FREAK OF THE WEEK: Stephen “I really love Fox News” Harper

If Sarah Palin is the Queen of Freakville, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the King. Yes, once again the FredBlog shines its freaklight on the head honcho of the Great White North.

As you recall, Palin once made headlines for not being able to name newspapers she supposedly reads. While Harper can indeed name Canada’s news outlets, last week he publicly admitted that he doesn’t watch Canadian news. Instead, he watches American networks.

This is what the Conservative told a Toronto business audience: “I watched the last several elections in the United States very closely. I tend to watch mainly American news because I don’t like to watch Canadian news and hear what … everybody else is saying about me. So my hobby is to watch politics elsewhere.”

No surprise Harper watches the American networks. He has appeared on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, among others. And no one would fault Harper for watching networks like CNN – most Canadians do.

But shouldn’t the Prime Minister of Canada be following the news IN CANADA!?!?

Then again, this isn’t the first time Harper has leered lovingly at the United States, instead of paying attention to his own backyard. He blindly followed the policies of George W. Bush, has praised the Republican Party as something the Canadian Conservatives should emulate, and once told a U.S. think tank that Canada “is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.”

Given his disdain for his own country, it’s no wonder he chooses Fox News over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Jack Layton, leader of the far-left New Democratic Party, said it best when he told the Toronto Star, “Perhaps if [Harper] watched Canadian news more often, he would understand the negative impact of his policies on Canadian families. And if he actually likes Fox News better than Canadian news, then Canadians ought to be concerned.”

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Joe “You Lie” Wilson, Carrie “Opposite Marriage” Prejean, and Jack “Hypocrite” Layton

After a week off to attend the annual convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in

Montreal, the FredBlog is back with a bag full o’ freaks. So let’s get the party started as the FredBlog shines its freaklight on this week’s Freaks of the Week:

1. Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Joe Wilson was freaky enough for shouting out “You lie” during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress. But piling freakiness upon freakiness is this past week’s revelation that Wilson, um, LIED!

If you recall, Wilson raised the roof during Obama’s healthcare address over the issue of illegal immigration. And what makes him such as expert on the issue? Here’s how he explained it during a press conference: “I’m for immigration, legal immigration. I’m an immigration attorney.”

However, as revealed by the website TPMmuckraker, he is nothing of the sort. In fact, he is a real estate lawyer. It even says so on his own website.

TPMmuckraker interviewed a number of South Carolina attorneys as well the American Immigration Lawyers Association. No one knows Wilson as anything but a real estate attorney.

So please join the FredBlog in shouting out to Mr. Wilson, “You lie!”

2. Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean is full of catchphrases. First, she made headlines by giving props to “opposite marriage.” Now, it’s all about, “God chose me.”

You see, this past week Prejean spoke at the right-wing Family Research Council’s so-called Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. (Sarah Palin wasn’t available, so they went with someone who I’m guessing can’t even find Russia on a map!)

In her speech to the Value (if hate is a value) Voters, Prejean discussed her pageant moment when celebrity judge Perez Hilton asked her about same-sex marriage. She told the crowd, “As I saw my goals and aspirations flash by me, I knew God had a plan for me. … He chose me for that moment.”

Yes, Ms. Prejean, of all the people in the world, God chose a dumbass beauty queen. Donald Trump may have chosen you, but God certainly did not.

3. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s far-left party, has made a career of bashing the center-left Liberal Party over the head for not voting down the ruling Conservative Party and its Bush-alike leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In fact, in the last election campaign, Layton puffed himself up as the only true opposition leader. And Layton’s disdain for Harper goes so deep that he didn’t even bother reading the last Conservative budget before deciding his party would vote against it.

But finally, the Liberals have had enough. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff announced this past week that his party would indeed vote to bring down the Conservatives, forcing a federal election.

Oh, but wait, the polls don’t look good for Layton and the New Democrats. So instead of siding with the Liberals, something he has been waiting for, Layton engineered a reason to prop up the Conservatives. Worse yet, Layton says he will continue to support the Conservatives on a number of upcoming confidence motions.

