It’s just after 8pm in Montreal, and the reporter from CUTV is talking to a young mother who is taking her two kids to the 28th nightly demonstration in a row.

Even though she knows she could be arrested, for defying the Charest government’s totalitarian Bill 78, like so many were the night before.

“About 300 people were arrested and 20 were injured during overnight protests in Montreal in defiance of Quebec’s contentious Bill 78, which cracks down on student-stoked demonstrations sparked by the province’s proposed tuition hikes.”

And the leader of the largest student group warned today that it could be a long, hot, and dangerous summer.

“One of Quebec’s main student federations called upon its fellow citizens to disobey the provincial government’s emergency law, passed last week to stymie the daily and sometimes violent student protests.

“The government should cancel the bill ‘before people get injured, before people die,’ said spokesperson Gabriel Dubois-Nadeau.”

But then this is now more than a protest about tuition fees, and that young mother is not alone. As the people on this website say . . . arrest me somebody! arrêtez-moi quelqu’un!

And Je désobéis…
I DISOBEY.

Because some things are worth getting arrested for, and the freedom to demonstrate in a democracy is one of them.

You know I hate to see Quebecers fighting themselves, and I have absolutely no time for the handful of hoodlums who would throw things at police or break windows.

But whatever the Con media says, this is an overwhelmingly peaceful movement. Tonight some of them were wearing rabbit ears, and carrying balloons . . .

And because the police stayed at a distance, there was no violence or mass arrests. Just another big freedom party in the streets of the city I love so much.

I have no idea where this awesome struggle is going, and sometimes I fear the worst.  Because it is polarizing opinion in the province like nothing I’ve seen before.

But I do know that this Quebec Spring is now too big and broad based to be suppressed with night sticks and pepper spray. Jean Charest must do the right thing, scrap Bill 78, and negotiate with the student leaders. Instead of hoping that he can use the protests to win the next election.

And I also know that the people in the streets of Montreal, the students and the others, are marching for ALL of us in Harper’s ghastly Canada. Where Peace, Order, and Good Government never sounded more like a fascist slogan, as the Cons dismantle our country.

Today it’s their turn. Tomorrow it will be ours.

Which is why I love this message so much……

Here’s to the big freedom party.

Solidarité FOREVER . . .

As most of you are aware (and if you’re not aware, you should stop reading now and go back and re-read all 66 of my articles . . . I’ll wait), I’m an expert in everything to do with rioting. Therefore, I know what Conservative MP Blake Richards is talking about in his new Bill, C-309, which would make it illegal for rioters to wear masks while rioting — offering up a penalty of 10 years in prison if convicted.

It turns out that it’s really hard for the police to identify and charge rioters if they’re wearing masks. Therefore they’d like to respectfully ask those rioters to not wear the masks while they’re breaking the law.

And I couldn’t agree more with Blakester! We need to know who these people are! Listen, every October 31st a whole bunch of unruly kids amble into my neighbourhood and start harrassing everyone for candy. And what are these kids wearing? That’s right: masks. And all I can do is run into my panic room and hide for the rest of the evening while they continue to ring my doorbell and egg my house. So I agree with Blakester — these kids need to be locked up for as long as possible. Or, perhaps, when it becomes illegal to wear those scary little masks of theirs, they’ll no longer come around.

Now, you may be wondering why any rioters (or pesky little candy fiends) would be willing to take their masks off and riot in the open. Why would people, who are already breaking the law by rioting, be so inclined to not break a secondary law?

Because they’re criminals, but they’re not dumb. You see, if you get caught for rioting you face up to two years in prison, but if you’re caught rioting while wearing a mask, you’re adding up to another 10 years. Now, I’m not mathematician, but my calculator tells me that would be a total of 12 years. Two seems a lot better than 12 (except for when it comes to beers, when 12 is always better than two  . . .  and Jim Beam is always better than beer).

But here’s where the law falls flat. They’re only outlawing the use of masks during riots, and for an incident to be considered a riot it has to be an unlawful assembly that incites fear in the neighbourhood. Which would be fine, because everything that happens in my neighbourhood incites fear in me (seriously, why are my neighbour’s blinds always closed? What are you hiding Tim?  WHAT?!), but for an assembly to be considered unlawful, it has to involve three or more persons.

