There is little that is more juvenille than faux offence. The big stories in the Globe and Mail today:

 1. Canada complains to White House about ad

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The Canadian government has lodged a complaint with the Bush administration over a Republican election ad that belittles Canada as a global freeloader.

You can read the comments by the highly offended Canadians here. What a tribe.

2. MacKay's fresh denials escalate 'dog' uproar

Speaker reluctantly launches new probe as Liberals continue to demand apology

This is the heights of ridiculous. Clearly no-one watched the ad which is more a version of Talking to Americans than anything that is serious. Here is a link for those of you who want to actually watch it (via Instapundit). We run shows insulting Americans, our elected representatives call the Yanks to the dirt. Jack Layton has turned the name George Bush into both a full political argument and an insult of massive proportion. It is like the Monty Python Skit: I can think of nothing more insulting than Belgian.

Belinda Stronach? Dog? The question that gave rise to the alleged response or nonresponse had something to do with cleaning up the environment for the sake of the domestic animals or some such nonsense. When asked if he cared about his dog, MacKay allegedly pointed at Stronach's empty chair and replied that the Liberals already had her. That is funny. Sure it shows the MacKay trademark lack of judgement, but it is funny none the less.

Stronach left MacKay's bed on national TV, leaving the poor sap to have to explain his feelings to the nation. He is from Pictou, not Toronto. It had to be tough. Stronch then jumps into bed with a married hockey player and gets named in the no-fault divorce as the home wrecker. Now she is insulted and the Liberals, in typical Liberal fashion, are claiming that all women everywhere are insulted. That may have worked for Sheila Copps, but if you are making a voting decision based on this exchange, you should probably stay home from the polls. Stronach would have gained more support if she had of shrugged it off or had a laugh. No, she is offended. She is some sort of victim. She made reference to Conservative cuts to some status of women's group funding as evidence that the Tories are about to impose restrictions on women's rights. No wonder MacKay called her a dog, (or didn't, or made a funny at her expense, or at the expense of all women or whatever it all stands for) the Conservatives hate women. Or do they hate dogs? It's hard to keep it straight.

In any event, the good women of Canada who were insulted by the dog comment/noncomment  can start leaving their comments here.

The insulted dogs of Canada can also leave their comments here.

My response to you all will be Grow Up.

I am going to wade in on the new Tory Government's slip coming out of the gate. The appointments of Emerson and Fortier to the cabinet, and in Fortier's case the senate, have sparked no end of criticism from the media, fellow Tories and the opposition. Why, the question must be asked, did Stephen Harper bring his Conservative Government out of the gates this way? Greg Weston is writing in the Sun that the gravy train is still running in Quebec:

Lawrence Cannon, an able former minister in the Quebec government, has been put in charge of a new and giant federal cash cow that combines the transport and infrastructure portfolios, the latter spewing money at cities for everything from subways to sewers.

But no one in Harper's new cabinet will be more popular in the Quebec business community than Michael Fortier, the newly unelected political boss of Public Works (via a Senate appointment), the minister responsible for the awarding of more than $13 billion a year in federal contracts.

Harper's putting so much spending power in the hands of Quebec ministers is a clear signal that the federal spigot will once again flood La Belle Province with public largesse.

Again, the question being asked is why, but the real question is why not? The road to a majority government for Stephen Harper lies in Quebec, not Toronto. Ask yourself, will Harper lose his Western base over these appointments or will he actually be helping himself in Vancouver? Will these appointments help or hurt Harper in Quebec? Will these appointments help or hurt Harper in non-416 Ontario? Will they help him or hurt him in Atlantic Canada? The answer to all will be that they either help or do not hurt. Harper has gotten these things out of the way early and they will be forgotten when the House opens and a budget is prepared. The end game for Harper is a majority government in 18-24 months and to do this he needs Quebec and to increase his seats in British Columbia. This will allow him to jump over Toronto where he stands virtually no chance of picking up more seats even if he was endorsed by Gretzky, Don Cherry, Mohammed and Jesus. Quebec and Atlantic politics are about the gravy train and having representation in cabinet that can deliver the same. There are no two ways about it. Harper's approach is the obvious one. Instead of just trying to change the political game in this country he is trying to play it.