Rue

First let me make clear I do not work for CSIS nor Mossad, the CIA, Deuxieme Bureau, MI-6, FBI, NCIS, Shin Bet, South Korean Intelligence Agency, Mexican State police nor have I ever worked for the RCMP and I do not own a taser. Secondly, may I state with certainty although I can not reveal my sources, that no CSIS has not assassinated anyone. It barely has a budget to operate and it has very little if any funds to go overseas and do much of anything. As for the CIA while they use drones to try locate terrorists, chances are it is a conventional armed force in the United States, most probably the navy that is responsible for the actual missiles sent to take a terrorist out in Pakistan. Don't watch too much of that James Bond stuff. Reality is a lot more boring. As well, there is a lot of disinformation sent back and forth as to these things-I doubt any of us will find out the actual truth until many years later when its no longer strategically compromising to reveal what actually happened. Play fair you say? How does one play fair with a terrorist? The reality is anything goes. Terrorists follow no rules. Trying to play paddy cake with someone who is trying to amputate your limbs is not a good idea.

Yes sorry JBG I meant JB Globe. Apologize. Do you have a reference for the Israeli soldiers in Gaza using civilians as shields?

Your lack of awareness of dhimmitude and therefore what is behind the above statement by Arafat shows in your bias comments. How is it you refer to Jews wanting the right to a state apartheid, but when the Muslim world demands all its states be Muslim, you selectively ignore that? How is it you accuse Israel of being apartheid but completely ignore the actual apartheid system in place in most Muslim states today because of the lack of seperation between state and religion and the concepts of sharia law which enshrine in their state institutions second class citizenship for non Muslims. How is it you lecture Israel on having to be non Jewish but do not argue the same for Muslim states not being Muslim states either? How its it you make the sweeping statement Israel is an apartheid state when you are well aware its non Jewish citizens have equal access to its hospitals, schools, government services, unlike Jews and non Muslims in the Mulsim states, can and do own land and win legal battles in court over land title, are granted the right to be served by the government in Arabic and official language of the state, vote in non Jewish politicians, and have total autonomy in their religious and family court systems and you call this apartheid when you are fully aware no Jew or non Muslim has any of these rights in a Muslim country and no black person had these same rights in South Africa. Tell me, do you think your double standard that Jews are the only people in the world who should not be allowed self-determination through a state is anything but your own discrimination or dhimmitude or apartheid against Jews. You want to throw that word about then look at how you single out Jews as the only people in the world you see fit to lecture as to whether they should have the right to protect their Jewish collective identity in a state organ. You seem to have no problem with Muslim states doing the same for Muslims, or Ireland doing the same with a law of return for the Irish, Japan offering a law of return for any ethnic Japanese person and the same law of return in Lativia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, both Chinas, Estonia, Belgium, Germany, the Czech republic, the Slovak Republic, etc. Your bias indicates you do not understand what dhimmitude is and why you engage in this hippocracy which only questions Jews. We don't know our place now do we? Is that it? We should just know our place and not demand we b be protected from existential extermination? Right? We just forget dhimmitude and what it has done to us in the Muslim world and we just forget the thousands of years of what Christian dhimmitude did to us-we just shut our uppity mouths and keep ourselves quiet, right? No. Never again. Look in the mirror at your own culture's reflection before you presume you are morally righteous enough to lecture Jews on how they should express their collective identity. You may find some skeletons in your closet. Sounds like you still can't resist lecturing the Jew on where we belong. Thanks, I have no interest in playing golf at your club and I find your food bland and too focused on boiling the taste out of everything.

JBG you made an allegation that and I quote; "the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields.... it's an unofficial policy... many people knows(sic) it happens, but they keep quiet about it until some evidence emerges, then someone has to be the fall guy and claim that they were acting alone." I would like to see your references for what you base the above allegations on and then I and perhaps others can respond further. It seems to be though if you are going to make such allegations you should prove a reference.

I find when I go onto the forum now to read threads all I get is a flow chart. It ruins the ability to follow the flow of the conversation. Is this a new feature?