Only three or more? So, what you’re telling me is that if Bill C-309 is passed, I’m only protected if three or more people show up at my house wearing masks? That if two people show up and murder me, they’ll only be facing whatever slack murder laws Canada has, and not the extra 10 year mask-wearing sentence? Why do I even bother unlocking my door?

What I propose is that we make it illegal to wear any mask, ever. Doctors, with those little mouth masks, I don’t trust them. What are they trying to hide? Skiers, with their ski masks; not on my watch, off with those too! Riot police, with their riot masks . . . you’re in a riot zone! You’re definitely breaking the law!

Listen, I think we can all agree that the only way we’ll ever live in a truly free and safe society is when it’s entirely illegal for anyone to wear a mask at anytime.

. . . Masks and hoodies. (Geraldo, I’ve got your back.)

Nathaniel Moher is a television writer living in Vancouver. This column first appeared in The Flying Shingle.

By Alison@Creekside

So remember how the Cons withdrew their just-tabled internet surveillance bill, the Lawful Access Act, on Feb 14 and replaced it an hour and 15 minutes later with the identical but renamed Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act , a bill which mentions neither children nor predators?

Coincidentally, the US Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 - sponsored by Texas teabaggin’ Rep Lamar Smith who also sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act, another internet spying bill – has 39 co-sponsors and is heading off to the US House of Representatives for debate.

Good thing ours has that one-word difference in the title, the better to provide for Canadian independence and sovereignty.

Theirs :

House Panel Votes to Require ISPs to Keep Customer Records

“The Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act would require ISPs to retain all customer IP addresses [for 12 months, amended down from 18] so that law enforcement agents can use the information to investigate online child pornography. Law enforcement agents would gain access to the IP information with subpoenas they issue, not court-ordered warrants.”

Hey, ours does that too!

Michael Geist yesterday :

Toews has not talked about a provision in Bill C-30 that creates a voluntary warrantless system that would allow police to ask for the content of emails or web surfing habits and allow ISPs to comply with the request without fear of liability.

Hey, Section 6 of the theirs does that too! As does SOPA.

So who else is looking to spy on us online?

National Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy, January 2012, pages 33-34:

“It is imperative that Canada and the United States work together to expedite the sharing of information from electronic communication service providers; and share information necessary to lay the foundation for intercepting internet and voice communications under their respective laws in a timely manner.”

Meanwhile, across the pond, the UK isn’t hiding their internet spying bill behind any malarkey about protecting children. Same basic mo though :

UK government to demand access to all phone and internet user data

“The British government is in the process of developing a scheme whereby all phone companies and broadband internet providers will be required to store customer transaction data for a year and hand it over to security services upon request.”

In opposing the US pornography bill, Rep. John Conyers said : 

By Alison@Creekside

A leaked 2004 CSIS report from LaPresse on Thursday purports to be a summary of a conversation between Abousfian Abdelrazik and Adil Charkaoui  in 2000 in which they plotted to blow up an airplane enroute between Montreal and France. It has already been enthusiastically repeated across our national press:

CBC: CSIS file reveals plot to bomb plane: La Presse

Gosh, CBC, your previous nice pix of Abdelrazik and Charkaoui are now replaced by scary ones.

G&M: Abdelrazik and Charkaoui plotted plane bomb: report

AFP:  Two Canada terror suspects plotted France attack: report

etc. … etc. …

Never mind that this “news” was already reported nearly two years ago after a federal court judge annulled Charkaoui’s security certificate because government lawyers refused the judge’s order to reveal their wiretap evidence, citing “security concerns.”

About now you are probably wondering what kinds of ”security concerns” trump giving evidence about someone you allege was plotting to blow up a plane.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney:

“I read the protected confidential dossiers on such individuals, and I can tell you that, without commenting on any one individual, some of this intelligence makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck,” he said. “I just think people should be patient and thoughtful and give the government and its agencies the benefit of the doubt.”

The re-leak has nonetheless been greeted with skepticism by Boris, Dr. Dawg, Pogge, Sixth Estate and no doubt many others because we all remember previous security leaks from government officials who are more than happy to anonymously rejig conveniently-timed select bits of complete bullshit to a cooperative media.

