I didn’t even know there were companies out there who’d insure a property used for growing marijuana. Or, for that matter, who’d insure the actual operation for growing marijuana. Apparently, not only are there companies that do these things, but there’s actually people who want them up here–they’re currently a US thing primarily, it looks like. Yeah, people can’t aford to pay for things they need healthwise but give them their pot insurance. And just when I thought I’d seen it all. People are messed up–but, that’s why I have the blog.

Share this:

Seems them what run the disability support system around here haven’t gotten done having fun with me yet. At the eleventh hour, escentially, with an hour left in the actual business day and therefore not a whole lot of time to actually work around their latest curve, ODSP decides they’d like to go another fun-filled round. We got on the phone with a manager this morning, due to the fact one of us can’t trust our caseworker half as far as we can throw her. Explained the situation, got told she’d look into it and get back to us by the end of business today. So I’m helping Jessica get set up for a project we’re contemplating starting work on, and the call comes in from the manager. I figure okay, she’s got answers for us. We can get part of these issues resolved hopefully before Monday, if not try and prevent the need to go in there in the first place. Not so much. Seems in their spare time, Ontario Disability Support Program employees run random Google searches on folks in the hopes of hitting on something potentially scandalous. One such employee–wouldn’t surprise me if it was the very manager we spoke to, honestly–comes across my blog. There are several pops for people showing up here using keywords related to ODSP and/or Pembroke, so that wouldn’t surprise me. She, or someone working for her, decides to take offense at one or two sentences in a post published here earlier this week. Specificly, this post published here earlier this week. They’ve decided, based on the fact they have plenty of free time and can very easily spend it on Google, that they’re not going to permit me to show up for Monday’s meeting. Taking it a step further, they have apparently decided that my showing up on Monday will constitute a perfectly good reason for them to have the police involved.

So now, not only do we have Wingnut deciding to play the privacy game only if and when it suits her, but higher level management is apparently deciding that I’m a threat to the security and safety of employees of the ministry of community and social services. Instead of me showing up there, they have proposed instead that they call at 9:00 AM on Monday morning–the smart money’s on that phone not ringing at 9:00 AM on Monday morning, just sayin’. We’ll supposedly be holding this meeting via teleconference on that day at that time with all parties involved.

So if I have this straight, and in all likelyhood I may not actually have this straight, potential privacy issues and general incompitence takes a back seat in this ministry to looking for and possibly attempting to make use of some incredibly trivial part of a blog post expressing more than a little tiny bit of frustration with the offending ministry. Really. And the tax dollars of people who actually don’t have a problem finding work are paying for this? That must go over insanely well.

I have not received any notice, written or otherwise, legal or otherwise, requesting and/or requiring me to take down or modify the offending post. Anyone who knows me probably knows just how far such a request would actually get them. The request to not show up on Monday also didn’t come in writing, legal or otherwise. The only reason I’m not seriously considering just showing up there anyway? I’m not *looking* for problems–they’re handing me enough without me helping them along with the process. This meeting will happen. This meeting will happen on Monday. And if this meeting doesn’t happen on Monday, at least one of us, probably both, will be on the next vehicle moving in an officeward direction. Oops–probably shouldn’t of said that. I’ll expect the Ottawa Valley detachment at my door Tuesday morning. Well, if you folks from the offices of the ODSP are going to spend this much time tracking what gets tossed up here when I’m not over my head in job searches, least you could do is drop a comment once in a while–say hi to that guy you’re trying to dig up some dirt on. Wait, no, nevermind–it’s much more fun to yoink lines from a random post completely out of context. My mistake. I’ll know better next time.

Share this:

That’s the message being broadcast by the Transport Security Administration, at least, in the very latest, erm, episode. A woman at Laguardia Airport had been cleared through the scanners, and was well on her way to catch her flight. She was stopped by a TSA agent, and informed she was to be given an on the spot pat-down. she was ordered to assume a spread-eagle position and proceeded to have her breasts, thighs and, well, other places grabbed by the agent. So, according to information, did two other women in that area. Suddenly, it’s not just about finding reasons to feel you up at the checkpoints or seeing how much of passengers’ money you or the folks you work with can walk away with anymore. Yeah, that makes me feel real safe in flight. Where’d I put my bus ticket?

Share this:

Until recently, I always thought Glen Beck was just old and loopy. More loopy than old. Now, I’m convinced the man’s old, loopy and maybe a little senile. He’s decided, according to Slashdot, that while research is perfectly okay, research on Google is all kinds of evil. According to the article, Google’s in bed with the government. Among his evidence against Google is the fact the director of Google Ideas used to work for the state, and Google had some involvement with the protests in Iran last year. All funky suspicious stuff, according to Beck. When you start seeing this many government conspiracies on this little evidence, it’s really high time to seriously give some thought to retirement. *Prompt* retirement. Just a suggestion, Glen. Take it or leave it. Or just leave.