So on a dime, Layton has switched from damning the Liberals for propping up the Conservatives to doing it himself. Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe Layton’s freakiness.

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins, and (yet again) Stephen Harper

It was another week full o’ freaks on both sides of the border, with a repeat performance by Canadian Prime Minister to top it all off. So this week, the FredBlog turns its freaklight on a freak trifecta aka a “freak-fecta.”

1. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist

If you’ve seen the documentary “Outrage,” you already know that this Republican closet case has earned his freak stripes. But he added more freak merit points this past week when he said that the reason Florida hasn’t been hit by major hurricanes since 2007 is that God likes him.

Crist reportedly told a group of real estate agents, “In 2007, I took my first trade mission. Do you know where I went?” He went to Israel, where he placed a written request in the cracks of the Western Wall that read, “Dear God, please protect our Florida from storms and other difficulties. Charlie.” Crist then implied that God read the note and followed through to the gov’s request. “Time goes on – May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December – no hurricanes.”

Maybe Gov. Crist needs to realize that his last name does not have an “h” between the “C” and the “r.”

2. Kansas Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Lynn Jenkins is either incredibly stupid, racist or both.

While speaking to her constituents at a town hall meeting last week, Jenkins said, “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope” to go up against President Barack Obama.

Here’s the problem: The phrase “great white hope” is a racist term dating back to the early 20^th century. It came into general usage after boxer Jack Johnson, who was black, won the heavyweight title – a victory that didn’t sit well with whites. So many then worked to find a white fighter – a “great white hope” – who could snatch the title away from Johnson. And the phrase is certainly not obscure. Johnson’s story inspired both a play and a movie – both called “The Great White Hope,” both starring James Earl Jones.

So according to Jenkins, the Republican Party is looking for a “great white hope” to take on America’s first black president.

Ms. Jenkins, would you like a hood with that?

3. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

The leader of Canada’s Conservative government just can’t keep himself away from freakville. This time, it’s due to a grand case of hypocrisy (Harpocrisy?).

First, the background: Canadian senators are not elected, but appointed by the prime minister of the day (without even hearings like they have for Supreme Court justices in the United States). And senators serve until they are 75 and are currently paid an annual salary of $132,000. The Senate, therefore, is ripe for political patronage.

To Harper’s credit – yes, the FredBlog does give credit where credit is due – he ran on a platform of changing the Senate so that it would be more accountable to voters. And he promised – repeatedly – that he would not appoint senators not directly elected by voters.

In fact, during the 2006 election, Harper’s party promised: “A Conservative government will not appoint to the Senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people.” And in 2004, before becoming Prime Minister, he blasted the Senate as “a dumping ground for the favored cronies of the Prime Minister.”

So what did Harper do last week? He appointed nine – count ‘em – nine new unelected, unaccountable senators. That’s after appointing 18 unelected, unaccountable senators only days before last Christmas (so no one would notice).

And who did Harper appoint? The latest group includes the party’s director of political operations (Doug Finley), a former Harper leadership campaign co-chair (Judith Seidman), the president of the Conservative Party (Don Plett) and the director of strategic communication for Harper’s office who also once served as Harper’s press secretary (Carolyn Stewart-Olsen).

So glad Harper isn’t in a favor of political patronage and cronyism.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

** This week’s FREAK OF THE WEEK is brought to you by the letter U **

It was a week full of freakiness on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. To the south, right-wing freakiness continued spreading lies about “death panels” while the Obama administration started downplaying pieces of its own healthcare reform plans.

To the north, Prime Minister Stephen Harper continued to insist that he had no idea that Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud had been held against her will and abandoned by Kenyan and Canadian officials in Nairobi – even though Canadian media had heavily covered Mohamud’s plight for 3 months!

As freaky as Harper can be, you would think the Prime Minister would at least know how to spell the names of major cities in his own country.