Let’s review just the anonymous bullshit security leaks about Maher Arar for instance, for which no public officials were ever called to account and who are presumably still happily at it.

In 2002, while Arar was being tortured in Syria, an anonymous official source linked Arar to “a suspected member of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network.” That suspected member was Abdullah Almalki — later cleared by the Iacobucci inquiry.

Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar:

CanWest bureau chief Robert Fife, July 24, 2003: “Terror threats in Ottawa: Two kinds of fear: Report says

Syrian intelligence helped U.S. to foil al-Qaeda plot on target in Ottawa : One official would only tell CanWest News Service that Mr. Arar, a 36-year-old Ottawa engineer, is a “very bad guy” who apparently received military training at an Al-Qaeda base. “

As noted by Justice O’Connor in the report: “The apparent purpose behind this leak is not attractive: to attempt to influence public opinion against Mr. Arar at a time when his release from imprisonment in Syria was being sought by the government of Canada.”

Coincidentally the sudden re-issuing of this “new” leak about blowing up planes happens to coincide with Abdelrazik’s attempt to get his name off the UN 1267 terror list this month.

To continue:

G&M, Oct 10, 2003: Unnamed Canadian government sources said that Mr. Arar had been “roughed up,” but not tortured, while in detention in Syria

CTV, Oct. 23, 2003: “Senior government officials in various departments” said that Mr. Arar had provided information to the Syrians about al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and cells operating in Canada.

Juliet O’Neill, Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 2003 : “Canada’s dossier on Maher Arar: The existence of a group of Ottawa men with alleged ties to al-Qaeda is at the root of why the government opposes an inquiry into the case.”

Fife: Dec. 30, 2003 : “US, Canada ’100% sure’ Arar trained with al-Qaeda”: “A senior Canadian intelligence source said the United States had an extensive dossier on Mr. Arar and that ‘if the Americans were ever to declassify the stuff, there would be some hair standing on end.’”

Toronto Star: Learning from media mistakes in Arar case, May 2009:

“Unnamed officials also told Craig Oliver at CTV News that Arar was only released because he had given information to the Syrians about Al Qaeda and about other Canadians suspected of terrorism activities. Oliver later explained that he felt the story was credible because his sources were senior officials in two different government departments. Nonetheless, years after the Arar inquiry’s report, he apologized to Arar in person for running the story. He also told him of an offer he had turned down – a photograph of Arar training in a camp in Afghanistan. As he describes: ‘The source wanted me to use the information without showing me the photograph. That was a very solid source . . . This experience has made me more skeptical . . . I knew these people very well.’”

So you’ll have to forgive the rest of us if we also share Craig Oliver’s reluctance to be conned into accepting any more conveniently-timed leaks and smears from anonymous security officials who, for all we know, are the same ones who previously set out to turn public opinion against Arar even as they destroyed his life for reasons they have yet to account for.

There’s just so much wrong with this news story about the Canada Border Services Agency arresting and jailing a 66-year old woman for 12 days, for trafficking, possessing, and importing heroin, because their swab-test of a jar of motor oil in her vehicle incorrectly identified it as heroin. Why wasn’t Janet Goodin allowed a phone call? Why did it take 12 days to get a lab report?

But the explanation from CBSA spokesy Lisa White is the weirdest:

“CBSA officers are trained to look for clues or multiple indicators before referring someone for secondary inspection. CBSA officers consider many factors, including previous infractions, countries visited, nervousness, etc., in assessing who or what might be a risk. When CBSA officers suspect a possible presence of narcotics, a field test will be conducted. These may include narcotic identification tests, spray tests and detector dogs.”

OK, but as subsequent testing revealed no trace of heroin at all, what ”clues” tipped you guys off?

That she had no prior record? That she was a retired Girl Scouts administrator on her way to a regular bingo game?

Reading the many comments below the Winnipeg Free Press article desperately attempting to absolve the CBSA  – that it was Goodin’s own fault for having an unmarked jar of motor oil in her vehicle, that heroin does look like motor oil after all, that maybe she was a mule doing a test run, that the CBSA are just doing their job, that perhaps her son-in-law had heroin on his hands when he gave her the jar of motor oil that subsequently tested for no heroin — you realize the extent to which the terr’rists really did win. We are one paranoid country now.