Share this:

The US department of homeland security must really think us canucks are some bunch of evil. Every so often, somebody from that wing of the US government will float the several times over debunked myth that the Canada/US border is actually a weak point re: US security–hence why the 9/11 terrorists, according to many of these same people, were able to enter the US via Canada (they weren’t actually). The latest idea to be floated by this wing of the US government is a one-off thought that the US should require Canadians visiting to first apply for visas. The idea was floated on the US side of the border at the beginning of the month, and was very quickly–and rightly–poopooed by the Canadian immigration minister. And, surprisingly, by the liberal foreign afairs critic–who never actually agrees with any conservative government official on anything.

We already have to apply for a passport before we even think about crossing the border, which is bloody expensive enough–hi, at least $75 and that’s only if you don’t mind waiting a few weeks to actually receive it. And even that was a tiny bit of a pain in the ass to get my hands on. The wait times for those are even getting a little up there, along with some of their fees. Visas to get anywhere else generally take longer than that, and from what I hear, cost more–suddenly not so worth it if you’re only coming down here for a week or two.

Little things like this tend to escape the twitchy parts of the US government, like senator Lieberman. Fortunately the Canadian government isn’t quite so twitchy. Now, perhaps someone over in Washington will provide this unfortunate senator with a little education on just how the real world actually works. Hey, one can dream. In the meantime, keep this man away from anything to do with border security. Clearly, he know not what he do.

Share this:

Sometimes, I see something that just kinda makes me go “Bwuh?”. Usually it comes out of the US, and usually it’s legal. This one, though, I think is trying to set some kind of all-time record. Kevin Singer likes his D and D. Apparently, he got together a bit of an innmate following for it and well, called it a distraction or something, I guess. Everything was going swimmingly–right up to the point where one innmate who probably wasn’t a D and D fan said that god aweful g-word. Then, out came the lawyers.

Basically, a guy who is serving a life sentence for murder, Kevin Singer, was apparently an avid D&D player as well, and had a collection of D&D books and related paraphernalia. However, it was confiscated by the prison after another prisoner complained that Singer was building a “gang” around D&D.

…Waupun’s long-serving Disruptive Group Coordinator, Captain Bruce Muraski, received an anonymous letter from an inmate. The letter expressed concern that Singer and three other inmates were forming a D&D gang and were trying to recruit others to join by passing around their D&D publications and touting the “rush” they got from playing the game. Muraski, Waupun’s expert on gang activity, decided to heed the letter’s advice and “check into this gang before it gets out of hand.”

Singer and the other prisoners named in the letter filed a complaint about the confiscation, and then a lawsuit. Singer got numerous experts to explain that D&D is not related to gang activity. The court claims that some of those experts actually claimed otherwise, but the interpretation here is fuzzy. The court says that these experts disagreed with Singer’s assertions because they claimed that D&D could keep people away from gang activity, and thus it’s “connected” to gang activity. I can’t see how this makes any sense at all. By that reasoning anything that someone does that keeps them away from joining a gang is automatically considered, itself, a gang activity. How does that make sense?

As always, an awesome question posed by the Techdirt authors. Taking it a step farther, how in the 7 levels of hell is a role playing game, and one that’s been around probably since before there were much more creative ways of recruiting folks to join any kind of gang, in any way, shape, or form related to gang activity? I think I missed that transition somewhere in all the WTF. They try to explain themselves below.

Muraski elaborated that during D&D games, one player is denoted the “Dungeon Master.” The Dungeon Master is tasked with giving directions to other players, which Muraski testified mimics the organization of a gang. At bottom, his testimony about this policy aim highlighted Waupun’s worries about cooperative activity among inmates, particularly that carried out in an organized, hierarchical fashion. Muraski’s second asserted governmental interest in the D&D ban was inmate rehabilitation. He testified that D&D can “foster an inmate’s obsession with escaping from the real life, correctional environment, fostering hostility, violence and escape behavior,” which in turn “can compromise not only the inmate’s rehabilitation and effects of positive programming but also endanger the public and jeopardize the safety and security of the institution.”

So let me see if I follow. Group activities in which there’s any kind of order/structure constitutes gang activity. Possessing an imagination constitutes the potential to escape from the facility, and/or potential gang activity. Put them together and you’ve got one hell of a danger to the public. Hence, ban D and D. Really? And I was always told an imagination was a good thing. Clearly, not if you’re doing time in this jurisdiction. Somebody obviously has absolutely no geek skill whatsoever.