However, that seems not to be the case.

You see, Harper put out a press release detailing his five-day tour of the Canadian Arctic, which included a stop in the capital city of the territory of Nunavut.

What is the capital? It’s Iqaluit, which in the native Inuit (Eskimo) language of Inuktitut means “many fish.”

But Harper spelled it “Iqualuit,” with an extra U after the Q. Not only is this incorrect, but it also changes the meaning of the word in Inuktitut.

“Iqualuit” – with that extra U – means “people with unwiped asses.”

Not only did Harper get it wrong, but his spokesperson then tried to turn his mistake into a public good by telling the Canadian Press news service, “Hopefully this unfortunate typo, which we have corrected, will inform the greater public that there is no [extra] ‘u’ in Iqaluit.”

Typo? Couldn’t someone have looked this up in a book or online beforehand?

Mr. Harper, before you try to teach everyone else a lesson, you should learn to get it right yourself.

Canadian abondoned in Kenya, while gov't officials go MIA and do nothing

The story of Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud trapped in Kenya is shameful enough, but the pathetic reaction of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan simply adds insult to injury.

Here’s what happened.

Back in May, Mohamud – who lives in Toronto – was visiting friends and family in Kenya. When it was time for her to come home, airport officials in Nairobi said that Mohamud’s passport photo did not look like her, claiming that she was an imposter.

Even after Mohamud showed all of her ID – including other government documents, even a drugstore loyalty shopping card – Kenyan officials said Mohamud’s lips in person didn’t match those in her passport photo. (Some reports say the photo issue was a ruse, and really, Kenyan officials wanted a bribe. The silliness of the claims even had Kenyan officials ruminating that Mohamud was her own twin sister.)

When Mohamud’s case was then handed over to Canadian officials in Kenya, they did nothing. Mohamud’s Canadian passport was cancelled, she was charged with criminally falsifying her identity, and thrown in jail.

In order to end the ordeal, Mohamud volunteered for a DNA test to prove her identity and to show that she is indeed the mother of her teenage son (who was back in Toronto).

Even after the DNA result, Mohamud wasn’t free to come home, since her passport was cancelled. So she remained a woman without a country.

Finally last week, she was issued an emergency passport and allowed to travel home.

During this entire ordeal, the Canadian government did nothing – NOTHING – to help a Canadian citizen held hostage in a foreign country.

Van Loan – who as public safety minister is the Canadian equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – dodged reporters and did nothing. Now, he has the nerve to announce a study to determine what went wrong. What went wrong? Mr. Van Loan, YOU are part and parcel of what went wrong.

Cannon – who as foreign affairs minister is the equivalent of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – then commissioned his own inquiry. Are these people serious? Just look in the mirror – there’s your answer.

Worst of all was Prime Minister Harper who, instead of aiding a Canadian in distress in a foreign land, gave this advice to all Canadian would-be travelers: “The Government of Canada does not control affairs in other countries. We do our best to aid those who are in various forms of difficulty, but ultimately we're not the sovereign government once people leave our territory.”

In other words, you are SOL. And this was the same week that former U.S. President Bill Clinton went to North Korea to rescue two American journalists. The contrast is startling.

This week, Harper not only said that his government would not apologize to Mohamud, but that he only learned of her case last week – even though it’s been making news for three months! This is as sad as Bush getting that memo about Osama bin Laden plotting to bomb the U.S., and then deciding to go golfing.

So what happened here? No need to wait for CYA government commissions. Either the Canadian government, as run by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, doesn’t care about Canadian citizens once they leave the country, or the Canadian government, under Harper’s Conservatives, only cares about some Canadians. Mohamud, after all, is a woman of color who was born in Somalia.

A letter to the editor in the Toronto Star even put it this way: “If hyphenated Canadians decide to go to obscure places in the world, they should do so at their peril.” (Ironically, the letter writer’s last name was McKenna, pegging him as a hyphenated Irish-Canadian.)

