I'm still not cool.

This is a farewell to President Bush, who governed America to the best of his ability for eight years, and will hopefully be remembered by history more kindly than he is remembered by the media. To all those who would criticize him - and he is not perfect, like all of us - he has served during eight of the toughest years in American government. Had I been in his position, in all likelihood I would have done no better.

From the National Post:

Re: Taking A Shoe For The Country, Charles Krauthammer, Jan 19.

Charles Krauthammer, as usual, aptly describes George Bush's legacy by citing the incident in which an ingrate launched a shoe at him during a news conference in Iraq. I prefer to extend the shoe incident metaphor to describe the entire Bush legacy. Chiefly, what Bush did in Iraq was to secure the country's freedom by dismantling its tyrannical leader. And how did Iraq respond? By throwing a shoe at him.

Mr. Bush also secured the safety of Americans over the past seven years. And how did America respond? By laughing at him. Yes, an ungrateful era ends, and an over-grateful era begins.

Nick Kandel, Montreal.

Thank you, Mr Bush, from a Canadian who does not engage in Bush hatred to be cool. America - all of North America - owes you gratitude.

And welcome, Mr Obama. May you manage to both satiate your worshipers and pleasantly surprise your opposition. You've got a tough job.

Cheer for the letter-writers. Cheer, cheer, cheer.

I take back what I said about ceasing to read letters to the editor. I have never come across a more outstanding ensemble of common sense than the seven in the National Post today, regarding the recent ridiculous shenanigans in government. (To understand what I'm talking about, click here first and here next. If Lorne Gunter had fangirls...) Despite the ridiculous bias of our media, despite the drivel that passes for good sense, and despite the childish wailing of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois, at least SOME Canadians are smart enough to see through this. Today's paper included these gems of wisdom:

"Why in these tough economic times, are [the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc] not willing to lead by cutting the drain on Canadian taxpayers? The Conservatives are willing to cut spending in an area that will directly affect them. If I want to support a political party, I would rather have the right to choose which one and how much of my hard earned money I give." (Tom Stang, Edmonton)

"The Conservatives have no apologies to make for their proposal to eliminate public funding of political parties. The issue is simple: If Canadians want to support a political party, let them do so with their own money. It is immoral to compel Canadians to fund political parties that they would not support voluntarily. It is equally immoral for political parties that can't manage their own finances to expect to manage the finances of the nation." (Liam Rafferty, Toronto)

And from me:

The motivations behind this coalition of the opposition parties and their screams of protest at the move to cut their funding are simple: Selfishness and laziness.

They failed to obtain power in the election. The Liberals, the Official Opposition, had the worst show of support in over a century. They've been smacked down and left to whine about how Harper isn't doing what's best for the economy - and the moment he introduces a bill to cut taxes (e.g. support the economy) they are more concerned with the fact that it is their funding he is taking away than they are for the welfare of Canadians. If they want the funding, they need to get out there and RAISE it. The Opposition parties lack power and lack funds, and they are selfish and lazy enough to make a grab for the one, and to expect Canadian taxpayers to make up for the other. This is in no way a failure on the part of the Prime Minister.

Hoo boy, I think this is turning into one of those issues on which it is dangerous to get me started.

I need to stop reading letters to the editor.

Lately, they only serve to make me mad and fuel my blog rants.

Like today, for instance.

Tell me how this is somehow offensive and unsupportable: that soldiers, all of whom VOLUNTEERED, have fought in all the wars of this century to preserve the freedom and prosperity of their homeland. Tell me how it is bad, for one flipping day of the entire year, to remember the people who died so YOU have a home and a family and a free country. You'd think this would be impossible to refute, wouldn't you?

But still there are people who sit at home in their warm houses and whine about how we shouldn't be 'glorifying the acts of war'. Okay, I know war isn't fun, I know it's deadly, I would be horrified should there be, say, a WW3, but the important part is that people, when the time came, did it anyway! And they did it not because they found shooting fellow humans fun, they did it because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO! And because they did, we have what we do and we enjoy the privileges we do!

Next time a threat comes around, you people who write these idiotic letters, you can just lie down like a doormat and let the invading forces walk all over you. Tell me how that goes. Maybe you'll be slightly more supportive of war afterwards.

Rant over. Please be advised that I oppose pacifism with every bone in my body.