Share this:

I haven’t mocked anything from whackjob central, A.K.A. Iran, in a while. I’m due. From the land that brought you bans on valentine’s day, comes a conspiracy theory that’d make your typical overly paranoid North American cringe just a tiny bit. A citizen of the US has been arrested for, yes, spying through her teeth. Yeah, I don’t get it either.

Iranian border guards have arrested an American woman on suspicion of spying. An espionage device was found in her teeth, according to the Iran daily, which is not known for carrying accurate reports.

Yep, they caught us. We’re sending folks into Iran with implants in their teeth to send us back information on what other foreign elements have been banned from use. I think I liked these guys better when they were threatening to nuke us from orbit. Can we go back to that, please?

Share this:

I’ll be the first to admit you shouldn’t need a special day to set aside for the sole purpose of doing something with/for the person you love. And I’d even question that particular day’s actual validity to anyone who isn’t Christian–kinda like me, which is probably why I don’t see the point behind it. But even I haven’t gone so far as to say Valentine’s day should be outlawed. However, if you live in Iran, well, first, I’m sorry. And second, they did. Folks, it’s official. There is no love lost in Iran. None found, either. Somebody get this whackjob dictator a girlfriend. Like, now.

Share this:

Yes, I know it’s your mission in life to make dealing with you as overly confusing and all around draining as humanly possible. I get it. I can appreciate that. Hell, I don’t even mind being part of it–especially if it means you pay me and my cell phone bill goes down by roughly half. I like this idea. What I don’t like is the idea that a simple phone replacement ends up becoming way too convoluted for our own goddamn good, and on top of it, takes 9 phone calls and just about exactly a month to actually resolve. And that includes running over at least two managers to get it done. You sent us a phone we can’t use. We asked you to replace the phone. We told you what phone to replace it with. We were even more than willing to pay the $10 to buy the thing–even though that made me kind of cringe a little inside. So why’d it have to go and be all manner of difficult after that point?

You had to provision us a third line in order to send out the phone. Okay, we get that. You were more than willing to cancel one of the lines when we received the phone and let us return the old one. We get that, too–thanks for that, by the way. That was almost too easy. Which, I suppose, should have given me reason to start developing that nervous twitch I get right about the time things start going to shit. It didn’t. My mistake.

We sent back the phone, as agreed. We sent back the third line’s sim card as well, simply because you shipped it to Petawawa with an Ottawa number. Yeah, brilliant. Really. We then got the pleasure of playing hell for the month of December trying to get that line cancelled. By the way, do you have any idea how difficult it is to clue someone who doesn’t appear to be overly enthused about actually doing that whole listening thing? Neither did I until now.

Just this morning, after bouncing right over yet another customer service agent’s head and speaking to–and cluing once again–yet another manager, the Ottawa number is *finally*, I hope to hell, deader than dead. But that really didn’t need to take this much arm twisting to accomplish, Rogers. No, not even if the first 7 agents I spoke to were brainless. Work on this. For serious. Because the first time someone else comes out with a phone I don’t have to bastardise to get to actually speak to me, I’m running like hell anywhere else. I pay you guys way too much to have to do this dance.

PS: By the way, thanks for the $56 credit on the account. It’s the least you could do, considering I had to go chasing after my scheduled callback. Let’s not do this dance again.

Share this:

It’s no new thing to hear about some parental advocacy group, children’s rights organization or whatever kicking up a fuss over the government not having stepped in to bubble wrap our kids. It’s not even a new thing to hear about it happening in the form of a lawsuit against Mcdonalds, for having the nerve to sell those ridiculous little toy type thinggies with their happy meal. The reason for it, though? Yeah, that’s new.

In the latest round of the campaign to protect us from ourselves, the ultra-meddlesome Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s on behalf of a California mother of two. The suit alleges that the burger chain’s Happy Meal — which comes with a small toy — is deliberately marketed at small children so they will pester their parents to bring them in to the fast-food restaurants.

D’uh.

The lawsuit states, “Children eight-years-old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising. Thus, McDonald’s advertising featuring toys to bait children violates California law because it is inherently deceptive and unfair.”

Okay. Maybe. If the kids didn’t have parents.

And there’s the main point against such insanity right there. It’s not local, state and/or federal governments’ jobs to parent your kids. If you don’t want your kids eating at Mcdonalds, then for the love of all that is holy, please to be not taking your kids to Mcdonalds. It really isn’t hard. They do have one very small point, I’ll grant them–kids don’t generally know better. But that’s *why* they have parents. Granted, not every parent bothers to actually take the time to teach them any better, which falls on the parents more than anything else–but that’s still no excuse to have governments at any level stepping in with one-size-fits-all type rules. Particularly considering there do exist some parents who see absolutely nothing wrong with an occasional trip to Mcdonalds, or wherever else folks want state/federal legislation in place to say is universally bad for kids–yes, my parents were of that mindset and I turned out just fine. Also from the article:

When our kids were eight and younger, they didn’t have the cognitive skills to understand it was a bad idea to run out onto a busy street — an activity inherently far more immediately dangerous than eating a burger or nuggets and fries. Did I sue our city government for failing to make its streets less attractive to naive pedestrian toddlers? Of course not, I taught our kids to check both ways before crossing the road.