So let me get this straight. You want Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, the U.S., Canada, all the nations of Central and South America disbanded. Dang that is one ambitious agenda you have. Now I know the above is true because Myata you would never be subjective and impartial and single out only one nation you don't think should exist when applying this criteria. No not you. You are completely objective and impartial. You are veeeeeeeery objective and impartial (by any strench-of imagination).

Misrepresenting what I stated won't help you Myata. By the way I love your selectivity. Its interesting you conveniently ignore that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, egypt, Sudan, Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, all the Gulf states-all colonial created borders and yet in your world, you ignore that but then try twist what I said on the inference that Israel's borders were defined by colonialists. Unlike the Arab League of Nations' borders, Israels were not defined by the British or French as you are well aware-they came about because of the Arab League decision to try wipe out the Jews of Palestine-the borders came about out of default, i.e., de facto when the Arab League fled. Ever since then you and the Arab League sit and have a prolonged temper tantrum that you lost the war.

Mufti. Bah. A mere annoyance/ Don't get me going on Muhammed though. We go way back. You should here what he said about my great great grandfather Isaac and my great great great grandfather Abe. Now mind you some people tell me when he said what he did he was actually smoking hash hish and his comments were written down on leaves which were then re-written so they may have lost a bit from their original translation but I am pretty sure he said I was a bastard infidel liar. Then again come to think of it, he is probably right. I better call Melissa Rivers and ask her what I should do.

Lol,. hard to believe I have nothing else to say? I have written many posts on the topic. Not much more to say other then that I appreciated your suggestions and basically agree with them. Key Kidd how many kudos do you want? Lol. Seriously, that may be the problem. We should just stop when we try make sense and recognize each side's rights as best we can. Sometimes the best suggestions need to be kept simple. There is plenty of time for the lawyers to move in and draft these lengthy preambles and heretofor wheretofor rambling treaties.

You were doing fine until you just could not resist the partisan shots and reverted to the usual name calling. Here's a hint-as long as you are so quick to launch into such rhetoric, as long as you feel so unable to resist such rhetoric and pointing the finger, it may continue to take more time and no in this instance, its you not some Israel supporter causing the hold up. Don't piss up wind. It comes back to haunt you everytime.

Who are these people you refer to? You think his style let alone line of referencing is wide spread? Did it ever dawn on you his style of comedy may be isolated only to himself. You going to use his joke telling to engage in such stereotypes? Really? Me when I tell jokes I usually include with a Jewish guy if I use a Jewish guy Paris Hilton and a Newfoundlander and a Quebecois since I am from Montreal originally. Paris you just have to get in there. I don't use Lindsay Lohan anymore. Now that she has switched back to the A team certain guys think they have a chance with her and tell me to lay off her now. Personally I think her cold sores make for great comedy material.