This is a sentiment that seems to permeate the highest levels of the current Canadian government. And a government that is so willing to toss one of its innocent citizens aside like this has clearly lost the right to govern.

FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: The Conservative Party of Canada

This week, there was so much freakiness attached to one issue that the FredBlog had no choice but to shine its freaklight on not just one person, but the entire Conservative Party of Canada for getting a little too excited about a photo of drag queens.

By now, you know the story – if not, see the posting from July 8 below. As you will see, there are just way too many freaks involved to point to just one. So this week’s freaks include:

·      Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He’s the one who disciplined Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy for granting less than $400,000 of government money to Pride Toronto. Ablonczy was doing nothing more than her job; in fact, she deserves credit for doing her job without regard to partisanship or ideology. Shame on Harper for kowtowing to Canada’s radical anti-gay right and punishing her.

·      Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost. He’s the one whose head spun around regarding Albonczy getting her picture taken with drag queens. As he told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.” Actually, Brad, it IS government policy to support tourist events like Pride, even if it makes you and your minions uncomfortable.

·      M.B. Callaghan of Toronto. There was much public reaction to the Pride funding fiasco, and most of the letters to the editor in the Toronto Star slammed the Conservatives for their crass political pandering. Still, too many people’s sentiments matched Callaghan’s, whose nonsensical letter stated, “It makes perfect sense to discipline Diane Ablonczy for authorizing federal money for a Gay Pride Parade. Surely, if gays had to pay for it themselves, they’d give it up. But if they parade it, it could look like fun to schoolchildren. Imagine – streets full of children behind a gay piper. How could Toronto go Conservative after that?”

·      Divers/Cité executive director Suzanne Girard. Amazingly, the head of the organization behind Montreal’s largest LGBT festival actually DEFENDED the Conservatives on this front. As the Canadian Press reported it, Girard simply “blamed right-wing fringe elements for unfairly trying to embarrass the Conservatives and cause problems for events like hers” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090708/national/tories_gay_festivals). That may be, but if Harper is willing to give in to these “fringe elements,” then Harper’s actions are indefensible.

·      Minister of Transport John Baird. Some Conservatives have had the fortitude and common sense to criticize Harper for punishing Ablonczy. But closet-case Baird is not one of them. Even former MP Monte Solberg – who is himself on the far right – wrote on his blog: “The truth is that, for better or worse, the Conservative government has provided grants for this kind of thing in the past. … [Ablonczy] deserves better than to be ratted out by a colleague on an issue that is a complete loser for the party.” As the Toronto Star editorialized, “Shame on other senior Conservatives for not adding their voices to [Solberg’s].” So, shame on John Baird, who has no problem being out in Toronto’s Gay Village – the site of the now-controversial Pride parade – but yet stays silent while on Parliament Hill.

FREAKINESS = SARAH PALIN

What would the week be without some form of freakiness from our favorite soon-to-be-former-Alaska-governor, Sarah Palin.

To begin with, she made fashion news for her press conference in hip waders. (Did the Republican Party pay for THOSE too?)

She also continued to explain how quitting her job doesn’t make her a quitter. Because, y’know, in her world, “quitting” means “leading.”

But the best Palin freakiness was her attempt to be all, like, intellectual and such as. You see, she’s been tweeting a lot lately – guess she has more time to devote to Twitter since giving up her day job. One day last week, she gave specific advice to children:

·      “So AK Kids: take time to take your parents fishing: ‘You learn more about a person in an hour than in a year of conversation’ – Plato”

Wow, how impressive, right? She’s quoting Plato. One problem though – Plato never said this!

In fact, it’s credited to author Richard Lindgard in an etiquette guide from 1670! That’s a helluva lot later than Plato’s time. (Or maybe to Palin, everything before Ronald Reagan is just one big blur.)

Worse yet, the actual quote does not reference fishing, but GAMBLING! “If you would read a man’s disposition, see his game,” the quote reads. “You will then learn more of him in one hour, than in seven years conversation.”