Should manufacturers of stovetops be sued for making the elements such an attractive red colour when they are turned on “high”? After all, young children lack the developmental maturity to understand that if they touch the pretty burner they’ll get, well, burned. Or is it, perhaps, up to parents to teach their kiddies this valuable no-touch life lesson?

When I was growing up, it was up to the parents–and the decent ones actually did what they were supposed to. But that was also 20 years ago. The lawsuit hadn’t become as popular an option then–it still isn’t quite so popular in Canada, but they’re trying. The requirement to actually raise your kids hasn’t vanished simply because, also at least 20 years ago, Mcdonalds started marketting toys with happy meals as an advertising gimmic. As long as you have kids, the requirement to actually be a parent sticks. Or should, if you actually give a damn. This reasoning from the lawsuit currently in progress, though? Smells of not really giving a damn.

Monet Parham, the 41-year-old Sacramento woman who is the subject of the CSPI suit, explains that, “busy working moms and dads know we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

Oh my stars. What ever would we do without the Monet Parhams of the world looking out for our children? Pray tell, will she also save us from the parels of crazed teenage run-ins with drugs, sex and alcohol? Oh please? Tell you what. Instead of me snarking at her yet again, have this, also from the article.

Life is inherently deceptive and unfair. It is, therefore, our job to teach our kids, ourselves, to avoid those pitfalls they can and to adapt to those they cannot. Indeed, while it’s one of the toughest challenges of parenthood to train our kids to know right from wrong, good from bad, healthy from unhealthy, it is also one of the greatest satisfactions. What kind of achievement would it be if our job as parents consisted solely of having advocacy groups pester the government on our behalf to enact laws and regulations to do our child-rearing for us?

And yes, what about those parents who have no problem with letting their kids have a little fun, but at the same time have absolutely no problem with telling kids absolutely freaking not when it needs to be said? Or should the default answer just be to sue the government for providing the option in the first place?

Suggestion for Ms. Parham. Don’t say no to the happy meal. Just say no to bad parenting. Then go fix yours. You’d be doing your poor kids many more favours.

Share this:

I have the good fortune, or not–depending on your perspective, to be in posession of a creditcard. Up until last week, the card worked pretty well flawlessly for anything from ordering pizza to paying the occasional bill online, in the event I’m too damn inpatient and/or lazy to bother with the slightly more traditional internet banking transfer. However, the last week or so, it’s decided to rather summarily flip me off. Randomly, it decided the CVV code I was using since I got the card–I only got the thing maybe last year or the year before–the code I’ve been using to make 90% of those purchases was no longer as valid as it was 5 minutes before I decided to use it. So I’ve been going through a pretty interesting little roundabout dance with Royal Bank, also known as them what issued my card. Their system, as much as they won’t actually admit it, appears to have ate my CVV code. This is more of a record of what’s going on for my own purposes, and well, in the event some other poor fool winds up with a similar problem. As things happen, I’ll probably come back to this post. My 7 days of fail started pretty much exactly a week ago. In list format, because. Lazy.

