My friend and unapologetic Canadian Kristen Ridley sent me a book in the mail last week (and it was such a treat to get something in the mail that wasn’t a bill, one of Cindy’s stupid catalogs selling all kinds of stupid shit, or a notice from the IRS!).

The book is titled:

“The U.S. of EH? How Canada Secretly Controls the United States . . . And Why That’s OK.”

Here’s the back page copy:

“This mind-blowing compendium of real facts and wild assertions reveals a vast maple-leaf conspiracy in which Canada plays up its self-effacing, second-fiddle image to the United States while subversively creating and controlling nearly everything Americans hold dear, from Superman to basketball to William Shatner to macaroni and cheese.”

The cover art shows a beaver manipulating a bald eagle puppet.

First, I never knew that the beaver is the official animal of Canada. That’s appropriate, I suppose. What with all the trees up there, I mean.

But for those Americans who view Canada as one large suburb of the United States, or as some sissy country that couldn’t even get out from under England’s thumb, like the rest of the world did, or as a nation of stumblebum, ineffective drunks . . . this book will come as quite the shocker.

Did you know, for example, that U.S. mapmakers make Canada look smaller on purpose? It’s true. The book shows a typical U.S. map of North America, where Canada actually looks smaller than the U.S. Then it shows a “map of North America to actual scale,” where Canada is much bigger.

The explanation: “While Canada is made to appear smaller on maps in the United States so as not to freak out Americans with its obvious dominance, it’s actually significantly bigger–350,000 square kilometers bigger (about the size of a 600 square kilometer rumpus room) and second in national territory only to Russia.”

How boot that, eh?

But my favorite part of the book deals with the famous Canadian “apology.” Canadians are known for apologizing for everything, and for being overly nice and kind.

Anyone who has ever tried to get through the Canadian customs office to do work in Canada knows this not to be true . . . but the stereotype persists.

But . . . this book advances a new theory about those Canadian apologies. It turns out that Canadians aren’t really apologizing at all! In fact, they are mocking us with their fake, insincere apologies just to get us to shut our big fat U.S. mouths!

Here’s how the book explains it:

“Consider what linguists have long recognized: apologizing doesn’t mean that you’re actually sorry. As an ingratiating means of resolving conflict and keeping things on an even keel, it can simply be tactically expedient, especially if one is apologizing from a position of power.”

As an example of the typical Canadian non-apology dressed up as an apology, the book offers the apology of Canadian comedian Colin Mochrie, delivered on the show “This Hour Has 22 Minutes.”

“On behalf of Canadians everywhere, I’d like to offer an an apology to the United States of America . . . I’m sorry about your softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn’t give us the right to sell you lumber that’s cheaper and better than your own . . . I’m sorry we beat you at Olympic hockey . . . I’m sorry that we’re constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way, which is really a thinly veiled criticism.”

A HA!!! The secret is out! Canadians aren’t nice, apologetic folks who just want to quaff some beer, play a little curling on the weekends, and then quaff some more beer.

They are sneaky mean sons of bitches, who are mocking us out of the corner of their mouths the entire time they are apologizing to us! And they are also in a secret competition to control North America.

Who knew?!?!

At least now we do know. And we know what to do when a Canadian offers one of their fake “apologies,” such as:

“I’m so soory that the harsh truth in my words offended your delicate U.S. sensibilities, would you care for a pint of Moosehead?”

We now know that we can say to them:

“Hey there, hoser, cram your bullshit apology up your beaver-lovin ass, eh?”

I hate that the Wall Street Journal charges for its online content.

And I’m so glad it does, too.

I hate it because I have to pay for it, and it seems weird to pay for Internet stuff.

But I developed the habit a long time ago of reading the editorial and opinion columnists from both the WSJ and the New York Times as often as I can.

And I like to read them on the same day, because it’s fun to see how really smart people can take the same topic that’s in the news and have completely different takes on it.

But the key is, you have to read both. If you just read the New York Times, you’ll end up like most of my friends, and lean so far over to the left when you walk, you’ll end up falling over like a drunk.

And if you only read the Wall Street Journal, you’ll soon find yourself listening to the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh all the time, and life is too short to spend any of it with those morons.