So Sarah, better to quit the literary quoting and just stick to your day job. Oh wait, too late.

Hard-right anti-gay Conservatives 1, Moderates 0

When it comes to Canadian Conservatives reaching out to the gay community, it’s one step forward then two steps back.

Even I was surprised this week after I read that the ruling Conservatives had given almost $400,000 to Toronto’s Pride Week as a way of bolstering Toronto and its Pride celebration as tourist destinations. I was even more surprised when I learned that Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy – a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Calgary cabal – traveled to Toronto to deliver the check personally.

Pride Toronto, the event’s governing organization, happily accepted the check – in part as a way of showing that Pride is not partisan.

So this was a good news story all around. Right?

Well, it WAS until the right-wing extremists in the Conservative Party went berserk about the government giving money to a gay event.

But what was Ablonczy’s worst offense, according to some? Horror of horrors, she had her picture taken with drag queens!

The result? Ablonczy has been disciplined. Prime Minister Harper stripped her of her power to announce tourism investments (even though she’s the minister of tourism), and she’s been muzzled from talking to the media.

Brad Trost, a Conservative MP from Saskatchewan, was reportedly the first to have his head spin over the site of Ablonczy and drag queens. He told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.”

In response to inquiries from the Toronto Star, a government spokesperson said, “I know that certainly there’s going to be folks who have their concerns and they’ve raised those concerns with us. … We’re listening.”

An unnamed source in the party told the Star: “The TV shots of [Ablonczy] with transvestites inflamed some people.”

Wait a minute. All this “inflamed some people”? And the Conservatives say, “We’re listening”? Real nice for a party that has been trying to hoodwink moderates into thinking it’s not the scary right-wing party it used to be when it was called the Reform Party.

Kudos to Ablonczy for putting partisanship and wedge politics aside in order to honor what she reportedly called Pride Toronto’s “polished and professional” application. Besides, government investment in Pride celebrations is nothing new – in Toronto, both the city and the province support the event, one of the city’s biggest tourism income generators.

In the end, what this Conservative kerfuffle means is simple. Like the Republican Party in the U.S., the Conservative Party of Canada – despite moderates in its ranks – is still beholden to right-wing extremists whose exclusionary ideas and wedge-issue politics are far outside the mainstream.

New Conservative ads don’t add up

If you thought the Conservative Party of Canada couldn’t go any lower than the trashy character-assassination campaign they ran against former Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, think again.

The Conservatives – led by I’ll-never-get-a-majority Prime Minister Stephen Harper – have launched Ignatieff.me. This time, their target is current Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, they are making the same mistake many marketing people make. They are taking a tactic that worked once and laying the same template over a different product and audience under a different set of circumstances.

Even though there is no election going on, the Conservatives launched their campaign-style campaign last week, including a website – as silly as the one they did last year showing a puffin pooping on Dion’s shoulder – and TV ad, which are spewing up all over Canadian television.

The ads criticize Ignatieff on a number of fronts, but most notably, they make the argument that he is not a real Canadian because he lived and made a name for himself in the U.S. and Britain. This is just plain silly.

Did Harper & Co. not get the memo that Canada has become one of the most diverse, multicultural and globally aware nations on the planet? Isn’t it a good thing for Canada that Ignatieff has political connections throughout the world, particularly in the Obama administration? Do Harper & Co. not know that a large number of successful Canadians were born and raised elsewhere? And Ignatieff is hardly the first Canadian to leave his home and native land to gain experience and fame, but then return to utilize those skills learned abroad. (If you must, you can watch the ads for yourself at http://ignatieff.me/?p=ignatieff#watch.)

But if all that weren’t bad enough, the French version of the ad – airing in Quebec – is even worse. In that ad, the Conservatives criticize Ignatieff for speaking Parisian French instead of the “joual” French heard on the streets throughout La Belle Province. And by doing so, argue the Conservatives, Ignatieff is looking down on the Quebecois people.