• After much arm twisting, teeth pulling, and generally screaming at folks, I got the fundage to purchase the screenreader I need from Frontier Computing
• Called them up and, after a bit of phone dancing, landed the purchase $1100 and some change later
• Fast forward to last Friday, we’re trying to throw money at things down on that other side of the border, requiring I change the address on the card temporarily to a US one–a thing I’ve done a few times before
• Change the address, go to make the payment, get declined due to CVV issues
• CVV is correct, and was entered multiple times by both myself and Shane just to be on the damn sure side
• Call up the bank, WTF at them for a few minutes, get told the CVV’s correct–well, yes, I had a feeling–and to call the merchant
• Rather than beat our heads against that right then, we try throwing a payment in the general direction of AT&T
• Once again, incorrect CVV, once again, we call the bank, once again, CVV is correct
• Make that payment to AT&T via a telephone rep, who *didn’t* ask for the CVV, and it goes through no problem
• Try to find a payment for our first attempted US payment over the phone, no luck
• Try online again, get summarily flipped off, call the bank and, yep, everything’s correct–it’s the merchant’s fault
• Switch back to the Canadian address, and we decide to finally find a use for one of my Tim Hortons gift cards–why in the hell I had two of them, I’ll never know–so it gets handed off to Shane, and we try to throw a few dollars at it via the card
• Once again, we get summarily flipped off because of the CVV, and once again, RBC blames the merchant–this is the third one who’s flipped us off re: the CVV, so now I’m a little less open to that possibility than I was before
• Saturday, we escentially get into hockey mode–which, of course, means pizza, which means ordering via creditcard on account of the bank machine’s over there and we’re not
• That, of course, goes through no problem–of course, they also don’t ask for the CVV either (Hey, I thought they should; not doing so was their idea.)
• Monday, we find out we have approximately 4 days to get paperwork into government offices, and not exactly world’s likeliest chance at being able to physically deliver it to the offending office–sometimes, not being able to drive and living in a small town gets to sucking hardcore
• We decide on a whim, since most if not all of what’s needed is available online, we’ll pull it to the local machine, sign up for a fax number (hello, MyFax), and fire it off to the office that way
• Assuming, since we know it can’t be the merchants all at once having issues it must be RBC that’s broken, and hoping against hope they’ve fixed it, we give signing up for it a try–and, once again, are summarily flipped off
• Now, I’m about irritated and decide screw it I’m going to bed–this was kind of squeezed in between and around various phone and other exchanges with people who generally couldn’t seem to find their way to a clue
• I give MyFax a try again several hours later, no go, Idaho–so again, decide to put it on the back burner until I figure out where the problem’s hiding out
• Rogers, in its infinite wisdom, decides to then pick this morning as the absolute perfect time to decide the money I threw in their general direction isn’t getting to them fast enough, so they flip the switch what puts an end to our phone service
• Not thinking, because why would I want to do that at 5:00 in the morning, I decide–hey, James, let’s just take care of what they say you owe them now and when their money catches up to them, they can just count that towards your next bill
• Of course, the broken that is my creditcard escapes me at this point, so I call in, go through the routine, get summarily flipped off again thanks to bad CVV
• Once again, call the bank, go a few rounds with the phone rep, who promptly blames the merchant–also, once again
• Walk all over this rep, then summarily flip him off
• Take a break from dealing with this, call Rogers directly, apply the appropriate clue that says they will get their money when I have it and not a minute before, then take care of some highly unrelated business before tackling this again
• Call back to RBC, get a rep who’s first response isn’t quite so much to blame the merchant or, for that matter, RBC’s second favourite thing to blame throughout this issue–me
• He does, at least, confirm no, the $1100 and change purchase didn’t likely set off alarms that, in simplest of terms, broke my card
• Go a round or two with him, he also confirms the CVV does what it’s supposed to, decides something about the card’s dead–no, really?
• Sends me out a replacement card, different card number, different CVV, same lovely little creditcard balance–but at least I got a shiny new interest rate out of it

So far, we still have absolutely no freaking idea what made my card go sideways. RBC blames the people I’m giving the info to, or me for entering the wrong info. Everyone I give the info to blames the bank for not confirming it, or me for giving them the wrong info. The bank is able to varify my info, shooting holes in half of both their theories. And I still sit here confused. This thing, whatever it is, isn’t over yet–not, I suspect, by any means. The post will probably be added to as things develop. I should have the new card in about a week or so, and if it’s just as broken, RBC and me will go yet another round. Sometimes, I love banking breakage. Only not really.

Share this:

If she’s not happy, you’re not happy. And if she’s not happy long enough, you’re not happy with… half your tongue? Jeff Foxworthy would have a field day with that. As for the guy who lost his to the chick he was married to, he’s supposedly ended up in hospital–with the afore mentioned half his tongue–attempting to have it reattached. As for the chick he married? When her sentence–please tell me it’s more than just assault or something–is over, might I recommend t he psych ward? The food’s not the greatest, but a few of those pills they have floating around in there and you won’t really care.

Share this:

Okay, I get it. Terrorism’s everywhere and you can never be too safe, yada yada yada. But was this really required, Transport Security Administration?

There certainly are a lot of TSA search stories these days but it’s an important topic, so we’ll keep covering it as long as there are interesting stories. The latest, found via Slashdot, is of a three year old girl who got a full pat down while screaming at the TSA agents not to touch her. Apparently, she was initially upset at having to send her teddy bear through the machine and she then refused to go through the scanning device herself. Her actions somehow set off the scanner’s alarm, leading to a TSA agent trying to do a forced pat down. The girl’s father is a reporter and caught 17-seconds of the pat down on his mobile phone.

Um. Why, on God’s green and blue planet, would you put a 3-year-old through this crap? Is the US government that overly paranoid that they’ll traumatize a kid for the sake of national security? I mean, I know politically the place has gone straight to hell in a handbag the last 10 years or so. Really, I do. But I always figured even that broken system had its limits. Apparently, if it does, we haven’t found them yet. Talk about your perfect way to up the anxiety level. If that kid ever willingly boards a plane again, I’ll be freaking amazed. Meantime, I’m really hoping for a lawsuit or something. Just goes to show ya, any good idea can be a very wicked nightmare in the hands of an asshole. Thanks for that, TSA. Now, please, go die.

