Say it! Say it! SAY IT!!

As a number of folks have pointed out, the Stephen Harper Party of Canada is now treating the federal treasury as their own personal fiefdom:

HALIFAX (CP) — NDP MP Peter Stoffer says he’s going to ask the federal ethics commissioner to investigate the placing of a prominent Conservative party logo on a large ceremonial cheque for $300,000 in federal infrastructure funding.

“In my view, I think they’ve broken every rule in the book in this regard,” Stoffer told the CBC on Tuesday.

The federal funding for a rink upgrade in Chester, N.S., was made last month by Nova Scotia Tory MP Gerald Keddy.

But here's what I think is the more interesting bit:

Keddy, when asked Tuesday about the cheque, said: “I didn’t order it, it wasn’t me. I’m not sure how that happened.”

However, Keddy said it’s an MP’s job to make announcements of this type “and I would absolutely do it again.”

Now, that first statement would seem to indicate that Keddy realizes this was a lapse of ethics, would it not? Why else would he be trying to pass the buck and disavow any responsibility?

And yet ... and yet ... he then follows this up by stating that, yessir, you damn betcha, he would absolutely do it again. So it seems to me that before anyone launches an ethics investigation, it behooves someone to ask Keddy very clearly whether he believes what he (or someone else) did was entirely proper.

It's a simple enough question, and one Keddy should be prepared to answer. Does he believe he (or anyone else in his party) has the ethical right to slap their party's logo on federal funding cheques?

Is anyone going to ask that question? And do any of us expect an answer?

Orly, Orly, Orly ...

The train wreck you can't look away from.

Heh.

Indeed.



Satire is a beautiful thing when it's done right.

Responding to Response

I really wish impolitical accepted comments. Part of me wants to say yes, Canada should pony up and help save America from its own disgrace by accepting a couple of the broken humans they're dealing off cheap. Not that I care to help America but solely because the prisoners deserve some kind of break in this ordeal. In all honesty, I think that the entire world should slam the door in America's political face and demand that these people be treated with the basic respect due a prisoner of war. And if these are the terrorism suspects we've been lied... I mean led to believe, then they should face charges in a legitimate, open court of law. And if they are not actually terrorism suspects then they should be afforded every opportunity to exact justice from the rotten bastards that stole their lives, tortured and abused them.

America deserves no help in this matter. How fucking dare the American government get sniffy that Canada won't accept prisoners that they won't even let set foot on their own soil, despite apparently being cleared of all charges. The sick fact is that the American administration with a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both houses wants to close the disgusting gulag flying the stars and stripes by dropping the prisoners in other people's laps. Not one, not a single one of those poor souls will be allowed into the United States yet we should clean up after America or golly gosh they'll be so awfully put out. Sorry. That doesn't wash.

Am in total disagreement with the notion that this is America's mess, screw them and they should be left to clean it up on their own. Of course it's their mess and they bear primary and ultimate responsibility for what they've done in breaking international laws, for torturing.

The key words, "they bear primary and ultimate responsibility" and yet they will accept none of that responsibility, primary, ultimate or otherwise. At the very least they should bloody well help clean up the damn mess. The Obama plan to close the illegal gulag:

Boot prisoners... ? ...Justice!

What is the guy, a fucking underpants gnome?

Yes Guantanamo is a terrible place. Yes, certain other nations have agreed to help wash out America's dirty little shame. But how, when his own government, his own party and his own nation refuse to bear any burden is this a positive step for America? Some magical thinking indicates that if everyone just shuts up and scours the shit and blood from America's floors that they'll suddenly be encouraged to quit stamping in their filth and act like a mature people. That's the kind of thinking that leads to teenagers. And we know how bloody awful those creatures can be. Acquiescing to Obama's plan will take America off the hook for its own actions and that is not a signal that is healthy for that nation or for the world.

If Canada and other nations are to pick up after the sullen adolescent America, there should be a consequence. It isn't about sitting back and pointing a finger at Obama, it is about standing up to a recalcitrant bully and pointing a finger at America. Obama just happens to be the spokesperson of the moment for the brutish, ugly nation to our south.

Guantanamo Bay should be closed, the Obama administration wants to close it and Canada should be right there helping to close it. It's an historic affront to the rule of law. It's so clear an example in recent history.

No question, Gitmo should be closed. But Obama and his administration want it closed with no cost or consequence for America. His administration is still not pursuing the criminal thugs that set the place up, that used it as a venue for torture and walked away scot free. Now Obama intends to brow beat others to do the dirty work so his administration can claim a hollow moral victory and scamper away, also scot free. That my friends is bullshit, the sort of crap that enables their exceptionalism and further rotten behaviour.

But hey, I'm a reasonable guy... shut UP LuLu. Okay, pretend I'm a reasonable guy. Here's the deal. Canada and any other third party nation should accept custody of the illegally detained prisoners and take them off Obama's hands only on the following conditions:

1. Full, unredacted disclosure of every and all record created in the camp. All documentary evidence in every form, every transcript, every recording and every photographic image turned over to the International Criminal Court to which Obama will personally sign over jurisdiction for a full and complete investigation of the goings on at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

2. Again under Presidential seal and signature, an agreement to make available any and every person requested or subpoenaed for questioning and possible charge in the operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison, be they civilian or military personnel, officer of government or high official.

3. Full and complete disclosure of every record pertaining to each and every detainee being delivered into the custody of a host nation. A fund of not less than five million dollars per detainee to be paid to the host nations to defray expenses and security costs incurred in the acceptance of custody and to provide funds for the former detainee to rebuild a life in their new home.

4. A fund of not less than ten billion dollars to be secured from America by officers of the International Criminal Court to draw such compensation for individual detainees as is deemed proper by officers of the court. Moneys drawn from that fund also to help defray the costs of proceedings in matters of the Guantanamo inquiry.

5. Full, unhindered and complete access for former detainees to the American civil justice system should any such persons determine to seek monetary and punitive remedies against individuals, organizations or branches of the American government, either as individuals or in class action suits.

That all strikes me as a pretty reasonable starting point from which to navigate toward that fabled "primary and ultimate responsibility", no?

The Tao of SUZANNE.

And the entire fetus-fetishist movement when called upon to provide proof -- in 20 words or less.

I don't have anything offhand, but I don't really care if you believe it or not.

Can/American Diplomacy: Clean Up In Aisle Three

Steve the Large and his team of pudding gobblers have apparently upset American plans to start offloading prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay spa and gulag. In a move typical of them that is Back On The World Stage, Harper and the gang abandoned negotiations to accept prisoners from the Americans and rather than actually, you know, going through channels, they issued a press release stating that Canada wouldn't take any of the inmates.

But the official, who has intimate knowledge of the negotiations and who spoke to the Star on the condition he not be named, said Canada abruptly stopped talks earlier this year. He said the task force was surprised to learn of Canada's decision through a press release.

"I just found it puzzling," there were no phone calls or diplomatic meetings, the official said. "A public rejection was odd."

