hyacinth. The bulbs are poisonous, causing nausea, vomiting, gasping, convulsions, and possibly death. .
• Monkshood. All parts of the plant are highly poisonous. Ancient warriors used it to poison their enemies' water supplies. Used in the past for killing wolves. Causes burning, tingling, and numbness in the mouth, then the intestine, followed by vomiting; death by asphyxiation.
• Oak. (Quercus ssp). Most species' foliage and acorns are mildly poisonous, causing digestive upset, heart trouble, contact dermatitis. Rarely fatal. Consumed, after proper processing, as a staple in many parts of the world.
• Yew (Taxus baccata). Nearly all parts of the Yew contain toxic taxanes, except the red fleshy aril surrounding the toxic seeds.Yew seeds are especially toxic if chewed.Several people have committed suicide by ingesting leaves and seeds.

Answer The name he went by on the show was "Palladin" but his real name was never divulged.

Who was Jingles partner (Andy Devine?