Share this:

The below did not involve any member of my family. Though it has been threatened.

Mom, grandma, and grandma’s boyfriend just lost a kid. Not that any of them will be overly concerned about it where they’re going. Seems the three of them thought it’d be a wicked good idea to sell the kid for roughly $30000, 9000 of which was going straight towards mommy dearest’s new car. Except not so much. Instead, they sold the kid to an undercover cop, and now the only thing they’re going straight towards is their very own jail cell. On the bright side, they get three square and a bed for free. Too bad it won’t help them save money. Next time, folks, just apply at Macdonalds already.

Share this:

That was probably exactly what went through Chen Wei-Yih’s head right around the time she threw a wedding for herself and, well, herself. She says she felt pressured by the social expectation of being married and, well, didn’t exactly have a winner she could see herself with in the foreseeable future. Fortunately for her, it wasn’t actually a legal marriage, so if she ever does meet that dream guy–or at least some very good approximation of one, she won’t have to be the first person to also divorce herself. The things some people will do to make other people happy, I’m tellin’ ya.

Share this:

According to certain fragments of the US political system, Canada’s little more than a terrorist haven. The latest spokesperson of that line of thinking? Nevada senate candidate Sharron Angle. According to this lovely ray of sunshine, the border shared between the US and Canada is the most porous border America has. This, of course, all to further the claim that the 9/11 terrorists came into the US through Canada–a claim that’s been buried so many times since 9/11 I’m actually kind of surprised it’s still breathing.

Hey, Sharron? Turn around. Yeah, that way. See that other border over there? You know, the one with all the “undocumented immigrants” casually jumping the fense? Yeah, there you go. bitch about that one. If you’re looking for porous borders, you can probably start there. Or is the fact George Bush pretty much twisted our arms to slap a requirement for passports to cross the border into the US not secure enough for you?

PS: Canada has no control over border security going into the US, thank you kindly. If we took control of that, you’d still be throwing a fit. So, please, if you must blame the nonexistent Canada/US border problems on someone, throw it at your customs folks–you know, those guys who actually get to decide hey, you don’t get to step foot in the US.

Canada’s not exactly very impressed with you right now. No, scratch that. At the moment, we hate you. Oh well, don’t feel too bad. We hate her too.

Share this:

And they gave this guy firearms? Really?

A Montreal man who was arrested on several charges, including charges related to child porn and uttering death threats on Facebook, along with a few firearms related charges, was bailed out on $25000, posted by his father. David Abitbol says he bought the guns because he believed himself to be stalked by elves–according to him, they’re everywhere. He’s since been banned from owning or using guns, or using any means of electronic communications device. He should have been banned from existing outside of jail, but hey, that’s our criminal justice system for ya. What really throws my head for a spin is, clearly, this guy’s nuttier than a chocolate bar. Hell, he’s admitted that. And they’re still allowing him to move about freely–with restrictions in place that, really if he actually wanted to, he could probably very easily bypass (hello, public computer terminals). Wonder how safe that Montreal neighbourhood feels right about now. On the up side, he gets points for a creative legal defense–it worked well enough, obviously, to get him bail. Props to you, nutty buddy. Now just stay over there. Good crazy.

Share this:

A Meaford, Ontario school is the latest to give into the idea that wireless internet offered in schools is the cause of kids not concentrating or coming up with headaches during the week. As a result, they’ve decided to pull the plug.

Parents of students at St. Vincent Euphrasia elementary school voted “overwhelmingly” to cut off the Wi-Fi, according to a statement released by the school’s parent council Monday.

“Parents voted to protect their children’s health and plug the computers back in with hardwires,” council member Andrew Couper said in the statement.

Wi-Fi “is something every school council across Canada should be questioning,” Couper said.

St. Vincent Euphrasia is one of a handful of schools to look into a Wi-Fi ban in recent months over fears it’s making students sick.

A group of Ontario parents dubbed the Simcoe County Safe School Committee believes Wi-Fi transmitters in schools may be responsible for a host of symptoms their kids show — from headaches to an inability to concentrate — all of which disappear on weekends.

Gee, I’ve developped a headache or two during the week in my time, and we didn’t have wi-fi in the schools back then. Added to that, nowadays the school isn’t the only–or, indeed, in some cases first–place to get itself wi-fi ready. If you have internet service, especially lately, you’ve probably got a wi-fi transmitter. If you don’t, your neighbour probably does. Or the coffee shop you swing past on your way to work. And yet, on weekends, these kids don’t display those particular symptoms. And that’s somehow the school’s fault because–oh nos, these parents don’t get this newfangled wi-fi thing. Really? Well damn, I’d love to be a kid again with things like this. Play sick from school and have mommy blame the school. Suddenly, I feel a headache coming on. I don’t think I can look for work today.