The New York Times doesn’t charge for content yet (they tried to move the opinion pieces behind a pay firewall years ago, but it didn’t work; I think they were just a little ahead of themselves, and could probably do it now).

So I still get that for free. But in order to achieve my fair and balanced view of the news, I have to pay for the WSJ.

But as much as I hate paying for online content, I also think it’s a good thing, and that all respectable newspapers should do it.

If you have good journalists and good editors and good fact checkers and good headline writers, you should charge for them.

And I believe people will pay for that talent. Maybe they wouldn’t have three years ago, or even a year ago, but I think they will now. And when that happens, when every respectable news organization starts charging for content, it will be a good thing.

Because here’s what will happen: Internet news will soon enough be divided into two categories: stuff that costs money, and stuff that’s free.

In the first category, you’ll have real journalists—the New York Times, the WSJ, CNN, etc. These people will be trained journalists grounded and ruled by ethics, whose job it is to research and report stories.

That first category will also have the great opinion columnists and editorial writers, of course . . . but all opinion will be clearly labeled as such.

The second category will have bloggers like this ass clown Andrew Breitbart, the joke “journalist” who did the hatchet job on Shirley Sherrod.

The second category will also have great opinion columnists and writers, of course. The established news organizations don’t have a monopoly on great writers and great thinkers. A lot of those people will still offer their opinions for free. Which is a good thing.

But when it comes to journalism, when it comes to getting facts right, when it comes to doing research and conducting interviews and checking facts and rechecking facts and developing credible sources and paying attention to ethics . . . . well, I’ll pay for that.

You don’t have to. But then don’t get pissed off when people like Breitbart make you look silly.

And make no mistake about it. There are Breitbarts all over the Internet. There are Breitbarts on the right, and Breitbarts on the left. There are Breitbarts shilling for corporations, and Breitbarts working for unions.

For every responsible Internet journalist out there doing the leg work and getting it right, there are a dozen Breitbarts playing fast and loose with the rules, and driving their own agenda. And getting it wrong . . . often on purpose.

For every one journalist who understands that “getting it right is more important than getting it first,” there are 25 Breitbarts out there who are shitting all over the Internet and calling it “news.”

I’m willing to pony up a couple of bucks for good old fashioned journalism. Are you?

If you’re not, then prepare to be Breitbarted on a regular basis.

Note: the following horror story did not happen to me . . . but I’ve experienced enough similar nightmares to know that they are the rule, not the exception.

A friend of mine was doing a story for a large corporation. The client set up an interview with the content expert, a project manager, for 9 a.m. on Friday.

When my friend called, he could tell the source was confused about what the call was supposed to be about. He was able to deduce that that by the first sentence that came out of the source’s mouth:

“What’s this about?” he said.

“It’s about the XYZ Project,” my friend said. “I’d love to get your thoughts on the progress we’re making, the challenges you’re facing, and anything else you think it’s important for employees to know.”

“What’s it for?” the source said.

“It will be an article in [name of employee publication],” my friend answered.

“Oh,” the source said. Then there was a pause. My friend knew what was coming. “Listen, Mike Donnelly just gave a presentation on this. I’ll send you the deck.”

Meaning, of course, the PowerPoint deck.

“Well, the deck would be great background, and I’d love to get it, but I’d really like to hear from you as well,” my friend said. “I’d like to make the story as personal as possible, and I’d rather quote you than a PowerPoint deck. Maybe after I get the deck, you can walk me through it?”

“Yeah, uh, listen,” the source said. “I really don’t have time. Everything is in the deck. It’s a good deck. I’ll just send you the deck. Give me your e-mail address.”

And that was that. My friend tried a few more times, but got nothing. Nothing but the “deck,” that is.

There’s a word for this kind of person my friend was dealing with. He’s a “Deck Dick.” He thinks that once the PowerPoint deck is created, all communication is finished. Now, it’s just a matter of making sure everyone gets the deck.

There are Deck Dicks all over the corporate world.

And it’s almost impossible to reason with a Deck Dick. They love their decks. They rely on their decks. They think their decks are the greatest thing since pre-sliced bagels.

And that is the true damage that PowerPoint is doing inside companies and organizations.

People like to savage PowerPoint as a bad presentation tool, because it allows speakers to load screens with too many words, too many graphics, too many bells and whistles, and too many cool transitions . . . so that the meat of what the presenter is actually saying gets lost.