And also: that this is how we wound up with Steve.

An interview with Andre Marin, Ontario Ombudsman and author of the G20 report “Caught in the Act,” sheds a little light on the blackout surrounding who was responsible for ordering kettling at the G20 a year ago.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, as we have previously heard, had not heard of the term kettling before he saw it taking place before his very eyes on TV at the G20. A whole year later he still claims not to know who ordered it.

Paul Jay reads from Marin’s report :

“The former RCMP official who was in charge of ISU security at the time advised us that by June 24, which is, what, two days before, the Toronto Police Services representative on the ISU steering committee had left the ISU building, and that by noon on Saturday, June 26, when all hell’s breaking loose, communications between the ISU and the Toronto Police had broken down. By 4 p.m., the Toronto Police Services had completely gone off the ISU radar.

These guys had months to prepare, like, an unlimited budget, like, a billion dollar budget, and it seems like what they told you is that the communication had broken so down that the RCMP had no control over the events that were going on in Toronto.”

And where was Blair during all this? At the Intercontinental Hotel meeting President Obama.

Now that’s what I call an alibi.

According to Marin, the ISU responsibilities were divided up between: “the RCMP responsible for security within the fence; the Toronto Police responsible for the security outside the fence.”

On CBC’s “As It Happens” on Friday night, Blair made this statement about his relationship to the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit:

“Quite frankly I was not involved in much of the planning. I was aware of some of the things that were being planned, I was being briefed, but I was not the Operational Commander, I was not on the Unified Command Team or in the steering committee.”

Well that’s handy, isn’t it?

Blair’s in charge of the streets but is not inside the ISU command loop.

Then while he’s off receiving his thank-you-masked-mans from Obama, someone uses the power vacuum at ISU to suck people at Queen and Spadina up as extras in a police crowd control exercise under martial law.

Blair declined to appear before Marin’s investigation and does not support the idea of a public inquiry.

One year later, although the Toronto Police have pledged not to use illegal kettling again, the extraordinary powers of the “Queens breach” and the Public Works Protection Act remain in effect..

Extra reading : When police stick to phony script: the Miami Model from Catherine Porter in the Star

h/t Nadine Lumley.

Last week, Angela Campbell, a professor of law at McGill University, testified at a constitutional reference case examining Canada’s current polygamy law that the practice ought to be decriminalized. I wasn’t sure if I should gasp or applaud.

Campbell visited Bountiful, B.C. in 2008 and 2009, interviewing 22 women over a total of approximately 11 days. The small polygamist community near Creston has been the centre of much criticism, after questions were raised regarding child brides and forced marriages.

The women, who volunteered to be interviewed, told Campbell they were happy, healthy, and had control over their body and reproductive decisions. So where’s the harm, right?

Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since 1890 and not without just cause. Historically, polygamy has often ignored the rights of women, treating them instead as voiceless, husband-pleasing baby-makers. And most women will not argue with a law that attempts to save them from oppression.

By contrast, the women of Bountiful, in Campbell’s opinion, are not oppressed by their husbands but by the law. The anti-polygamy statute renders them silent and fearful to reach out for services or speak out against other crimes, for fear of exposing themselves as members of a polygamist family and put them at risk of having their children taken away.

It is a fear shared by other polygamists, including acquaintances of mine, who live a normal life, in a normal house, far from any polygamist community.

They live a life of secrets, Steve* told me. In order to feel safe and accepted in their community, they disguise their relationship and discuss it with few people. Not that they like it that way.

Steve and Laura* have been together for over 15 years, and have a child. Almost four years ago, Megan joined the family. While one of the women is more outgoing than the other, they are far from submissive, and Steve is not remotely sexist or domineering. All three entered the relationship respectfully and willingly.

I can’t personally imagine myself sharing my husband with another woman, but Laura and Megan seem comfortable and happy in their lives. When on their own with Steve, they are affectionate, jovial, and immersed in each other’s company. As a family, they go on bike rides and do yard work together, though they have to refrain from affection or anything else that would reveal their dynamic.

