Harper’s made few friends with his parliamentary prorouge. Now The Economist has joined the fray, the latest publication to bash the Prime Minister’s troubling move. This is, in fact, a big deal. It proves that Harper’s antics are now more than just national spectacle. This is a democracy after all, but the man is playing by his own rules.

Harper’s Conservatives have never been team players. This is nothing new. Forcing an election for a pipe-dream majority? And now, proroguing in the face of opposition challenge? Life as usual in the Conservative camp. Previous Prime Ministers have prorogued as well, and this is all the justification Harper needs.

With 63 bills off the table, and a government of angry MPs, Harper’s so-called vacation better damn well be worth it.

I wonder how the taxpayers of B.C will react when they find out their money is going towards tattoo removal. For gang members. Seriously.

There was a short little blurb in The Star today about RCMP officers in British Columbia offering tattoo removal to those who provided information regarding their former brothers-with-arms. Basically, those who feel like leaving the gang lifestyle behind can have those pesky eyesores of gang identification removed – for free – in exchange for just a little information regarding Johnny Semi-Automatic’s whereabouts.

Quite frankly, I don’t know what the RCMP thinks it’s doing – wasn’t it the Geto Boys who said that, damn, it feels good to be a gangster? Why would I ever want to have that taken away from me?

But in all seriousness, is this the best solution the RCMP can come up with to tackle an ever-growing trend of gang violence in western Canada? Amir Javid, a former gang member who spoke to the Canadian Press, framed the situation quite well; “They should call it an informant program,” he said. “Gang members aren’t just going to talk to the RCMP for tattoo removal.”

Apparently there’s been similar initiatives in the US, though I honestly have no clue how they’ve done. Quite frankly, though, does it matter? Aren’t there better ways to gain insight into gang activities? Why not try and educate so-called at-risk youth, and stop the problem before it even begins? Hell, has anyone in the RCMP actually watched a lethal weapon movie?

Not to mention, when the RCMP comes knocking down the door, you can bet that absentee gang-members with a little less ink are going to be the first to find horse heads in their beds come morning.

“Buy America.” Please. Someone explain this to me.

The Star ran an article this morning in which a number of U.S counties have begun to introduce “buy American” legislation, contrary to President Obama’s claims that “protectionism is not taking root in the American psyche.”Perhaps Obama is right, but he could very well be wrong; what gets me is the way in which county officials are introducing the legislation, and trying to rationalize its passing.

Take Ferndale, a municipality north of Detroit…

Instead of patriotism, Covey explains, the resolution has more to do with buying locally to support businesses in the area and to reduce environmental impact. It has nothing to do with anti-Canadian sentiment, he says.

Perhaps Ferndale Mayor Craig Covey is telling the truth when he explains such measures are hardly anti-Canadian in nature. Yet, something in the wording has me convinced that this is more than just a show of local support. Perhaps it’s this phrase, which the article states was adopted by Ferndale’s city council back in April:

Be it further resolved that the City of Ferndale is committed to purchasing products and services made or performed in the United States of America whenever and wherever possible with any economic recovery monies provided to the City.

What gets me is that there is no local emphasis here. Money provided to the city should be invested in American companies, the resolution says, but there appears to be no guarantee that the money should be invested locally. On top of that, I’m still at a loss to explain how Covey intends to use any such policy to reduce environmental impact. Perhaps, however, I’m simply reading into this curious wording too much – I can’t imagine citizens being particularly supportive of stimulus funds being misappropriated within their own county. But nevertheless, the fact that the statement goes out of its way to include all of America is interesting, particularly for a local piece of legislation.

There may be some reasoning for this, according to the article – the wording is the exact same found on the website of America’s United Steelworker’s Union. More so, the wording is near-identical to that found within numerous other resolutions being passed by other counties too. If you ask me, there’s more at play here than simply the “support” of businesses in the area. It’s the sort of canned wording that seems far more focused with fostering a “buy American” ideal than actually supporting local companies at all.

So what to take from all this? I don’t quite care how Mayors like Covey try to explain it – this just screams protectionism to me, and in a way that doesn’t quite seem to have local interests in mind. More so, it’s a move that certainly doesn’t have Canadian interests in mind. So, Mr. President – the ball is in your court now; something seems to be taking root, and if it isn’t protectionism, I’d sure like to know what it is.

I’m not sure what it is with the Toronto Star these days – it’s as if the comments are becoming more insightful than the actual articles. Case in point, this gem…

With George W. Bush speaking to the city’s “well-heeled” tonight, I hope corporate sponsors will take advantage of this event to boost our culture, economy and national pride. For example, Bata Shoes could get their new lineup some air time. The Bata Shoe Museum could mount an exhibition called “Political Self-Expression with Footwear,” and Payless Shoe Source could offer a “1 for the price of 2″ special, for people who only want to cast a single vote.

Bart Hawkins Kreps, Port Hope

I’m not entirely sure how I missed this story over the Christmas holidays, but alas, I’ll forgive myself. After all, I was spending ample time indulging upon foods and deserts. Yet, it appears the same could not be said for one particular boy this Christmas holiday, who found himself denied a custom cake from the local supermarket. And the story gets better.

The boy’s father, Heath Campbell, had gotten custom cakes for his 3 year-old son’s previous birthdays from a nearby Wal-Mart. This year, however, choosing to purchase a cake from the local ShopRite instead, the store refused to adorn the cake with name of Campbell’s son. Honestly, can you blame them?

“Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!” it would have read.

To say Mr. Campbell is an admirer of the Nazi party would be an understatement. Campbell’s daughter is conveniently named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell. Meanwhile, the entire affair has exploded into a two separate issues, no-doubt spurred by intense media coverage both nationally and abroad.

Firstly, there is the issue of whether the cake should have been printed in the first place. Spokespeople for both Wal-Mart and ShopRite in a a number of newspaper articles have stated it’s their position to refuse the creation of cakes that are either illegal, or deemed inappropriate. Of course, what exactly is deemed “inappropriate” is a very large blanket indeed. For instance, if someone had simply requested a cake inspired by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, most would probably consider the creation of such a cake to fall into this category. Yet, in this instance, the cake is being requested by someone who clearly posses the same name, but is not an infamous war criminal. By that logic, should ShopRite reserve the right to refuse Osama and Hussein cakes too?

Of course, the obvious problem here is that, as much as Mr. Campbell would like us to believe, young Adolf has clearly been named in memory of the Nazi leader. He’s stated in a number of papers and interviews that it’s “just a name”, and that nothing should be construed from it. Yet, this is coming from a man who’s house is adorned in Swastikas, and German Nazi paraphernalia. Not to mention the unfortunate naming of his daughter.

So you can see where this story is going. What originally began as an issue of free speech rights – or would that be free icing rights? – has now snowballed into the legitimacy and implications of naming one’s children after remnants of a Nazi past. In my opinion, when covering such a story, there needs to be a very clear separation of the two While I obviously agree that it’s probably not the greatest idea to name your child Hitler, Mao, or Stalin – but that’s your prerogative. Whether he should have named his children based on such horrible historical blights in the first place is another matter entirely. So, as a Journalist, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I will support your right to say it.

Or, in this case, ice it. If only cake artists agreed.