And that certainly happens a lot. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat in a Town Hall meeting where the CFO gets up, throws up a PowerPoint slide on the screen that is filled with charts and arrows and boxes and curves, and says:

“I know you can’t read this but . . .”.

Yes, PowerPoint can ruin presentations, if used improperly. Yes, it can bore an audience to tears. Yes, it can suck the life out of a meeting.

But the real danger to PowerPoint is that Deck Dicks use it not as a presentation tool, but as a way to transmit information without a presentation even taking place.

Here’s how it works:

1. A project or initiative is started.

2. A Deck Dick creates a PowerPoint deck.

3. The deck is then passed around to other Deck Dicks.

4. Those Deck Dicks then start passing the deck to people lower on the org chart, some of whom are also Deck Dicks. And even though the deck is very confusing without a presentation or context of some kind, nobody wants to challenge the Deck Dicks.

5. The deck achieves legendary status. You start to hear these kinds of phrases whenever the project or initiative is mentioned: “Have you seen the XYZ deck?” “I hear there’s a deck on that, but I’ve never seen it.” “Marty already did a deck on that, you need to get it.” “Do you think they’ll post the deck on the intranet?” “Is there a newer version of the deck?”

6. The deck becomes the primary communication tool for the project or initiative, even though—and here’s the important part—nobody can understand the deck, because it’s not being explained to anyone anymore!

PowerPoint was never intended to be a communication channel. It was supposed to help people give better presentations. But when you take the “presentation” part out, you’re left with a bunch of charts and graphics and bullets and words with no explanation, no context, no two-way communication, and, often, no comprehension.

Don’t be a Deck Dick. And don’t let others be a deck dicks, either. Use the deck for what it’s supposed to be used for: as a way to help you communicate. Not as the primary communication tool.

When a Deck Dick gives you a deck, make them walk you through it.

It’s time we all started standing up to the Deck Dicks!

Communicators love to complain about, and make fun of, corporate “approval processes” . . .  that conga line of lawyers, managers and executives who have to officially okay any piece of communication that might possibly be read, seen, or heard by someone outside the company.

Which is to say, they have to approve everything created by anybody.

Of course, we have reason to loathe the approval process. It sucks the life out of interesting, creative communication efforts. It sterilizes and whitewashes everything the communications department produces, so that everything ends up looking and sounding the same.

And it also slows down the communication process, and puts the power of communication in the hands of people who suck at it.

But every once in a while, I come across something where I’m forced to say: “That probably should have been put through some kind of approval process.”

I found one of those examples this morning, while reading the New York Times. In an article titled, “Petraeus’s Successessor is Known for Impolitic Words,” we are introduced to General James N. Mattis, who will be in charge of all U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the article, Mattis is “the consummate Marine commander, a warrior who chooses to lead from the front lines and speaks bluntly rather than concerning himself with political correctness.”

After comparing Mattis to the incomparable George Patton, they give as an example of his bluntness a quote from a speech he once gave in San Diego. Here it is:

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap around women for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Yessir!!! THAT is the kind of man you want leading men into battle! But, in a world where building alliances with the good guys in a country is every bit as important as blowing up the bad guys, it’s not the kind of thing you’re supposed to say. Not out loud, anyway.

So as much as I love the Mattis quote (and as much as I have a man crush on Mattis himself), I have to admit that the entire speech probably should have been shoved through some kind of approval process.

Of course, the risk would be that you would lose all the flavor and personality of the quote, and end up with a generic version that anyone could have said. In fact, if a typical corporate approval process got hold of that quote, it would have ended up looking like this:

“While we are committed to and respect the diversity of all of our global associates and stakeholders, there are times when their core competencies are not aligned with our corporate vision and social responsibility paradigm. When that happens, we look forward to aligning their values with the core values outlined in our mission statement.”

Now, that quote sucks. BUT . . . if he says that quote, nobody notices (because nobody ever notices that kind of corporate crap) and Mattis flies under the radar. And that would free him up to go into Afghanistan and kill the sons of bitches what been slapping the womenfolk around.

But now, the poor guy is going to have a bunch of pantywaists watching everything he does and says.

Might as well send Oprah over there to lead the troops.

First, let me say that I think Hillary Clinton is doing a hell of a job as Secretary of State.