Granted, our dear friends to the south, home of the prison industrial complex and war crimes inc., haven't being paying attention to little old Canada. Hell, while Stevie's been honing his touring act, Ivory & Ivories, and between rehearsals with his band The Gala Gang, he's been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the repatriation of an actual Canadian from America's famous, tropical destination. Somewhere in America's diplomatic corps a file folder sits unread, Harper ain't interested in any of this prisoner stuff, this really shouldn't come as a surprise.

Now, here's where I go off message, while my sympathies are with those who have been illegally and unfairly detained at Gitmo, this is a made in America mess. While I certainly don't approve of the inept twit Harper and his methods, I have no sympathy for any American administration whining about how tough things are.

"We're still hoping Canada will help," he said. "We can't do this alone."

That was the message Obama's Guantanamo czar tasked with closing the prison brought to Ottawa this spring. There had been earlier negotiations under the Bush administration about Canada accepting Uighur detainees – Chinese citizens from a Muslim minority group facing persecution in China. But those talks broke down reportedly over concerns of Chinese government reprimands.

The simple fact is that the American government stole these people's lives and now they want to dump them in third party yards and hope their problems just go away. The American government is also mindful that any effort to bring these poor bastards stateside will be met with insane levels of outrage and protest by their own domestic yahoos. Well fuck you America, time to clean up your own mess. It is time that the American people learned that their actions and the actions of their government have consequences. For years the world was told that all of these people were the worst of the worst, too dangerous to release, too dangerous to be charged, too dangerous to stand trial in a duly appointed court of law and too dangerous to be afforded basic human rights, Geneva Convention rights or habeas corpus rights. But now, suddenly, they're not too dangerous to release in someone else's territory.

These people were vilified, tortured, detained and abused by the representative government of the American people. America was able to snatch people from around the world and secret them to black site prisons without help. America was able to torture, abuse and demean these individuals without help. America gave them no legal recourse, proper representation or charges without help. America was able to pinch a great, steaming shit on the rule of law, make a mockery of jurisprudence and deny these people even the dignity of a show trial, all without third party help. But now, this is too difficult, this is ever so hard, whatever can poor little America do?

Here's what America can do, hell, here's what America should be honour bound to do, bring these individuals to America proper, where they can seek some justice of their own in the much vaunted American legal system. I'm thinking a class action suit in the tens of billions of dollars. Many of these people face tremendous hardship should they ever return to their homes, their lives ruined by accusations unanswered. America has a choice, they can either formally charge these individuals with specific crimes and bring them to trial in the legitimate criminal court system or admit that they essentially kidnapped them and allow these persons to seek justice of their own in the civil court system. But but but... Americans won't react well to these people being brought onto American soil, yup, there is the bigotry factor to consider. Well... Tough. Shit. Fuckers.

Need a place to put these poor souls while the system works? There's a nice spread down in Crawford they could stay at. If there is any justice to be had in America, the owner of that place should be in the dock facing his own charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and corruption.

Only 20 of the remaining 223 detainees have left this prison under the Obama administration, and only half of those men have been settled in third countries (others returned to their countries of birth). The Pentagon plans to prosecute as many as 80 terrorism suspects in U.S. military or criminal courts and return others to their homelands, a group that could include the nearly 100 Yemeni detainees.

So much for fair and speedy trial. Some of these poor buggers have been languishing for close to a decade and even after the rest of these people are released, to wherever they end up, there's no great likelihood that any trials will occur in any sort of fair and timely manner. And Mr Peace Prize isn't looking too good in the reflected light of this national disgrace. He squeezed out a deadline for closing Gitmo, January 22, 2010 but it certainly doesn't appear that the deadline will be met while America plays hot potato with people's lives. America is asking other nations to do what America itself is unwilling to do.

But hanging over any negotiations is the fact that there is one country where it appears detainees will not settle – or at least not unless they're behind bars.

U.S. House and Senate leaders agreed this week that detainees could be tried on U.S. soil, but refused to allow the transfer of those prisoners not considered a risk.

So why should other countries help when the U.S. administration won't help clean up its own mess?

Although careful not to criticize Congress's position, that undoubtedly makes the task more difficult, the administration source conceded.

That would be the Democratic majorities in the house and the senate agreeing that America refuses to help clean up the mess that America has made. But naturally, that won't stop America from being vengeful against others for failing to clean up their stinking mess for them.

The official would not speculate whether Canada's apparent snub would hinder relations between the two countries.

But Gar Pardy, the former head of Canada's consular programs, said he would be surprised if it didn't create a chill.

"The administration is saying, 'Look, we've inherited all this stuff. We're looking for a solution here and we would expect getting some help from our friends and we're not getting any.' "

Well, isn't this just the sort of difficulty that the speculative Peace Prize is awarded for? Where is the stinging rebuke from the White House to his own party in both house of congress? Where is this president's demand that America redeem her once great reputation by doing the right thing, by accepting the responsibility for actions taken. The administration didn't fucking 'inherit all this stuff' it is America's stuff and the new administration knew full well that it would have to face this problem. That's why people run for high office, because they think they have the answers to the big problems, that they know a better way to do things. It really is ridiculous for the administration to whine that their friends won't help them to do something that they are unwilling to do themselves. Our friends the Americans are essentially saying, 'We shit the bed, hop on in, we'll pull the covers up under your chin.'

Of course the thorniest issue in all of this is the fate of the Uighur detainees, "Chinese citizens from a Muslim minority group facing persecution in China." Nobody wants to piss off the Chinese gorilla in the room. And it seems that for most every nation, including Canada, it is a safer bet to piss off the Americans. China is the ascendant world force economically and they hold the papers on the American economy as America continues to decline in influence. Of course none of this excuses Harper and his government from the embarrassing diplomatic failure to deal openly and fairly with the bully next door. Making a diplomatic statement via press release is the international political equivalent of breaking up by changing one's relationship status on Facebook. Stay classy Steve.

Ladies and gentlemen: Your National Wingnut Post.

This is awesome -- the Post isn't even pretending to have minimal journalistic principles anymore. You will search that page in vain for the name "Arnie Lemaire." Or "Mr. Kathy Shaidle." Or "Five Feet of Strap-On."

It's cool, though; the National Post as just another right-wing blogging aggregator. Somehow, that just seems ... right.

AFTERSNARK: At least one commenter over at the National Disgrace seems to get it:

Erm. I suppose I'll have to go and check out "Blazing Cat Fur"'s blog to find out what this person's name is... and it appears that "Blazing Cat Fur" doesn't post anything but a gmail address there to identify them. Newp, anonymous blogger...

Honestly, wtf, National Post? Fine, you like to have Bloggers posting on your site, on a more official section like Full Comment. But normally your bloggers have real names, and aren't anonymous. (unless Blazing Cat Fur is the legal name of this blogger?) But this? This is embarrassingly juvenile. "The Bitch Nurse", the amount of sarcasm, the glorification of vandalizing property, this is all stuff I'd expect to see in the "Comments" section only. But not as an actual article, sandwiched between articles from two actual journalists.