Since Steve and Laura are more established as a couple, have been together longer, and are parents to the child, Megan often has to take a back seat when they are in public or around people who recognize Steve and Laura as a couple, but are unaware of Megan’s role. It’s a step back that leaves her feeling somewhat ostracized and alone. That’s where the real oppression occurs, according to Steve.

They worry that if they are open about their relationship, the child will be taken from the home — from the happy, healthy home in which they all live. So they hide.

All three entered the relationship as individuals and consenting adults, and all three report that, while they may sometimes deal with issues and struggles that do not exist in monogamous relationships, they feel content and loved. The secrecy is taxing, but they do not complain. They acknowledge, though, that many of the complications and stresses in their lives would be resolved if polygamy were legal.

So a part of me would like to see the law changed, for their sake. However, there’s a big difference between three adults down the street choosing to live in a multi-member relationship, and religious fundamentalists living in polygamous communities like Bountiful.

Grilled by lawyers for the attorneys-general of Canada and B.C., as well as the organization Stop Polygamy in Canada, Campbell admitted that she had not determined whether the women she interviewed had been told what to say by their husbands or their religious leader, Winston Blackmore. (In 2009, Blackmore and another Bountiful leader were charged with polygamy; after the charges were quashed, the Province of B.C. asked for the current examination of the law.) Campbell said she was concerned about insulting the women, but the history of fundamentalist polygamy suggests that hard questions need to be asked.

Before we sanction polygamy we need to know a lot more about allegations that girls as young as 13 have been brought to Bountiful to become brides (Blackmore denies the charge), about the teenage girls who become pregnant at the settlement, about tales told by Debbie Palmer and other apostates’ of sexual molestation and forced marriage. Until we do, decriminalizing polygamy across the board, while it would make life happier for my acquaintances, is not the solution. Not yet.

* Not their real names

So 4Chan has finally found something useful to do with all its suppressed testerone and brought down the Mastercard site, in retaliation for the credit card company’s decision to stop processing donations to WikiLeaks. They’ve also apparently done some serious damage to PayPal (for the same reason), and Amazon could be next.

Good for them. While it’s hardly surprising that American corporations have run for the hills since Julian Assange began releasing his stash of secret diplomatic cables, they need to be forcefully reminded that when government and big business decide their interests overlay, it’s usually a bad thing for democracy. In fact, during the middle 20th-century, there was a name for it: Fascism. And no, not every use of the F-word is automatically hyperbolic.

We now know why PayPal did what they did. As one of its executives advised the Le Web 2010 conference in Paris this morning, the “State Department told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward. We . . . comply with regulations around the world, making sure that we protect our brand.” Later he told TechCrunch that the government had not even intervened with PayPal directly. The company had simply seen a copy of the letter sent to WikiLeaks, in which a State Department lawyer advised that the cables “were provided in violation of U.S. law” and “as long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.” Good enough for PayPal; they wouldn’t want to make anyone unhappy.

But as Mathew Ingram points out on gigaom.com, even the U.S. Justice Department is unsure whether WikiLeaks has done anything illegal. And if the U.S. does eventually decide to charge Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, there’s this little thing called due process, which, given the circumstances, would take years to play out — with every chance that in the end the charges would be tossed.

But PayPal, and Mastercard, and VISA, and Amazon can’t be bothered to wait. Of course, they haven’t yet announced they’re cutting their ties with the newspapers who’ve also published the cables, in most cases before WikiLeaks did. That would cost them real money.

The charges of sexual coercion and rape on which Assange was arrested yesterday may or may not hold up, but at least they are real. The notion that WikiLeaks has done anything illegal is just that — a notion — and while what Mastercard and its peers have done may be good for business, or at least their relationships with regulators, it’s lousy for the rule of law. Fortunately, 4Chan is around to dole out something even more important: justice.

What does a province do when a law acts as an effective deterrent? They consider changing it, apparently. At least, that’s what the still wet-behind-the-ears Solicitor General Rich Coleman is thinking of doing with B.C.’s strict new impaired driving laws.