While I never much cared for her as Bill’s wife, or even as the junior Senator from New York, my admiration for her started to grow in the presidential primaries, and it has continued to soar as I’ve watched her in her role as Secretary of State.

I think her boss is making a hash out of just about everything he touches . . . but I think she’s doing a terrific job as the US ambassador to the world. And I think we’d be a hell of a lot better off if she had knocked off Obama in the primaries.

That said, I have to wonder who the hell is writing her speeches. Look at this excerpt from a speech she gave to the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute in Kyiv, Ukraine:

“One of the problems in societies around the world today is that too much of the productivity of the economies are going to too few. Too few people, the political and economic elite, are realizing the vast majority of benefits from economic activity.

Later, she reinforces that point, by saying:

“So part of the challenge of economic growth and prosperity is to make sure it gets down and equally spread among people.”

First, I wonder if she would ever have the balls (and this woman has balls, which is something I admire about her) to give this speech in the US . . . you know, that bit about spreading the wealth around? Doesn’t she know what the other side can do with something like that?

The Dittoheads and Hannityheads and Beckheads and Dickheads have already convinced a large chunk of America that Clinton is part of a Socialist regime. Does she really want to bop about the world talking about how we need to spread the wealth around? I mean, that’s dumb.

Especially given that her boss doesn’t seem to be too concerned with dispelling the notion. As the great magazine The Economist (a publication that endorsed Obama) noted last month: “Obama treats capitalism like something he found on his shoe.”

This is a communications issue. Shouldn’t a good political speechwriter look at each part of a speech, and see how it could be used against the person saying the words? Let’s do that here, with just the first two lines:

Line One: “One of the problems in societies around the world today is that too much of the productivity of the economies are going to too few.”

My God, that is GOLD for right-wing commentators! And what does she mean by, “the productivity of the economies.”

Does she mean money that other people earn? Does she mean money that, say, people like ME earn by living in airports and cheap hotels and eating in airport bars? Is my money part of this “productivity of the economies” that needs to be divvied up? And who’s going to divvy it up? How will that work?

I already give a third of my money to the government. So for every three grueling business trip I take, the money for one of those trips goes to the government.

(Actually, it’s more than that, since I travel a lot to speak and don’t get paid for it . . . but let us not split hairs, when it comes to spreading the wealth).

I don’t know that I can afford to spread my wealth around any more than I do!

Countries don’t get rich because of government. They get rich because of people. So when she says phrases like “productivity of the economies,” what she really means is the productivity of certain people in society, right?

Or maybe I’m wrong. The problem is, there are about 1,000 ways to interpret what she meant by that remark, and about 500 of those interpretations will scare the holy shit out of anyone to the right of Obama (which would include about 90 percent of this country).

Line Two: Too few people, the political and economic elite, are realizing the vast majority of benefits from economic activity.

Wow! Clinton doesn’t have a tin ear. She has a steel one. The political and economic elite? If there is a single person in the country who represents both the political AND the economic elite MORE than Mrs. Clinton, I’d like to know who it is.

She has spent most of her life in politics . . . as the wife of a state Governor, in the White House, as a Senator, as a presidential candidate, and now as Secretary of State, arguably the most important job in the U.S. government after the top spot.

That, babe, defines political elite. And economically? When she was running for president, Clinton had to reveal her net worth, which she said was “between 10 and 50 million.” CNN pegged it at 34 million, most of it in cash.

That, soul sister, is the economic elite. It kicks the living hell out of my bank account, which gets emptied out every month to pay bills. As such, any and all redistributing should begin with people like Clinton, right?

I mean, at some point, shouldn’t the speechwriter have said one of these two things to his boss:

Mrs. Clinton, we need to be careful with this language of spreading the wealth around. We could get into a lot of trouble with that kind of language. Especially when you talk about how too much of the dough is going to the elite people in the country, which brings me to point number two:

Do you really want to be up there railing against the political and economic elite? I mean, really? You’re the Secretary of State, you’ve spent a lifetime making gobs of money in and out of politics, you sit on millions of dollars . . . I think maybe we should take out the words “political and economic elite” whenever you are the one giving a speech.

Sometimes, what you leave out of a piece of communication is every bit as important as what you put in. Clinton’s speechwriters should know that.