If it's going to be treated like it's actually on a level as articles written by Kelly McParland and L. Ian MacDonald, then it should be held up to the same standards as would be required of them, which includes identifying the author beyond a blog handle, and expecting some sort of journalistic integrity.

Some good points, after which -- unsurprisingly -- terminally stupid people show up:

What the hell does it matter who the author is. Take it at face value. Who is Richard Bachman or Samuel Clemens? If you knew his/her real name does that change anything for you? Why, because it is written by a "Doctor of Journalism"?

If his/her's writing interests you, I'm sure you can find out more about the author with due diligence.

Just exactly who is "Kelly McParland", beside a writer and editor at the Post? You know this guy?

Please define "journalistic integrity"

Here's a thought -- "journalistic integrity" might involve identifying that Post Full Comment blogger "Raphael Alexander" is actually Adrian MacNair, a long-time member of the Conservative Party of Canada's official blogging aggregator the Blogging Tories. Don't you think that sort of thing might be informative to one's readers?

And when it comes to Arnie "Blazing Cat Fur" Lemaire, might it not be useful to know that, while he's harping on about the deficiencies in Canada's health care system, he's married to one Kathy Shaidle, a driving force behind Canada's recent "teabagging" movement bitching about government over-spending and an appalling hypocrite in her own right:

The punchline is that Kathy Shaidle suffers from severe lupus and, thus, had to rely on the Canadian health care system for four years to, basically, stay alive. She still benefits from the system, which is apparently why she doesn’t up and move to the U.S. So not only is she a horrible human being, she’s a flaming hypocrite.

So, yeah, that's the sort of thing I always figured fell under the label of "disclosure." It's certainly something I'd want to know.

SOME REALLY WICKED FUCKING IRONY: Back at "Sadly, No," we have the boys poking fun at this bit of despicable cruelty by Canada's Littlest Racist:

Are there even a thousand really poor people in all of America? Really poor. Dying-on-the-sidewalks-with-open-sores poor?

Take it away, Arnie:

At 8:30 pm, in order to release the paramedics, my mother was officially admitted to TGH. Admission consisted of moving her from the ambulance gurney to a hospital gurney and pushing her 20 yards down the corridor, next to the homeless guy with the festering sores on his legs.

Really, does it get much funnier than that?

P.S. Pathologically dishonest wanks accusing me of suggesting that homeless people with open sores is "funny" in three ... two ... one ...

Decisions, decisions.

Dear SUZANNE:

When reading such unrelenting ignorance, one is left to wonder if you’re simply obtuse or a consummate liar. Statistics suggest you may be both.

Colour me so not shocked.

Yours in endless contempt,
LuLu

If Your World Renowned Rock Legend Can Only Afford One Bass Guitar...

If Your Family Can Only Afford One Guitar...

The weaselitude of Stephen Harper.

Go. Read. God, but those people are liars.

AFTERSNARK: Note well how, from a recent CBC piece, PMO spokesweasel Dimitri Soudas takes the position that simple ongoing training of Afghan police and security forces would not technically be part of a "military" mission so they're still abiding by the terms of the resolution. And yet, from that very resolution from back in 2008, we read:

it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

Only the truly intellectually crippled would not see the above as making clear that training Afghan National Security Forces is considered a fundamental component of the "military" mission. That the Stephen Harper Party of Canada now wants to move this training indoors or to a safer place doesn't change that.

IT'S ALL IN THE SEMANTICS: Upon closer inspection, I do notice a loophole in that original resolution:

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

Ah, so the resolution can be read precisely as that Canada will vacate its forces only from Kandahar, not from Afghanistan in its entirety, so all Canada has to do is move its troops elsewhere in the country to abide by the letter of the resolution. But that's not what Peter "Deputy Dawg" MacKay is suggesting here:

MacKay suggested on three separate occasions over the past two weeks there might be a role for troops in Kandahar post-2011, while at the same time maintaining, "the military mission would end."

I suspect the ongoing parsing of all of this is going to be very entertaining.

The bravery of being out of range.

Shorter Blogging Tory Fred "Gay and Right" Litwin: "Sure, mindlessly standing up to the enemy might cost more of other peoples' lives, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."

Told ya so, told ya so, told ya so ...

Back here, we mocked the idea that "free speech" had anything to do with the rude reception afforded an anti-choice fanatic at McGill recently. And now, via Dammit Janet, we learn that said anti-choicer(s) were being given every opportunity to not act like blithering, disengenuous assholes and still came up short:

EDITORIAL: Choose Life crossed the line with Ruba event

At 6 p.m. tonight, Choose Life, the Students' Society's pro-life club, will host a presentation by Jose Ruba, a co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, titled "Echoes of the Holocaust." Ruba's speech will attempt to draw parallels between abortion and the Holocaust, by arguing that "dehumanization and denial of personhood has justified some of the greatest affronts to human dignity that the world has seen." The presentation refers to abortion as a "mass human rights violation" and includes graphic imagery such as photos of dead bodies at concentration camps followed by photos of supposedly aborted foetuses.

On Thursday night, SSMU Council voted to censure the event and to make Choose Life ineligible to receive funding if they go through with tonight's presentation. We commend them for that decision. The comparison of abortion to the Holocaust is not only horribly offensive and inaccurate, it is deliberately designed to be inflammatory. This event is not intended to foster debate - it is designed to be provocative and to distract from meaningful discussion of abortive rights.

How about that? People recognizing that event for what it really is -- a transparent attempt to be insulting and offensive, as opposed to actually trying to impart any information that might contribute to anything resembling intellectual discourse. And what's even funnier is that those yahoos were being given every opportunity to act like grownups, and they still fucked up:

Last October, when Choose Life was applying for interim club status, the Tribune editorialized that SSMU Council should approve their application. We still stand behind that decision. Although many who opposed the club have adopted an "I told you so" attitude in light of Choose Life's recent actions, they miss the point of our original argument: you cannot preemptively censor a club based on what you believe they might do. Choose Life could have fulfilled their mandate by hosting informative events that presented the pro-life position without sensationalizing the issue or attempting to induce guilt among pro-choice believers. A pro-life belief is not, in itself, oppressive. Even though Choose Life had the potential to behave inappropriately, it was necessary to give the club some rope, and see if they used it to hang themselves.

And hang themselves they did. Gloriously. Spectacularly. Predictably. But, really, here's the larger point that no one seems to recognize.

We have no further need to listen to the anti-choice warriors, because they have nothing more to add to the debate. We know what they believe. They hate abortion. They think it's murder. They think fetuses are human beings. Yes, we get it, we get it, dear Lord, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, we fucking get it!! Do you think telling us 101 times as opposed to 100 will suddenly constitute a compelling and persuasive argument?

We know what you folks think. Seriously. So if you have nothing new to bring to the table, no one really has any obligation to continue giving you a forum to simply repeat the same dishonest, inflammatory swill over and over and over and over.

We get it. You hate abortion. Now go away until you have something new to say.