Using your reasoning, only Muslims have legal rights to land ownership in the Middle East. Yes we know. Been there, done that. Its called Dhimmitude. Problem is it is simplistic as it is flawed. You assume because the actual people living in Palestine were Muslim this confers them legal ownership to the land. That is the kind of subjective leap of historic revision some of us notice. Why? Because we are aware that using your definition of Palestinian you include any Muslim who came to Palestine and is not Palestinian but moved there has legal owneship to the land but if a Jwe moved there from outside Palestine, they do not. Yes like I said, I know, you love Dhimmitude and the concept that only Muslims can own land. Yes we know. Any Muslim who moved to Palestine at any time is automatically Palestinian. I love your definition of Palestinian. There is no distinct language, cultural or for that matter was there ever a nation of Palestinians. What there is of course is a mix of Muslims who came to the area and you now call Palestinians and those actual real Palestinians, who were Muslim, but and Christian and Druze who have always lived in the geographic zone once called Palestine but the Jews who always lived in Palestine, well of course in your definition we just pretend they do not exist because all Jews are colonialist invaders right? Been there. Done that. Some of us though try to understand the development of history without putting on your anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli bias and attempt to expand the definition of Palestinian to include non Palestinians as long as they are Muslims. See for some of us we are well aware the actual natives to Palestine very rarely had title to property. They were dirty poor itinerants moving from swamp to swamp trying to farm or herd goats and tend the land of absentee land owners in the Ottoman Empire. However your attempt to suggest they all owned the land legally of course asks us to pretend they did. There was no state apperatus that defined their citizenship or legal status nor did they ever establish land title ownership but to you, no problem as long as they are Muslim we can simply call them Palestinian and deny any non Muslim any right to own land there. The Jews that came there and bought swamp land and land no one else wanted legally and at high prices, of course yes we know, they stole the land. They never paid for it. They just stole it all and they then used the holocaust as an excuse to move there. Never mind the vast majority of "Palestinians" to this day reject Jordan as a Palestine state-because of course in your definition we just ignore that Jordan was created out of 88% of Palestine unilaterally and illegally by the British and that country had a law of return for Palestinians but forbid any Jews from owning land or obtaining citizenship. As for the 900,000 Jews expelled from Arab Leage Nations because they had the nerve to be Jews-well never mind 700,000 of them were homeless and were forced to move to Israel-they should have no rights. In your convenient world land title and ownership never can be a Jew thing now can it. We just ignore that all Muslim nations forbid Jews and other non Muslims from owning land or enjoying equal citizenship. Why would we care. Its just Jews right? They can go back to Europe. I mean the European nations will simply give them back all their property they stole. The Swiss Banks, no problem, they will hand back all the money. Oh say now, those laws in Europe that didn't allow Jews to own land, oh never mind. In today's progressive climate the Jews can live in tolerance side by side with the Romanos and Muslims and Africans and Turks...oh no wait Mr. LaPenn in France has a problem with that. Say now they can return to their Muslim countries. No wait. They can't do that. Say I know they can all just move to Venezuela. Oh no wait. Mr. Chavez wouldn't like that at all. Say how about Iran? Er no, better not. They are still finishing up wiping out the remaining Bahaiis. Oh I know, Sudan. No wait. Libya. No. Algeria? Hmm. How about Mexico. No wait swine flu. Here's my point-Jews are going nowhere. Neither are the Muslims living outside Israel who other Arab League nations turned into pawns and refuse citizenship to. They both need nations. They both need the same things. Your attempt to twist history to paint the conflict as black and white with only one rightful group of people to land is pointless. Its as pointless as the terrorism that this rhetoric fuels and the insane religious fundamentalism many use to justify hating each other in the name of God.

I backed you up further but I am afraid the response may be I simply reproduced "Zionist apologist" sites.

Here are some web-sites that repudiate the myth that anti-semitism in the Middle East is only related to Israel and being anti-Zionist: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=21014 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020762.php http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/arab_anti2.html http://www.cccj-ab.org/joffe.htm http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPag...70&IID=1554 http://www.zionism.netfirms.com/ArabAntiZionism.htm http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...r&ID=SR2604 http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/islam.html There is a text by Andrew Boston entitled: The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism : From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, which clearly documents anti-semtiism from the begnninings of Islam to its current 20th century remodification after the Palestinian conflict. The fact that a new strain of anti-semitism emerged in the 1930's fueled by the Nazis does not mean dhimmitude did not exist or Jews lived peacefully in the Middle East without anti-semitism prior to that. To even suggest that I would reflect is an attempt to revise and selectively delete the theological roots of anti-semitism in Islamic religion.

Here I know it is a favourite exercise of anti-Israelis to quote Haaretz whenever they can whenever they find an article they think supports their argument and then infer since it is an Israeli newspaper it has to be true. So here want to read about anti-semitism and its origins in the Muslim world, be my guest: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078446.html

Excuse me that is just silly. Dhimmitude had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict nor do the passages in the Koran and Sharia law that defines Jews as infidels, liars, unworthy, etc. In fact anti-semitism and for that matter prejudice against all other non Muslims including Christians, Bahaiis, Hindus, was and remains an essential element of how Muslim is preached and practiced and to try suggest there is no such thing as anti-semitism in the Middle East, it is all just anti-Israel rhetoric is absurd. I also share Angus' disdain for some of you trying to hide behind the word "inherent". Talk about a toothless word. What do some of you mean when you say "inherent", do you even know? Interestingly in Constitutional Law no one has a clue what it means so before you rag on Argus about it, some of you do need to provide a definition that doesn't allow you to have it mean whatever you want it to mean. I may not agree with Argus on many things, but he does not mince his words and I agree with him that mincing words by trying to use words like inherent to putter around an issue and play semantics is pointless in this case. There you go Argus. I think I usually give you one complement for every shot I take across your bow. I am pretty sure the ration is 1 to 1. Then again if it is not what do you expect...I have bleeding heart tendencies.