First of all, since when is it evil for an Anglophone to speak non-Quebec French? For the most part, Francophones are more than willing to give Anglophones a break so long as they try to speak the other official language. And Ignatieff is fully bilingual, so his lack of Quebec colloquialism is irrelevant. The truth is that the Liberals are gaining strength in Quebec, and the Conservatives will try anything to stop this.

But also, this is the same Conservative Party that criticized the Liberals last year for assembling a coalition with “socialists and separatists.” At the time, Prime Minister Harper accused the Liberals of getting to close to Quebec nationalists. Now, Harper seems to be saying the exact opposite. Which is it?

The truth is that it is both – and neither. Harper and the Conservatives are willing to play with the fire of Quebec nationalism either way, so long as they think it will get them ahead politically. This is a cynical and dangerous game in which Harper is using separatist sentiment as a political pawn.

In the end, what the Conservatives don’t seem to realize is that Ignatieff is NOT Dion. Ignatieff is much more politically savvy and a much better communicator. While Dion was hesitant to fight back against disingenuous Conservative attacks, Ignatieff is taking them head on – and rightly dismissing them.

As he said last week, “When you're down in the polls, when you're presiding over the worst collapse in employment in recent memory, when you've got record bankruptcies everywhere you look, the thing you're going to do if you're in government and responsible for this mess is change the channel and that's what they're trying to do. Is that serious government? Is that serious politics? That's the kind of government we've got." (http://www.thestar.com/article/634672)

Ignatieff is right. Harper and the Conservatives are out of ideas as the Canadian economy crumbles around them. They are scared, and this latest campaign show it. 

An Afghanistan ultimatum

A new law passed last week by Afghani President Hamid Karzai’s government restricting the rights of women has forced me to think that it may be time to do in Afghanistan what President Obama is planning to do in Iraq – leave!

In case you haven’t heard, this new – and odious – law would severely restrict the choices and rights of Shiite women in Afghanistan. This is bad law on at least two fronts.

First, the law is a clear violation of human rights. The measure would reportedly make Shiite women nothing more than wards of their husbands, even requiring spousal permission to leave the house. Worse, the law forbids a woman from saying no to having sex with her husband – meaning that husbands can now legally rape their wives.

This is bad enough on its face, but it is made worse by politicians – particularly Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government – who argue that NATO forces are there in order to HELP Afghani women. Former First Lady Laura Bush even made the rights of Afghani women her signature issue in the latter years of Bush’s presidency.

But no, women’s rights is not really the reason for the war in Afghanistan – it was a red herring created by politicians and sold to the American and Canadian public when support for the original reason for the mission fell.

And what is that original reason? Just ask Obama. Here’s what he said last month: "So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” So fighting terrorism is why we are there. To that end, Obama plans on INCREASING the number of troops in Afghanistan.

This might be a worthy cause for continuing to fight in Afghanistan, but don’t sell the voting public a bill of goods that we are there to help Afghani women.

The second reason why this new law is wrong is that it applies only to the country’s Shiite minority, and not the Sunni majority. So Shiite women will have fewer rights than Sunni women. Treating people differently based on one’s religion? That should not be tolerated.

Supporters of Afghanistan have argued that women already don’t have many rights there, so all the law does is codify common practice. Plus, they say, Afghanistan is a different culture than the West, and repealing this law will not immediately change attitudes and cultural norms.

Well no, it won’t. But that’s no argument not to make the law reflect what should be. The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t eradicate racism, but it sure did empower blacks and other minorities – over time – to stand tall and be counted. Repealing this repugnant law in Afghanistan can only help women there.

Others argue that Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and Western and NATO forces don’t have the right to tell this foreign government what laws to pass or repeal. That’s true, to a point. After all, nations like the U.S. and Canada are spending money and lives in Afghanistan. NATO forces are, in theory, helping to build a stable nation there. And Karzai only has whatever power he has because of that Western-backed coalition. Does Karzai really want to piss off his NATO patrons?

This must be where we draw a line in the sand. This law has to go – or we do.