AND HERE'S WHERE WE JUXTAPOSE: Curiously, the same folks who yammer on and on about "free speech" and ask why anyone's scared to listen to someone else's opinion apparently have no problem with this sort of government-driven intellectual blackmail and abuse of power. Strangely enough, I don't recall any of Canada's "free speech" warriors leaping to free speech's defense back then. Perhaps context had something to do with it.

A POINT OF DISAGREEMENT: I'll take issue with this position:

... you cannot preemptively censor a club based on what you believe they might do. Choose Life could have fulfilled their mandate by hosting informative events that presented the pro-life position without sensationalizing the issue or attempting to induce guilt among pro-choice believers.

And what were the chances of that happening? Seriously, how hard would it have been to have initially asked those shrieking yobs to give a few examples of the sort of thing they had in mind? Brochures they were thinking of handing out? Films they wanted to air? Public presentations they intended to give? How hard would it have been to check whether those dingbats had anything that would have qualified as "informative" or in the public interest?

It's one thing to be tolerant and give someone else every benefit of the doubt. It's quite another to have a pretty good idea what they're going to be up to, and be too lazy to take a few minutes to confirm it.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

Isn't it curious how the same Canadian right-wing troglodytes who are pissing themselves over how Barack Obama clearly has no right to the Nobel Peace Prize, how he's completely unqualified for it and how he's done absolutely nothing to deserve it ... are perfectly fine with a creationist chiropractor being Canada's Minister of Science and Technology?

I just thought I'd point that out.

About that teabagging, Kathy ...

It occurs to me to observe that a screechy, foul-mouthed, racist harpy like Kathy Shaidle who constantly whinges on about government overspending and the eeeeevils of socialism really shouldn't have a personal history that reads thusly:

Two years later, Kathy received a number of Ontario Arts Council grants, including a Work-in-Progress, to finish her first poetry collection. She left CNT in May 1991 to write full-time, and six weeks later she was diagnosed with systemic lupus erythamatosis (SLE), a chronic, incurable autoimmune disease.

Catholic New Times asked Kathy to write "a couple of articles" about her life with lupus. These pieces proved so popular that Kathy continued her saga in almost every issue of CNT for the next four years. During that time, she received four Canadian Church Press awards in three different categories, as well as invitations to speak, and dozens of enthusiastic calls and letters.

After spending those four years on government disability, Kathy returned to the work-force as Marketing Co-ordinator at Novalis, Canada's oldest and largest Roman Catholic publisher. She is also enrolled in the Publishing program at Ryerson.

You'd think someone who sucked up a bunch of government grants, then went on government-funded disability and finally ended up at a government-funded post-secondary institution wouldn't be so much of a douchebag when it came to bitching about government overspending.

But that's just a suggestion.

P.S. While we're on the subject, anyone who's a member of a religion that enjoys the luxury of tax exemption in this country should really shut the fuck up about socialism.

As God is my witness ...

I have no idea where to go with this.

Yeah, that's kind of what I suspected.

You can't argue with the Intertoobz:





I'm pretty sure that's what you call "margin of error."

1. Afghanistan. 2. ???? 3. Accomplishment!

We're extending! We're pulling out! We're staying! WTF? One wonders how all of this fits into Sandy Crux's list of Harper government "accomplishments."

FOLLOW THE BOUNCING TORIES: From that CBC piece, it's fun to watch the frantic dissembling and re-definition of the English language:

"I would caution you against saying dozens or hundreds or a thousand, there will be exponentially fewer," Soudas said.

"Whether there's 20 or 60 or 80 or 100, they will not be conducting combat operations."

OK, that sounds clear -- no combat operations. You're sure about that?

Soudas said the government would shift focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.

OK, then, that's settled -- we'll be doing "development" and "reconstruction." Sounds good. Um ... hang on:

The military's training mission will continue, but it will take place in the safety of protected facilities, he said.

So ... the military will still be doing, you know, "military" type stuff, like training. And that relates to development and reconstruction ... how? So tell me more about this training:

The combat-mentoring role currently undertaken by Canadian troops would end, according to the plan.

Um ... OK, I'm confused, the combat-mentoring is going to end. Right? Wrong again:

"You can do training in training facilities," Soudas said. "And when I say training, I mean Canadian soldiers will not be doing combat training of Afghan soldiers in harm's way."

All right, let's make sure we understand this -- we will definitely still be doing military-type stuff, but with lots less people and in a protected environment. But, still, it is military type stuff, yes?

Speaking in Welland, Ont., Friday afternoon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters the government would not seek to extend the mission authorized by parliament in 2008.

"Well, let me be very clear …" Harper said, "Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011."

I give up.

BY THE WAY, would it be rude of me to remind readers of this from only a few weeks ago?

Harper holds firm to Afghanistan pullout date

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada is firm in its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011, even as a report from the mission's NATO commander says more resources are needed in the war-torn country.

"I was very clear in my meetings in the United States last week that that remains Canada's plan," said Harper, who was in Guelph, Ont., on Monday at a funding announcement media event.

And now you know what Stephen Harper's word is worth. Quelle surprise.

Saturday Morning Cartoons.

Good morning, darlings and happy day before turkey day.

Birdzilla’s thawing in the fridge, my pie crusts are made and I just realized I forgot parsnips when I did the Grocery Store 500 (in stilettos no less) on my way home from work last night. How’s a girl supposed to make caramelized root vegetables without parsnips?

Who wants to go to the store for me?

Sure, let's talk about "free speech."

Apparently, pro-choicers are arrogant, uncivil, closed-minded thugs, fascists and bullies who have no interest in allowing others the right of free expression:

Pro-life activist Jose Ruba is building quite a resume. He’s been shouted down at St. Mary’s University, shut down at York, and now he’s been sung down at McGill.

As the Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform staffer tried to make a presentation at McGill this week, Ruba was greeted with a chorus of... well, choruses. He looked on and checked his iPhone’s facebook application as pro-choice protestors ran through song after song, hour after hour, pausing only to shout slogans or block his projector.

First there was ‘Yellow Submarine’, then ‘Wheels on the Bus’, and then Leonard Cohen’s ‘Hallelujah’. To be sure, no pro-choice demonstration would be complete without a performance of ‘Happy Birthday’ to abortion, and of course, a complete rendition of ’99 bottles of beer’.

Gosh, that was rude. Whatever could have inspired those folks to behave so badly? Oh:

Choose Life, McGill’s pro-life group, went ahead with the event, titled ‘Echoes of the Holocaust’, ...

Uh huh. Here's a thought, kids. If you claim that all you want to do is get your opinion across, then proceed to compare a perfectly legal medical procedure to the slaughter of millions of Jews, you really shouldn't be surprised if some folks are going to get a mite edgy. That's kind of what happens when you act like assholes.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

AFTERSNARK: I'm fascinated by how so many Jews don't seem all that outraged by this constant comparison between abortion and the Holocaust. Do they really not see the disturbing parallel that's being drawn here?

After all, in most sane discussions about abortion, even adamant anti-choicers are sometimes willing to admit that, yes, there are arguments that can be made for both sides and, yes, there are certainly situations that could call for an exception and, yes, no matter how much you might disapprove of abortion, it is after all a legal procedure at the moment.