Bang on. can you imagine actually putting all the relevant laws, treaties, conventions (written and unwritten) down on the table leading up to the Charter, BNA Act, etc. That is what you would have to do to properly understand the constitution. It is not just the BNA Act and Charter and you are bang on it starts right back with the Magna Carta Act. Most people won't read more then a paragraph on an inter-net site these days. I do note Mr. Bambino that when I do read your comments however, you seem to be quite aware and comfortable speaking about the constitution and its doctrine. I commend you for that. I have no patience to be able to do what you do some days and read it in proper context both historically and legally. I defer to you.

I had to when I studied to get my B.A. in Political Science, then Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws. I am such an ancient dinosaur I can remember when there was no Charter of Rights and the Constitution was a mix of the Bill of Rights and unwritten conventions and simply the BNA Act. Quite frankly its misleading to read the Charter. It can't be read literally. It doesn't necessarily get applied as it reads. As well about the only part of the BNA Act that would make sense to laymen is the division of powers betweent he feds and provinces. People should read the charter but they should not automatically assume it means what it seems to state. You also have to read case law interpreting how to apply it. I personally find Constitutional Law to be the biggest crock of doodoo I have ever seen. It is to me a whole bunch of politically arbitrary policies disguised by pseuto logic justifications. It to me is absurd. I find constitutions to be fictional reading. Its like reading the Bible. People interpret it any way they want for politically partisan reasons.

Many of us have but that is not the point I was making and clearly is the point you missed. The fact that there have been different forms of guerilla warfare in existence for thousands of years does not for one second suggest the United Nations or the League of Nations ever attempted or have attempted to draft a treaty addressing a convention for the treatment of child terrorists or terrorists and yes there is a huge difference between a guerilla and a terrorist not that you seem to notice. Guerillas limit their tactics to the opposing army not civilians. Armies or guerilla forces that attack civilians behave in a different manner then armies of guerillas who attack civilians. This is why there are international laws for armies that attack civilians or guerillas who attack armies but when it comes to guerillas attacking civilians the international laws are silent unless those guerillas are in a conventional army. International law will not impede on a soverign state's right to create a domestic criminal law to deal with non army persons within their country attacking civilians. You missed that distinction completely in your response to me. Further the fact that guerillas and terrorists and armies have all been engaging in conflict for milenium is irrelevant to the point I was making and if it was relevant you would simply trot out the international law that deals with child terrorists or any terrorists. This is precisely why there is no international anti-terror force sanctioned t invade any country it wants and operate under its own laws. If an international force is constituted to fight terrorists it needs the legal consent of the host nation and must hand over terrorists to the host nation's authority unless that host nation agrees to an other arrangement. In the case of Afghanistan, the state legally sanctioned the U.S. and all other armies as part of the UN force to arrest and detain Taliban because the state did not have sufficient military or local prisons let alone a security guard apperatus or police apperatus to monitor and enforce the incarceration of such offenders. That is why under international law, the U.S. would have been allowed to imprison Kadr as a pow although technically he was a terrorist. There are international laws as to the treatment of child soldiers but as another poster pointed out Kadr did not qualify as a child soldier-he was not part of a legal army-he was part of a terrorist cell that had illegally entered Afghanistan and was committing crimes against the Afghani state making Kadr a criminal in Afghanistan as well as a terrorist. The assumption he is entitled to the Young Offender Act's standard is erroneous. He did not commit the crimes he is accused of in Canada. Criminal law of Afghanistan applies. This is precisely why the U.S. tried to create this hybrid mess of a law to deal with terrorists. It tried unilaterally to fill the gap international law still has not dealt with and my point was the U.S. Bush regime screwed up their attempt big time because Bush went over the head of the Judge Advocate General of the US Armed Forces who told him to cool it and leave Kadr in a military prison. This is why I say to Army we must hold our nose with Kadr. There are no international laws that deal with child terrorists at this time let alone terrorists and they need to be drafted and then signed by nations but then of course the nations supplying the terrorists would never agree to sign such treaties anyways. I am not sympathetic to Kadr' plight but I appreciate the law must be followed and not broken otherwise we set dangerous anti-democratic precedents. What most people conveniently suspend from their reality when discussing Kadr as a victim simply because he is 15 is that he belongs in an Afghani prison sentenced under Afghani criminal laws and this assumption a Canadian can go anywhere and engage in terror and be protected by the Young Offender Act is to me pure b.s. If he's re-patriated then yes that b.s. will prevail and will have valid legal standing and probably prevail although if I was a crown I would argue his crimes were so hineous as to warrant him being tried in adult court. Then again in Canada if you murder someone you only get a sentence of 10 years,w ith 5 automatically deducted because there is no room in prison, and then another half of the remaining sentence deducted as long as you do not kill someone in prison. I share Army's views and disgust but as a lawyer I must state until we change the laws we can't break them just because they create situations many of us find politically absurd. I want to get back to what Army tried to explain. For those of you that think child terrorists are magically innocent because they are under 16 you would change your mind quickly if you saw the devastation a hand explosive device being carried by a 7 year old can cause or how 8 year olds throw grenades and shoot weapons no differently then adults when placed in certain situations-in fact they are easier to send out to fight or engage in terror-they are far easier to emotionally manipulate and their full sense of fear is not yet developed.