Share this:

Oh, those whacky US conservatives. If it’s not Canada’s healthcare system that’s evil, it’s Canada’s arm of an American corporation. And this week, a group of US-based bloggers have come together to condemn a line of tomato soup said to have been certified as meeting guidelines according to muslim law. The organization chosen by Campbell’s to do the certifying? The Islamic Society of North America–who some of these bloggers have decided to brand as a terrorist organization. The kicker? The product line they’re protesting isn’t even sold in the US. Yep, you read it here first–Canada’s graduated from harbouring terrorist sleeper cells to harbouring terrorist soups. So much for keeping it secret.

Share this:

At least, according to a study released last week that pointed to too much light being the cause for some people’s inability to lose–or, indeed, even, maintain–weight.

A lack of darkness could be contributing to growing waistlines, according to a U.S. study.

The article goes on to say the theory was tested–surprise, surprise–on mice, some of whom were exposed to even low light at night while others were left in complete darkness. According to the article, anything from streetlights to your TV screen could be the cause. Here comes the “Turn off the TV or your kids will get fat” advertising; I can just see it now.

Share this:

A Mississippi family has spent the better part of this month being subjected to varying forms of harassment from everyone from their nextdoor neighbours to the local law enforcement folks, at least according to a post on LiveJournal that was linked to via this blog. The synical part of me wants to cry extreme fake, but really, if any part of this crap was actually made up, at the very least the author of the posts in question (find a brief intro and a list of relevant posts here) should get an award for creativity. But if it’s not, it’s a very good example of why I don’t understand most people–particularly most people from way down south. From one of the posts on the issue:

I currently live at

591 Hwy 41 E
Okolona, MS 38860

Catherine Young’s old trailer is next door.

Someone probably thinks i saw something or someone over there I should not have.  Having me committed would discredit me as a witness.  Please circulate this post.

I’m not sure whether or not I believe the whole of what’s posted, but if it is/was going down the way it looks, and if indeed no one in the family has a clue why, then this brings a whole new meaning to WTF. Of course, if it’s complete and total BS then the only WTF-worthy question is why in the hell the author would go through posting something like this in the first place. Still, if you’re feeling helpful and are in the area, I’m sure the family here would greatly appreciate it. Meanwhile I’ll just be over here shutting up that little voice in my head. At least until I can prove it’s right. And if this is really going on, someone kindly delivering an ass kicking from me would be hugely appreciated.

Share this:

Boston Massachusetts is home to a surprising amount of WTF. Like this lady, who took it upon herself to temporarily put on her shit disturber cap for the purposes of law enforcement. She believed a guy to be speeding and, having been walking her dog when it happened, decided to draw the offending individual’s attention to that fact by nailing him in the face with dog crap. Well, she succeeded–it got his attention. She now faces quite a pretty number of charges, including disorderly conduct and at least one property damage related charge. A word of advice. Next time, just call 911.

Share this:

You may or may not be aware Google’s coming up with its own TV platform. As is Apple, but that’s not been surprising since they pretty much came out with their own version of nearly everything else. What you may not know, though, is on your TV is precisely where Twitter would like to be. And, thanks to Google’s new and yet to actually be released platform, it will be. Welcome to the future, folks. You can sit on the coutch, munch on a bag of chips, suck on a beer and flip between the first game of the NHL regular season and the world series, and tweet that you’re sitting on your coutch, munching on a bag of chips, sucking on a beer and flipping between the first game of the NHL regular season and the world series–from the very same remote control. Now if that’s not convenience I don’t know what is. Note to self: move the computer out of the living room–it’s just been replaced by the TV.

Share this:

I’m still curious what the human rights people’s explanation is for this.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld rulings that denying two chronic alcoholics long-term support payments would violate the province’s Human Rights Code.

The Ontario Disability Support Program had argued over the years the men should be ineligible for benefits because their sole impairment was severe alcoholism.

That argument had been rejected by the Social Benefits Tribunal in 2006 and last year by the Ontario Divisional Court, and the support program director took the case to the Appeal Court.

The Appeal Court on Thursday upheld the earlier rulings, saying that denying benefits to Robert Tranchemontagne and Norman Werbeski — who died a year ago — would be discriminatory, based on their disability.

It rejected arguments the men should instead collect welfare, which would require them to look for a job and get help with their alcoholism.

Welfare payments would be about half of what recipients receive in long-term disability.