Imagine the outrage if one used that kind of language with respect to the Holocaust -- sure, it was a bit of unpleasantness but, hey, there are arguments that can be made for both sides and, yeah, it's generally a bad thing to commit genocide on that scale but perhaps there are compelling exceptions, and so on and so on. Incendiary language, to be sure, but it's kind of the comparison that's being made here.

If Jews really don't want to minimize the horror that was the Holocaust, perhaps it's time for them to speak up a bit louder and protest this relentless and idiotic comparison. Because if they don't, then they have no one but themselves to blame if they start hearing things like, "Yeah, yeah, Holocaust, abortion, one's just as bad as the other, big deal, yadda yadda yadda, man, I'm bored of this."

And I'm pretty sure that's not a road down which they want to go.

BY THE WAY, as an example of the territoriality of the Holocaust, one need only note how incredibly defensive some people get when anyone else dares to use the phrase "Never again" in a non-Holocaust context. You know, like this. And this.

I believe my point here is obvious. A great many people get absolutely furious if you even remotely suggest that anything is comparable to the Holocaust. In their opinions, the Holocaust is the horror against which nothing else shall ever be compared, to the point where they've laid exclusive ownership claim against part of the English language.

If that's their position, fine. But if that's their position, then they have a responsibility to protect their territory against all usurpers. If, instead, they going to be carefully selective about who can and can't borrow the Holocaust for blatantly ideological purposes, then they're being hypocrites.

Further than that, deponent sayeth not.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

Curiously, the folks who were pretty much creaming themselves over Stephen Harper's "surprise" performance at the recent arts gala are now -- in the wake of Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize -- bitching about the unfairness of people being given credit for things they don't deserve.

How ... entertaining.

WTF?

Apparently, there are no downsides to capitalism. Who knew?

A Nobel Prize in cognitive dissonance.

Shorter Canadian Ya-Ya Wankerhood: "As shrieking wingnuts who once went positively orgasmic over Stephen Harper winning an award, we would now like to point out the ridiculous meaninglessness of awards."

Ah, the Adrian-flavoured irony.

The unintentional hilarity (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

We continue, in other words, to officially believe in the rule of law and in the principles of free expression and thought, ...

This is from an unabashed fan of the Stephen Harper Party of Canada, one of the most outrageously law-breaking and corrupt governments in the history of the planet, and from a satisfied member of Canada's Blogging Tories, who have taken hermetically-sealed, selective blog comments sections to absurd extremes.

Apparently, reality has simply become too much like work.

P.S. There's something truly hypocritical about a Blogging Tory yammering on about disturbing government interference in our lives, as his very idols would love nothing more than to annihilate a woman's right to choose. I'm betting Adrian has no idea of the cognitive dissonance he has to live with every day.

Ridiculous

President Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize. He hasn't actually done anything but speak in a resonant tone but he's made the gulls feel better about themselves. What the hell, hopes & dreams FTW. I guess I can look forward to Raphelxander's Pulitzer acceptance speech.

OBAMESSIAH!

Dear Kate: Is there nothing Obama can't do? I'm betting that's going to be sticking in a few craws this morning.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

Grotesquely fucking stupid. Punk'd. Oh, man, that one's never getting old.

It's cuz that's different. Somehow.

Shorter Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred Litwin: "As a member of Canada's premiere right-wing aggregator whose fundamental position is that the Christian religion should have complete and utter autonomy to practise its beliefs in whatever way it sees fit, including having total freedom to discriminate however it chooses with respect to its membership, isn't it despicable how those Mooslims don't accept gays? I'm appalled. Really."

Cat Am Smrt

Sweet Patsy Cline

On the other hand, ...

Shorter Canadian Wankersphere: "As whiny, screeching drama queens who sobbed uncontrollably over the appalling treatment of political protestors in Iran and their inhumane treatment in prison, we really couldn't give a shit about this. That's different."

There's gullible, and then there's Kate McMillan.

Blogging Tory Kate McMillan channels Maria "Dodo Can Spell" Nunes, if Maria were severely retarded. And there's always reality.

BY THE WAY, that would be this Kate McMillan. In case you cared.

BONUS SMACKDOWN! Hilariously, Kate's blogroll contains the site "Little Green Footballs," who thinks she's an idiot. That's just adorable, no?

Gang Rape.

It’s just another Republican "Family Value".

Who knew?

And furthermore ... Looks like we can add armed insurrection to the list.

It’s different when Conservatives do it.

I can't believe I have to explain that.

Dodo and the burning stupid.

Yes, yes, it's appallingly low-hanging fruit but, really, it's a guilty pleasure as Blogging Tory Maria "Dodo is a Retard" Nunes happily ingests whatever right-wing swill is placed in front of her:

This is a review of Peter Schweitzer's Do as I Say (Not as I do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. The book was published in 2006 and has revealed how the leftists go about their lives in the most rotten way, while continuously criticizing Conservatives for being racist and attributing to us every evil performed under the sun. He has chosen 11 well-known personalities who are constantly in our faces and thrown light on their hypocrisy...

Comedian Al Franken has criticized Republicans for being indifferent to black unemployment. But of “112 people whom Franken either hired directly or had a strong influence in determining whether they would work on a project,” only one was black.

And then there's reality:

Being Franken
To the Editor

Dear Right-Wing People,

On Monday, August 21 [2006] Catherine Seipp wrote a piece on your website that perpetrates a nasty myth about my record as an employer...

Ms. Seipp is correct on one point. The misinformation she disseminates is from Peter Schweizer’s book. But let’s take these one-by-one. I do not rail against audiences for not employing more minorities. What Schweizer was referring to is a joke I tell when I give speeches at a lot of corporate events. The joke is: “First of all I want to congratulate (name of company) for not giving into that whole affirmative action nonsense.”

There was a “non-white” student who helped research Lies and the Lying Liars. I was never executive producer of SNL, but when I served as producer for the 1985-6 season, we hired Danitra Vance, who was both a writer and a cast member and was African American. (Danitra has since passed, although National Review did not give it the attention it gave to Belushi’s death, because, I assume, she was black.)

One of my researcher/producers on my Air America show is black. When we first started, the second researcher I hired was black. He left to finish Yale Law School. Our archivist is black.

In his book Schweizer makes up some statistic that I’ve hired something like a 107 people during my career and only one has been black. First of all, it appears that Schweizer came up with his number by rather creatively manipulating the definition of who I’ve hired. For example, he counts the writers of my projects. Well, I am a writer, often the sole writer, on all my projects. So he counts me several times. And, yes, I admit it. I am always white.

Also, he includes the producers of my projects, almost all of which I produce. Since the projects I produce are those for which I am a writer, he counts me twice for each of those. And again, when I produce, I am always white.

For some reason, Schweizer doesn’t include Sanaa Lathan, a cast member of my sit com Lateline, nor Lenny Garner who directed an episode of that show. Sanaa is now a movie star, but not because of Lateline. Schweizer doesn’t include any of the skilled crew of that show or any of the other projects that I’ve been involved in.

