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.