Now lets see under window no.1, is some spoiled privileged rich girl and in window no.2 are some lying sob's trying to get Canadian citizenship the quick way. They deserve each other.

That one went over your head Myata. You should read Mr. Chateau's comments again you missed the point he was making and you repeated the absurdity he is questioning. Are you suggesting ethnicity and race are the same thing? Of course you are. That is why you want to redefine the word racism to not apply to discrimination based on race but ethnicity-you need to if you are going to engage in your politically partisan exercise to single out only Zionism as the moral outrage you wish to save the world from. If you want to pretend ethnicity is race Myata to be able to engage in the let us single out only Zionism to pee pee cluck about, then people like Mr. Chateau will point out what you are doing is absurd, not because he supports Zionism but because you are in fact changing the definition. Do explain to us how race and ethnicity are the same. Do explain when someone calls an Irishman a Mic, that is racist. Do you even know what a race is. Here is a hint an Irishman is caucasian unless of course he's a Moor then he's just a black dude from the Middle East who over the years and lack of sun got a bit pasty. Me personally I don't get hung up on what an Irishman is-all I know is I don't call them Mics cuz they can kick yer bum no matter what colour it is real good if you are rude to them, especially Irishwomen. Wait next you will tell me a Newfoundlander is a race of people. Stop. Please. Everyone knows a Newfoundlander is not a race but a spiritual state of mind brought on by clean air, gooseberry pie, cod tongue, Moose meat, and screech not to mention speaking real funny so they sound like Irish people with arthritis.

I agree with Argus and what you said. For years Canada coasted on depending on the U.S. armed forces to protect it and so gutting its armed forces to non operational levels including its Coast Guard. We can't have it both ways. We either maintain a proper Coast Guard and Armed Forces to enforce our sovereignty up North and in regards to Fisheries and coastal security or we shaddup when we create a vacum that forces the Americans to pick up the slack. Canada like many nations in the past relied on the US Armed Forces, in particular the US Navy and overseas US military posts to protect its business interests but at the same time avoiding the political backlash of having its own military presence overseas letting the Yanks take all the shit. Not just Canada but all of Europe and many other countries. Now that Obama is taking a conciliatory and cooperative apprach, its time we put up or shut up. If we don't want the U.S. acting unilaterally, then its time to work with the Yanks and reduce some of the pressure on them our complacency has placed. I think Canada must have a strong Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force because of the geographic size of the nation and today's shrinking globe and ease of movement of people requires we have properly trained armed forces whether they be military or para-military to deal with environmental, health and terrorist risks.

Canada will not act unilaterally and ignore any existing international laws or its existing criminal laws. Stephen Harper has conceded that. The current delay in repatriating Kadr is a political sound bite for political partisan purposes for the upcoming election and we all know it. It makes Harper look tough on terrorism and anyone who argues Kadr should be repatriated as soft on terror. Its crass partisan politics using Kadr as the pawn. Excuse the next cynical comment but I personally believe it is only a matter of time until Kadr comes back to Canada, is treated as a social victim of child abuse, given a free university education, housing and therapy and then is elected leader of the Islamic Bloc in federal parliament. Its what we do in Canada. So all I can do is prepare the Lox Bloc, a coalition of cynical Canadians who will push for smoked salmon becoming the national dish and the outlawing of beards as well as a law forcing everyone to dress like Lindsay Lohan as well as the arrest of anyone playing Celine Dion or Anne Murray music as well as the appointment of Shania Twain as Governor General and the arrest of Gary Bettman and his being imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay.

I personally have to agree with you that today's treaties were not written at a time when we contemplated a blurring of the line between conventional soldiers of adult age, and civilians engaged in a combination of terrorist (attacks on civilians) and conventional war attacks against soldiers, let alone child terrorists or soldiers. It is the exact same problem we have with no international treaties that contemplete today's piracy situation. I would argue Army, until we change the international laws and sign new treaties changing the status quo, we are stuck with the laws we have if he is repatriated as much as I do not think they would be appropriate in this case. I personally thought he should have been detained as a military prisoner of war from the get go and then we would not have had this legal problem but the U.S. created a huge legal one creating this idiotic law where they tried to mix military and domestic law into a new hybrid system which was clearly unconstitutional and violated the constitutions of the U.S., Canada, and the constitutional laws of Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Holland and Poland and Romania all coalition members in Afghanistan. He should have gone into a U.S. war stockade until the end of armed hostilities and then released, or left in an Afghani prison to face Afghani domestic laws. The Bush regime wanted to make a political court to engage in a political message and mucked this up and this is why the British and Australians pulled their prisoners out and the Dutch did too. Canada was the only coalition member that remained silent. Your point Army is precisely why we need to re-write both domestic and international laws. Until then what can we do? We can't ignore the existing laws. So I say we have to hold our nose with Kadr.

I believe cannabis like prostitution is always going to be something humans engage in. I think both can not be prevented by outlawing them and should be regulated and taxed and the tax money used to fund education programs-in the case of taxes from dope for education programs to encourage people not to smoke pot and understand its negative effects and to pay for the medical and social services that will be needed to address the lung cancer or emphysema or other lung diseases it causes. I no longer smoke pot. I find in my middle age it makes me paranoid and makes all the absurdities of life too insense and overly magnified for me so I personally do not use dope recreationally. I also think it is highly carcinogenic because of the tar and has been shown to create long term permanent brain damage no different then say what booze does and quite frankly you guys smoking it long term are going to grow big girly breasts as studies have shown, but hey be my guest. You can always say your big boobies were caused by steroids not your prolonged dope use. I just would like to see kids not pressured into feeling they have to smoke it to be cool, and proper regulations placed on it like tobacco because it is just as lethal as tobacco and booze and like booze when someone smokes and drives it will lead to deaths and horrible car accidents. I see the concerns as being health ones, unecessary exposure of minors to a behaviour that can seriously cause them harm during their adolescent years when the frontal lobe suddenly increases and the hormonal imbalances when mixed with the active ingredient of THC can trigger suicide and violence in some, or serious memory difficulties or eye problems in others or lung ailments or the usual risks associated with driving or operating machinery. I am sure we all agree whatever side we are on with this issue that for people who need it to alleviate the nausea of chemotherapy or to regulate certain kinds of epilepsy or other pain or other good medical reasons that is a completely different issue then when its used recreationally. As I get older, I think booze, dope, drugs.....all offer people a way to self-indulge and while I think that is what it is self-indulgence, I do not impose my morality on anyone else. Hopefully it is an experimental stage for most people and does not become an addictive crutch. For me I want to be active, lively and clear headed because I feel there is just too much crap going on to smoke dope and become a large complacent drooling blob head and then watch my breasts grow while I morph out on chocolate brownies and have an anxiety attack staring at Stephen Harper and thinking he is Satan or this crazed polygamous Lawrence Welk related mormon with the 5 wives and their identical hair dos and children that all look the same and need to get out in the sun and ditch those Little House on the Prairie costumes.