I thank you for the opportunity to correct the record, particularly since Doubleday refuses to do so for the paperback version of Schweizer’s book.

Your pal,

Al Franken
Minneapolis, Minnesota

I'd try to educate Maria but, let's face it, she's uneducatable. I'm sure you've noticed that by now.

"Nice job you got there, ..."

"..., be a shame if anything happened to it."

We went, we watched, we drank beer ...

... and we kicked ass at Tuesday night trivia at the Huether Hotel, as yours truly and partner set the highest NTN score in quite some time while embarrassing the regulars at their own game. On the other hand, when one has only 10 characters to identify the locale during network rankings, one might consider an alternative to "HUETHER HO".

I'm just sayin'.

It's a fortunate man that's found his calling.

Good for you, Adrian:

I have no idea why, but the traffic is hitting some real highs lately. Broadening my reader base has been a goal of mine for a long time [which is probably the most obvious statement a writer can make], and it’s nice to see that it’s slowly but surely happening. I’m also really getting my writing syndicated more these days, as other bloggers like Jack’s Newswatch, and Dust my Broom are picking up my stuff, and I’ve just recently started getting cross-posted to Gerry Nicholls’ new website for libertarians: Libertas Post. I’ve also added the entire archive of my contributions to the National Post in my “portfolio” page, which is nearing 130 entries since this January.

And what's behind this sudden surge in popularity? Ah, here we go:

My entry on Sarah Palin in the National Post on October 2 had about 35,000 hits in three days, thanks to some of the big blogs picking it up in the south, like Hot Air. Thanks to the many readers who sent me emails telling me how much they liked it.

Apparently, Adrian has discovered a fundamental truth in the Drool-o-sphere: Anyone with a minimal talent at wordsmithing and no standards whatsoever can build themselves a mighty fine readership simply by whoring themselves out to the lowest common denominator -- bloggily speaking. And Adrian settles in nicely, rummaging through the laundry hamper and coming up with a nicely used pair of Sarah Palin's unmentionables, then getting down to business:

There are a lot of conservatives who don’t like Sarah Palin, and they're probably quite right to do so. It’s true that her popularity is not derived from her wit, intelligence, or cerebral prowess in general. In fact, that’s what makes her so alluring to millions of Americans, and a fair share of Canadians, in the first place. She isn’t another summa cum laude graduate from Princeton like Sonia Sotomayor. She doesn’t strike anyone as an academic, or even draw upon her education during interviews with the media in order to impress upon people her knowledge and insights. And that again appeals to the ordinary people throughout the United States who embrace her.

Yes, that's our Sarah -- not one of those hoity-toity, latte-sipping, Volvo-driving liberals. Just reg'lar folk, that Sarah. A "real" American, you know. Ordinary people. One wonders if Adrian had to restrain his gorge while writing that, or whether he's just plain given up and is willing to whore himself out to whatever topic puts a stiffy in his Sitemeter stats.

Whatever the reason, I'm sure Adrian knows exactly the audience he's pandering to, attracting comments on his Post article such as:

by welldoneson
Oct 02 2009
4:36 PM

You can tell Palin is a good candidate by just how much hate she gets from the hard left.

and

by Sassylassie
Oct 02 2009
5:01 PM

I concur weldonson, the left's hatred of her is pathological and frankly more than a little scary.

and

by chessmaster
Oct 02 2009
5:33 PM


This lady drives left wing nuts crazy! Which is probably why I find her to be remarkably refreshing and quick on her feet - I have a strange feeling that in the years to come there are going to be a lot people down south surprised by what she will achieve as she has been written off by a lot of people - which is always a good sign for great achievements - a dollar will get you a timbit there are a lot of people underating her right now - if she is smart this can be very useful

and

by MBC26
Oct 02 2009
6:39 PM

I believe Sarah is going to be the next President. Mind you she is not a Community Activist by trade. She did not attend the Church with a Minister who is a radical and hates America. She is not surrounded by the Chicago Mob as her protectors. Hollywood hates her with a passion because she makes them all look like inbreeding ingrates. With all these things against her she is strong enough to prevail and succeed.

and

by wnaegele
Oct 02 2009
7:54 PM

As "dumb" and "ignorant" as Palin is alleged to be, she is about to tear a collective new one in elitists' lily-livered backsides...

and ... well, you get the idea. So congratulations, Adrian. As I said before, it's a lucky man that finally finds his intellectual level, so it must be a relief for you to finally give up trying to write anything of substance or value, and just pander to the ignorant mob purely for the sake of the unthinking adulation.

Perhaps a Senior Fellowship at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy awaits. Chase your dreams, Adrian. That's what I always say. Nothing is out of reach for the blogger who's willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of having no principles whatsoever for the sake of those precious Sitemeter numbers.

Ask Kate McMillan.

P.S. I notice that the soon-to-be-defunct National Post is still publishing Adrian under his nom de blog, with no disclosure to its readership that that's not his real name. I'm pretty sure that that says everything about the Post that needs to be said, none of it good.

AFTERSNARK: Playing to his new base, Adrian perpetuates the latest talking point:

Raphael Alexander: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the self-hating Jew

And then there's reality. Luckily, Adrian's new fans aren't terribly interested in reality. I see a bright future for that boy. A future which doesn't involve any respect for facts or brown people, but a bright future, nonetheless.

DEEP AFTERSNARK: Whenever I hear someone praising the notion of, you know, "real" Americans or the ordinary people, the man on the street as it were, I am inevitably reminded of:



I'm sure that requires no explanation.

Your point being?

I don't get it. Then again, he is a Blogging Tory. That might be explanation enough.

Why do liberals hate America?

Oh, wait, it's not liberals. My bad.

With douchebagitude, patience is a virtue.

If you wait long enough, they will embarrass themselves. If Barack Obama told them to blow dead bears, would that make him a bad person?

I wouldn't get too smug, M.J.

I'm guessing the Post has an infinitely large stable of wankers who will write for the price of lunch. Ask Adrian.

Who wants a piece of this action?

Not surprisingly, Impolitical has the latest scoop on Lisa Raitt's eye-rolling abuse of political power, which behooves us to ask what the Manning Centre for Wingnut Welfare's Stephen "Captain Democracy" Taylor will have to say about this, so let's consider the possibilities and take bets:

• Ignore it entirely, and continue Google Earthing some woods near downtown Toronto


• Not see an issue here, I'm sorry, what's your problem?


• "But ... but ... but ... the Liberals!! Hey, did I mention I'm a scientist?"


• Publicly acknowledge Raitt's behaviour as grossly unethical and illegal, and demand that she be held to account for her law-breaking.

No, no, just kidding about that last one -- I only threw that in to yank your chains. Seriously, place your bets.

Too much knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Indeed.

BREAKING NEWS: Pierre Poilievre is an obnoxious little turd.

Hey, don't take my word for it -- even a Blogging Tory thinks so.