So because a couple people who can’t be bothered making use of the more than a few options open to them re: getting a halfway decent job, the appropriate counselling–paid for by us, most likely–so they can at least have a chance at not drinking, and generally having a far more decent life than they’re giving themselves now are too lazy to do any of the above, Ontario’s human rights commission–and, apparently, the court of appeals–escentially states they get to be lumped in with those of us who just so happen to actually be disabled because… why, exactly? They can’t drink as much on welfare? They might actually have to eventually work? Seriously, I’m clueless here.

How is it, exactly, that two people who’s only “disability” is the fact they can’t seem to let go of the bottle long enough to get their heads on straight get to sit there and say they’re disabled, meanwhile the actual disabled among us pretty much get the shaft, and are at the same time trying to wiggle their way off this fish hook Ontario’s government calls a support program? Okay, I get it–kicking the habbit’s hard. I’ve got an uncle who’s been quitting off and on since before I was born. It sucks. Just like quitting smoking sucks. Or getting over your addiction to pain killers. Or any number of bad habbits people pick up for one or more of several hundred reasons. I get that. But being addicted to smoking, or pain killers, or any number of those other bad habbits, isn’t a disability. Neither, contrary to what our lovely HRC would like us to believe, is alcoholism.

Not entirely too long ago–in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s still going on in one way, shape or form–a relative of mine ended up with some pretty significant health issues. Not to get into any major details–folks I talk to on a regular basis already know the specifics, but it’s resulted in some pretty unhealthy complications that pretty much kept him doing as little as humanly possible while he recovered, on doctor’s orders. That same doctor also told him 3 things he was to start doing, as soon as humanly possible after he was pretty well recovered, in order to avoid a repeat–and, yes, so he could eventually get back to work. In no specific order they were: knock off the smoking, get a reasonable amount of exercise, lose some weight. He did none of those three. Instead, he started the ball rolling to try and collect his own disability paycheck. I don’t believe he ever succeeded, though he may still be trying–in all honesty, I haven’t been bothered to ask. But, he took that approach because it was easier–because he wouldn’t have to change anything then, and he and his family could still keep living most of the lives they were used to. Of course, meanwhile while he was trying to pull off that maneuver, money was tighter than anything and his wife ended up having to take a minimum wage job just to keep the roof over their heads–she hadn’t worked for at least 25 years until then. I continue to maintain he shouldn’t get a dime from ODSP, and neither, in my honest opinion, should these two.

Now, yeah, I’m definitely not the biggest fan MCSS and the Ontario Disability Support Program have at the moment. I’ll admit that. But in this case, if only because it illustrates in its most simplistic way part of what’s making the rest of us come up with the short end of the stick, I’m falling in step right beside them on this one. Save the disability payments for those of us who’re actually, you know, disabled. And get the one guy who’s still alive some freaking help. Seriously.

Share this:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. a woman from Alberta, Canada, marries a US citizen who’s still maintaining a residence in the US. She takes her kid down there for a vacation, between the three of them they decide the kid will stick around down there while his mother returns to Canada. The dude’s pretty much been the kid’s father, even though he never officially legally adopted him. Kid gets stopped by the cops for riding a bike without a helmet, has a background check run on him. In the course of that check, the police unearth a Canadian social services file on him, set up at his mother’s request to get her hands on the help he’ll need, what with him having ADHD and/or anxiety issues. Police refer the kid to the department of human services, who show up at the stepfather’s house. They take the kid, toss him in the system. The police, compassionate souls they are, charge his mother with abandonment on account of the kid was left with someone who wasn’t his legal guardian.

If it doesn’t sound familiar, don’t be too surprised–it didn’t catch my attention until recently either. This apparently happened in 2008, and according to the state of Oregon, is far from being over. The kid has since been returned to his mother, and you’d assume everyone lives happily ever after, right? Except not so much. Now, the state of Oregon has taken it upon itself to sue his mother for the costs related to fostering and medically caring for this kid while he was in their custody. So, escentially for the majority of the last two years.

Now, at the risk of coming off as someone who thinks he knows everything, does it really have to be specificly outlined exactly where and how many times common sense has kind of been left on the side of the road, here? I’m completely failing to grasp any sense of an understanding as to how in creation their complete screwing up of a child becomes the financial responsibility of the parents who the state just ran over. I mean, alright–so his stepfather didn’t *legally* adopt the kid as his own. He’s married to the kid’s mother. If she wasn’t present right at that moment she was before. They knew this. They also knew, or were subsequently legally informed, they screwed up huge when they stepped in–hence why the kid’s since been returned to where he belongs. So how does that translate into the mother owes the state of Oregon one red cent? I’m not sure I can find me a clue by four big enough for this mess. Way to make yourselves look like assholes, state officials. You just qualified for moron of the year.

Share this: