Imperfect boys with their perfect ploys...

Courtesy of pecunium, I can't decide if this is more hilarious or depressing - it's kind of both.

I think that If yes, please outline the fundamental beliefs. If applicable, attach a copy of the bylaws or minutes of meetings from the last year. is quite possibly the funniest part of the form.

Apparently, penalties for failing to register your "subversive group" in South Carolina are a fine of up to 25,000 dollars, and as much as ten years in prison. I'm trying to figure out just how many Facebook groups I belong to that would qualify as subversive groups by their definition - that is groups that "directly or indirectly advocate, advise, teach or practice the duty or necessity of controlling, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, the state of South Carolina or any political division thereof."

Cause for me? Democratic government is all about controlling, and if necessary overthrowing, a government that fails to listen to the voice of its voters.

Edit: The actual text of the law that led to the creation of the form is at least a little less vague, if no less ridiculous. Highlights follow:

Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means, who resides, transacts any business or attempts to influence political action in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State on the forms and at the times prescribed by him.

[...]

The terms of this chapter do not apply to any labor union or religious, fraternal or patriotic organization, society or association, or their members, whose objectives and aims do not contemplate the overthrow of the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means.

Yeah. I'm sure that's going to work so well, folks.

My spleen, it continues to need to vent:

The Foreign Affairs committee had called for Mr. Abdelrazik to appear before it next month as a witness and hoped to enforce that demand by getting a Speaker's warrant if the government continued to block his return to Canada.
[...]
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has already told the committee that he has no intention of bowing to its demand that he provide Mr. Abdelrazik with a one-way, emergency travel document so he can return to his family in Canada.
[...]
NDP MP Paul Dewar, who led the effort in the Foreign Affairs committee to have Mr. Abdelrazik called as a witness, accuses Mr. Cannon of insulting the committee and Parliament.

“We not asking him to do anything outside of the realm of international law or national security,” Mr. Dewar said Thursday. The travel ban imposed by the UN blacklist allows for citizens to return home.

Mr. Walsh acknowledged that the government could, if it chooses, repatriate a citizen, although he declined to address Mr. Abdelrazik's case because it is currently before a federal court.

Mr. Dewar still he hopes that Mr. Abdelrazik will make the June 15 date set for his appearance before the committee. A group of supporters has announced it will purchase another airline ticket to fly Mr. Abdelrazik, who has been living in “temporary safe haven” in the Canadian embassy for more than a year, to Montreal from Khartoum on June 12.

And I'm not even discussing my crankitude about the new allegations around the Abu Ghraib photos that the Obama government is refusing to release. I'll leave that for pecunium.

ETA: In the top twenty reasons I should never read the Globe & Mail comment thread, "It would be nice of the media would differentiate in their headlines between a real Canadian citizen and a "citizen of convenience"." may be a winner.

ETA2: Especially since I very much doubt that commenter would consider my hopefully-soon-to-be-a-Canadian-immigrant (white) partner to be a "citizen of convenience." Despite the fact that I, for one, happen to think it would be much more convenient, aside from all else.

A lot of my friends and especially blogs I read have been buzzing about OC Transpo's decision to reject Atheist evangelist advertising on the grounds of offensiveness, and whether it's censorship or not.

So far, I've been resisting the temptation to get into that discussion - frankly, I find the ads kind of puerile and obnoxious, and I do think that the city has a responsibility not to run overly offensive ads. So while I certainly wouldn't consider the atheist bus ads as crossing that line, I haven't been able to get too worked up about it.

But then the ever insightful Miss Vicki pointed out something I should have thought of sooner - that this is being rejected by the same advertising control board that thought that those Virgin "Gods of Rock" advertisements were appropriate. (Photos of both sets of ads are at that link.)

At which point - it's not just me that leaves boggling, right? "Stop worrying and enjoy your life" is inappropriate, while threats of sexual violence are right on?

*head, meet wall*