… and replaced her with a pitbull.

C.S. Lewis:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”

10:10 founder Franny Armstrong:

“What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?”

…and your weed for free

The Liberals would like to see Vancouver’s Insite safe-injection sites replicated across the country – a notion briefly entertained by Quebec’s Health Minister but never pursued.

I feel so much better now:
1. It all started with one little trade … O.K.
2. There are no recommendations to bring confidence back; confidence that will prevent another trillion dollar flash loss and that will rein in HFTs.
3. But, there will be more to come … so final judgement will have to wait.
CME comment: click

The Details
Remember this little fella?
Update: EUR commentary

… Bono:

Bono’s anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure to explain its finances after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money it raises reaches the needy.
The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).
The figures published by the New York Post also show that £5.1million went towards paying salaries.

Oh the irony.
Britain makes it legal for women to track down sperm donors for child support.
Women who obviously didn’t study economics (and are presumably of more of the leftist leaning types to have children without fathers) now resort to an underground market whereby they get illicit sperm to impregnate themselves.
I love it when feminists shoot themselves in the foot.
ht and blunt analysis (though I warn thee, it is very crass).

On Tuesday, just the second day of the fall session in the House of Commons, every single question in a lengthy and highly contentious Question Period was devoted to the issue of the elimination of the mandatory long-form census. While the opposition claimed to be defending science — “It is clear that by eliminating the long form census the Reform Conservative government is hoping to dilute science—which is appalling and sends a chill down my spine,” said Liberal Wayne Easter — it was clear from the nature and tenor of their questions and statements that the data collected by long form census is, for them, simply a tool to leverage more money from taxpayers.
“(The long form census) responds to the needs of Canada’s various communities…it deals with such things as housing, education, and services for vulnerable or marginalized groups, which include women, the disabled, the visible and linguistic minority groups..” said NDP MP John Rafferty, who then quoted the president of the Atikokan Métis Council: “The loss of the credibility of the data that is derived from the long form sampling would be devastating to the Métis people…” Liberal MP Michael Savage read a letter from G-funded advocacy group National Council of Women of Canada: “NCWC is a staunch supporter of recognizing unpaid work in contributing to Canada’s vibrant economy. We are now writing to oppose the proposed changes to Canada’s census.” Liberal MP Anita Neville proclaimed “The mandatory long form census…provides information on unpaid work, women’s wages, the status of disabled persons…”
BQ MPs, for some reason, were especially interested in the funding leverage that the long-form census provided. Richard Nadeau asked “How are we to justify measures to help society’s poorest and our linguistic minorities when the data are incomplete and unreliable?” Robert Bouchard pled that the data is critical for decisions about “social housing”; Serge Cardin, who accused the Conservatives of wanting to “disengage from more humane and socially oriented policies,” quoted two professors, “experts on the census,” from the Université du Québec à Montréal:

Two or three years ago there was an uproar when a study on income trends showed that there was a growing gap between rich and poor. The right-wing media lashed out, accusing Statistics Canada of Marxism. There is tension between the government and Statistics Canada, which exposes a reality they would rather not see…

There you have it: the opposition’s outrage on the census issue is hysterical and oddly disproportionate because they all believe in the primacy of a bureaucratic ruling class who will “build” Canadian society from the top down through redistribution, and they need the right “data” to make their case. Nadeau: “These statistics, like those published by Statistics Canada and the Institut de la statistique du Québec, help the decision-maker, the elected representative, the democrat. The elected democrat wants to help the people, the citizens, and take an enlightened and scientific view of that people’s situation in all spheres of life and society and throughout the nations they represent…”
We’re talking off-the-charts condescension: “Political mathematics,” lectured Nadeau, “entails having all the—I would like my Conservative friends to listen carefully to the next word—scientific information, obtained by using a scientific method. The term scientific is very important. I know that some MPs believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that human beings lived alongside dinosaurs. That is not true. They should stop believing such things. They are not helping science and not helping the Quebec or Canadian public.”

… and schooling The House on taking a principled stand.

Maclean’s fired back at the Quebec government Wednesday after Premier Jean Charest lashed out at the magazine for calling his province the most corrupt in Canada.
In a scathing letter to the publication, the embattled premier asked Maclean’s to apologize to Quebecers for an article he describes as a “twisted form of journalism and ignorance.”
But the magazine answered his missive Wednesday with a stinging rebuttal of its own — and no apology.

We live in a time where the entire legislative branch of government, including the CPC, censures a free press provider for telling the truth:

“That this House, while recognizing the importance of vigorous debate on subjects of public interest, expresses its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean’s magazine to denigrate Quebec nation, its history and its institutions.”

UK:

The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heatwaves and rising sea levels. It now says: “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

Why energy conservation doesn’t work:

Efficiency advocates sometimes dismiss rebound by only looking at “direct” energy consumption — that is, consumption by households and for private transportation. Examples of rebound in this part of the energy economy would be driving your Prius more because gasoline costs you very little, or turning up the thermostat in your efficient home. But these “direct-use” rebounds are small in comparison to “indirect-use” rebounds in energy consumption. Globally, some two-thirds of all energy is consumed indirectly– in the energy used to produce goods and services. A residential washing machine may be energy efficient in terms of function, but in terms of production, the metal body alone requires energy to mine, smelt, stamp, coat, assemble and transport it to a dealer showroom and eventually a residential home. The energy embedded in your washing machine, or just about any product or service you consume, is very large. And remember that any money you save on your energy bills through efficient appliances or the like is re-spent on other goods and services, which each take energy to produce, all while more productive use of our money (e.g. in spending, savings and production) spurs a more robust economy, demanding even more energy.

and I’ll complain if I want to … how did all these progressives get in the door?

David Harris notes the mixed messages being sent out by [Prime Minister] Harper’s actions.
On the one hand, as Ezra Levant noted, they have declared that they are distancing themselves from groups like the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC).
Yet at the same time, Harris points out, “the Executive Director of the CIC was a featured speaker at a Department of Foreign Affairs put together by the Muslim Communities Working Group. The Working Group is a clearing house for all things Muslim, has no equivalent relating to any other religion or ideology, and came into existence early in the Harper government’s existence.”
Harris points to the main webpage of Canada’s Security and Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) as example of the establishment’s privileging of Muslims.
“Canadian government websites are available in Canada’s two official languages,” Harris explains, “but the site for the independent watchdog organization offers a third: Arabic.
“This is extraordinary in itself. It is the more remarkable given the propensity of some Canadian communities struggling with terrorism and espionage in their midst — say, ethnic Tamils, Sikhs, Indians, Iranians, Chinese — to speak non-Official Languages other than Arabic.”

In his book Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell responds to the progressive argument that prisons are not an effective response to crime, because so many prisoners are rearrested after they are released:

By this kind of reasoning, food is ineffective as a response to hunger because it is only a matter of time after eating before you get hungry again.