Whenever you see that little shit, don't you have an overwhelming urge to stuff him into a locker?

When total fuckups do math, ...

... it's never pretty.

And when snark doesn't work, you just look like a dick.

It's not the good news that's so amusing:

Waitrose dumps Fox News in protest over remarks about Barack Obama

... Waitrose, which prides itself more on its "quality food, honestly priced" than staring down rightwing attack dogs, has become the latest firm to pull its ads from Fox News after presenter Glenn Beck's remarks about the US president.

It's this innocuous snippet buried further down in the piece:

An angry Waitrose shopper who emailed the chain to express his distaste over its decision "to be associated with this particular form of rightwing cant" received an apology last week.

Which prompted this particularly embarrassing retort in the comments section:

I guess those who patronise Waitrose write longhand and don't have access to a spellchecker.

Apparently, right-winger illiteracy is not a North American phenomenon.

A double dose of douchebag.

Blogging Tory Maria "Dodo Can Froth" Nunes is all a-twitter about recent developments in Afghanistan:



On the other hand, Maria's BT colleague and official Conservative Party of Canada racist "Neo Conservative" is not quite so impressed:



We'll give them both a couple of days to get their stories straight. Childish propaganda works better that way.

I need a word beyond "irony."

Say what?

And, Dawg, if your only allies are C**C and the Jackal it is usually time to review your position.

That would be one Jay Currie, unabashed Arnie "Blazing Cat Fur" Lemaire admirer, telling Dr. Dawg that he needs better friends.

Wrap your head around that.

This just never gets old.

At least the NYT has the right photo:



On the other hand, I'm thinking the gay cowboy pic has some journalistic value. I might have to drop someone an e-mail.

Mockery would be superfluous.

Behold. Really, you can't even make fun of her anymore.

Pull out your wallet -- it's for a good cause.

[Still going for the guilt factor here. And, FYI, we've raised almost $300 through donations to the CC HQ blog alone. I have no idea how much more has gone directly to the Crisis Centre but I'll do my best to find out.]

And this is where you sloths start making up for all the snark you've been reading here for years for free, so pay attention. It's time for you to shell out a few bucks, and it's for a good cause.

Here.

Yes, it's a bike ride. No, I won't be doing the ride myself, but we'll get to that.

This is where the money's going, so you can see you can throw some money their way one of two ways -- online donation, or drop it in the mail. And what does this have to do with CC HQ since I'm not even riding? I'm glad you asked.

This year, I'm not even remotely in shape for that ride but, hard to believe, I did it a few years back. That year, it was a nice, round 200 km in one day and, yes, I finished with the pack, even though my contribution was to tuck in behind the group and fight desperately to hang with some of the fastest riders in the area.

So even though I'm not doing it this year, I'm going to get all retrospective and suggest that you can cough up some cash for people who probably need it way more than you do, in honour of the longest 1-day ride I ever survived once upon a time.

Here's the challenge. I'm going to dig around behind the couch cushions until I come up with $50. Match that, sucka. And when you donate, feel free to say it's related to CC HQ/WCC Charity Ride, and I can find out afterwards just how well you kids did.

I personally raised $900 that year. Think you can beat that?

P.S. I'm fucking serious. Feel free to encourage your readers to get involved by linking here. And don't embarrass me. That would just make me angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Oh, wait ... I'm always angry. Never mind, then. Just send money.

ORRRRRRR ... you can also dump whatever you can into the Paypal bucket here at CC HQ, mark it clearly as being for the ride, and I'll send it on. Whatever makes it easy to take your money.

YOU FOLKS ROCK. There's already been $55 tossed into the CC HQ Paypal bucket for the crisis centre -- no idea yet who's taking advantage of snail mail or the electronic donation service over there, so one can hope there's even more going their way.

And if you want, leave a comment mentioning that you've donated. Feel free to brag. And guilt everyone else. That's what guilt is for.

SEP 28 UPDATE: And the money continues to roll in, another $75 just this morning. Make sure you mark it as being for the charity ride/crisis centre, otherwise it might be a beer and pizza evening. :-) I'm assuming everything that's come in so far is crisis centre-related. Thanks muchly.

SEP 30 UPDATE: Another $50. Good job.

Hypocrisy? Why do you ask?

Shorter Canadian Wankersphere: "We would like to take a minute off from mocking Barack Obama worship to ask -- Isn't Stephen Harper just the dreamiest? *Sigh*."

Jay Currie is ugly.

Apparently, that's the sort of thing that passes for funny on his planet.

And here's where we juxtapose: Roman Polanski edition.

Curiously, the people who have been perpetually silent with respect to the Catholic Church are, suddenly, absolutely adamant that taking sexual advantage of a 13-year-old is rape.

Go figure.

The level of obdurate stupidity is really astonishing.

Blogging Tory Maria "Dodo is an Idiot" Nunes goes full-metal shrieky as only she can:

Something is seriously wrong with Bloc Quebecois MPs

On Sep 30, MP Joy Smith's bill C-268 on child trafficking law, was adopted after the third reading with a vote of 239 in favor and 46 opposing. The Bill has now moved to the Senate and needs approval before becoming law.

43 BQ MPs and 3 NDP MPs opposed the bill.

Tell me, what sort of a person do you have to be to oppose a bill that will deter child traffickers and if not deterred , clamp down mandatory sentences on the scum? In my personal opinion, the MPs who are opposing Bill C-268 are not representing their constituents because I refuse to believe that any thinking person would want to keep a child trafficker from going to jail.

Fuckin A! The BQ clearly supports slavery and trafficking in human beings since, after all, there can't possibly be another reason for their resistance. Oh, wait:

Although we are well aware of the worldwide scourge that is human trafficking, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill. Allow me to explain the reasons for its decision.

In 2005, the Bloc Québécois voted in support of Bill C-49. Creating an offence to specifically condemn human trafficking was necessary, and we willingly cooperated to see it passed. The amendment to the Criminal Code gave law enforcement authorities the legal tools they need to prosecute and convict anyone who unfortunately engages in these horrible practices that show no respect for human dignity.

Bill C-268, however, we believe is a step in the wrong direction. By automatically imposing a minimum sentence of five years on anyone convicted of the trafficking of persons under 18, the government is not solving anything. I will explain why.

First of all, many experts have established that minimum sentences have negative effects and dubious value when it comes to fighting crime.

For instance, criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1997 for the Department of Justice of Canada in which he concluded:

Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations... the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations and no discernible effect on crime rates.

In early May 2006, during a press conference on the controversial passing of Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety at the time were forced to acknowledge that no Canadian study has demonstrated that new measures to introduce minimum penalties are effective in fighting crime.

Minimum sentences can also have a negative impact. According to André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, minimum sentences can encourage plea bargaining by lawyers wanting to have their clients charged with offences that do not have minimum sentences. Minimum sentences can also force judges to acquit an individual, rather than be forced to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances...

In addition, Bill C-268 is not consistent. It does not provide for a minimum sentence when an offender found guilty of trafficking of a minor kidnaps, commits an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against or causes death to the victim during the commission of the offence. The bill does not change the subsection that covers this.

We are having a hard time understanding the logic behind Bill C-268. On the one hand, they say that they want to prevent serious offences involving the trafficking of minors by imposing minimum sentences, but on the other, they are not changing sentences for offenders who use extreme violence in committing the crime.

To ensure the most appropriate court rulings possible, we would be wise to look at recommendation 33 of the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report on human trafficking. Judges and prosecutors should be informed of, educated about, and made aware of the Criminal Code provisions concerning human trafficking and the disastrous impact of this crime on its victims.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is still, and will always be, prevention. We have to attack crime at the root. That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that people can live peacefully and safely.

Huh. A careful, thoughtful discussion of the issues, backed up with references and supported by what would appear to be logical and rational analysis, to the point where it at least suggests that there are some things here worth discussing further. It's no wonder Maria didn't understand any of it.

Sing me some hypocrisy, I'm the piano man.

There was this:

Ordinary folks don't care about arts: Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sparked a culture war in the federal election campaign with a claim that "ordinary people" don't care about arts funding.

Under fire for his government's $45 million in cuts to arts and culture funding, the Conservative leader yesterday said average Canadians have no sympathy for "rich" artists who gather at galas to whine about their grants.

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people," Harper said in Saskatoon, where he was campaigning for the Oct. 14 election.

Then, curiously, there was this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper received a standing ovation after he surprised guests at a National Arts Centre Gala in Ottawa on Saturday night by playing the piano and singing a light-hearted Beatles tune.

Huh. Handy little photo op, that. I wonder how that was arranged. Oh:

Harper's wife, Laureen, is chairwoman of the NAC gala.

In unrelated news, Canada's Blogging Tories pretty much creamed themselves over this latest exercise in pathological narcissism. The grunting and moaning from Brenda/"Hunter" in Edmonton could be heard as far south as Red Deer.

P.S. I wonder about the reaction if someone in the audience had interrupted Harper's performance with "You suck!" I'm betting that all those staunch free speech, "You lie!" defenders would think that that was terribly, terribly gauche.

But that's just a guess.

Oh, dear God.

This is not going to end well for someone.

OH, DEAR: If at first you don't succeed ...

Degree of difficulty: Negative infinity.

Blogging Tory and official Conservative Party of Canada spokesperson Maria S Nunes:

There is a reason why our parents instilled in many of us “if you cannot say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”

Blogging Tory and official Conservative Party of Canada spokesperson Maria S Nunes:

Critics of Sarah Palin are losers of the first order .... The only life in the Republican party during the 2008 elections was due to Sarah Palin, and anybody who wants to deny it, is a stupid, idiotic moron .... Steve Schmidt who made remarks to the "huff and puff ", a rag that I would not use even to line the bottom of my garbage bin, and a rag which is visited by leftish morons to get their daily fix of bile and poison to tide them over until the next craving hits them, has gleefully published Schmidt's remark demeaning Palin. Here's what Mark Levin had to say to that moron: .... And here's what Rush had to say about the bonehead: ....

Stephen Taylor must be so fucking proud.

A trifecta of ... something.

Yeah:

Lord Monckton praises National Post's fearless climate skepticism

Blogging Tory JR, Lord Christopher Monckton and the National Post. If he could have worked "Hunter" and Dr. Roy in there somehow, it would have been priceless.

Oh, that would be this Lord Monckton. In case you were curious.

A totally predictable development.

Shorter Blogging Tory and official Conservative Party of Canada spokesperson "Neo Conservative": "Black people suck."



Unsurprisingly, commenter "Rob C" seems utterly unconcerned that Mohamud is a native of Somalia and that all of her adventures happened in Kenya. Such trivialities are, of course, of no interest whatsoever to the people we're talking about here. Facts are such burdensome things.

AH, THE UNINTENTIONAL HILARITY, as paranoid schizophrenic and screeching howler monkey Weiner Pratfall also can't be bothered with such frivolities as, you know, what is:



Apparently, reality really is too much work for some people.

BREAKING NEWS: Conservative MP lies!

No way. Get outta town.

Yeah, about that Sarah Palin worship ...

Reality delivers another swift and savage boot to the berries.

The lack of awareness is sad, but entertaining.

Blogging Tory Brenda/"Hunter" once again launches into another diatribe before fully engaging the ol' intellectual clutch:

I have accused Islam of making women slaves, because a husband can starve his wife if she refuses his advances. Or the family can kill her if she goes out without a male relative. Can you imagine as a female in Canada, having those rules imposed upon you?

Um ... Brenda? You do know it's called the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan," right? The one that tried to do the same thing? The country you and your BT circle-jerk buddies are so desperately happy to have Canadian soldiers die for?

You knew all that, right?

Kind of missing the point.

Shorter Small Dumbass Animal guest blogger Mark: "If you overlook the fact that the Times article I link to in no way supports my argument, I think I have a pretty good argument."

Impy, Impy, Impy ...

"Impolitical" is so adorable when she's being that naive:

Federal institutions do not exist for the advancement of the interests of the Conservative party.

Really? When did that change?

Your outrage is a bit misplaced, Fred.

Blogging Tory Fred "Gay and Right" Litwin gets all high-pitched and shrieky over other peoples' religious inclinations:

And when will Canada get its first Islamic University???

Good news, the US is to get its first Islamic University!!!

Oh, noez!!1!1!11!1! Next thing, you know, the government will be taking your hard-earned tax dollars and shovelling it to "educational" institutions that are just a front for blatant religious indoctrination. Bastards.

Oh, wait ...

I almost feel guilty when it's that easy. Almost.

I think I'm gonna barf.

The descent into Sarah Palin-flavoured panty-sniffing adulation is complete, as Adrian "Raphael Alexander" MacNair channels Maria "Dodo Can Spell" Nunes.

How fucking stupid is Glenn Beck?

This stupid (at about 1:00 in, you'll know what I'm talking about):



The stupid is just awesome, isn't it?

And if you don't like their principles, ...

... you can piss off.

P.S. Call me crazy, but I'm going to guess that Canada's Blogging Tories -- those staunch conservative defenders of morals, ethics and the public purse -- are all going to be "too busy" to blog on this. Call it a hunch.

I'm also guessing Stephen "Captain Democracy" Taylor is unavailable for comment, what with being occupied with Google Maps or some such.

ALL RIGHT, so I screwed up the link. So sue me. No, wait ...

Where's a DSM-IV when you really need one?

There has to be a name for this condition:



Seriously, you could design an entire abnormal psych curriculum around the last several weeks of blog posts from that deranged harpy.

Yeesh.

BONUS TRACK: That link takes you here, where commenter "Some Republican Guy" proffers one of the greatest political opinions of all times:

Can't wait to read it. Sarah is way smarter than Obama. She went to 5 colleges and he only went to one.

Yeah, Palin really made the rounds in pursuit of that journalism degree before her brief stint as a sportscaster. And Obama? Sticking it out at Harvard the whole time for that law degree. What a loser.