Since September, B.C. has been abuzz with news of tougher drinking and driving laws, even though said laws have simply been brought into line with those of several other countries, including Australia, France, and Spain.  A three-day driving ban and $200 fine can be imposed upon individuals caught at .05 to .08. Those in excess of .08 are looking at 90 days off the road, loss of vehicle for 30 days, and a $500 fine. The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General website now claims that “B.C. has the toughest provincial impaired driving legislation in the country.”

The new laws have apparently been a successful deterrent. Although the effects have yet to be statistically proven, bars and restaurants say they’ve experienced a 30 percent drop in business. Patrons, they report, are afraid to drink and drive.

That should be cause for celebration, shouldn’t it? The law may actually be effective. But somehow the fact that businesses may be suffering is a deal-breaker. “We’ll see, going into the spring, if there are certain things we may have to do to mitigate some of the public’s concerns,” Coleman said as he announced a review.

Take a breath. Analyze the stats in the coming months for impaired driving, and then determine where to go from there. Don’t panic because of potential loss of sales. If the point of the new laws is to reduce the impact of drinking and driving in B.C. — over 100 deaths per year year and more than 3000 injuries — then it would behoove the province to accurately determine if they have worked before changing them.

Have a drink. Wait. See.

Book banning is for right-wing fundamentalists and crotchety spinsters and very tense parents of pristine children and also EVERYONE who saw The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure on Amazon last Tuesday and immediately clutched their pearls.  Including me.  The site has since kowtowed to pressure and pulled the book, which will effectively alienate the Free-Speech-At-All-Costs crowd while failing to diffuse everyone else’s Fury Bombs.

Every September Banned Books Week rolls around, and the internet is afire with the wrongity of censorship.  The arguments against are nearly always framed around freedom of speech, not greatness of book.  No one fights the banning of American Psycho or Twilight because we should all experience Patrick Bateman or the Bella/Edward hot mess; they fight the ban out of a zero-tolerance conviction that forbidding people to read what they choose to read goes against a basic human right.

That conviction went out the window in the face of this admittedly tasteless and disturbing book.  Facebook groups sprang up with mushroom-like vigor, where people said things like “I believe in freedom of speech and all of that, but this is disgusting.”  Lolita is also disgusting.  So is The Day My Butt Went Psycho, which (in addition) lacks the Russian Stamp of Credibility.  “Disgusting” is not an acceptable counter-argument to freedom of speech.

Other people ask, “Can the police track down who actually bought this filth and press charges?”  Because the book lacks any actual child pornography, it does not count as child pornography.  Pedophilia is illegal, certainly, but the author is not molesting any children (that we know of).  Amazon also sells a book on how to smuggle cocaine (by the ton), but because that book isn’t hollowed out and filled with crack before it is shipped to you, it is also not technically illegal.

The instinctual donkey kick is understandable, because children are far more beloved and vulnerable (and generally cuter) than cocaine addicts.  However, this has blinded the opposition to some of the more reasonable arguments against the book.  There are laws, for example, against hate literature.  If I wrote a book on how to most effectively torment your Visigothic neighbor, I’d be clapped in irons.  Since this book advocates what the law has deemed harmful, it could reasonably be classified as hate literature.

But I’m not convinced we need to launch a legal rocket against it.  I hesitate to judge sight unseen, but I’d make an excessive wager that this book is a horrid read.  Pedophilia is not like legalized marijuana.  It is not a topic up for debate, with valid arguments on either side.  We as a society have decided that it is appalling, so I have to believe that we as a society will likewise refuse to buy this book, Super Saver free shipping be damned.  Money talks, and if my faith in the human condition is to hold its fragile head high, very few dollars will give this book the time of day.

And I’m hesitant to allow a site like Amazon power over what I can and cannot buy.  The zero-ban came about because the slope is slippery, and while pedophilia is illegal almost everywhere, gay marriage is still illegal in no few states.  The same logic that bans this book on so-called “legal” grounds would also see Julia Glass’s The Widower’s Tale banned in California because two dudes make with the wedding cake.

I hate that this book exists.  I don’t want Phillip Greaves to have written it, but I also don’t want Nickelback to write any more songs.  The only choice I have is where to turn my attention.  If I’m more afraid of censorship snowballing than of the ramifications of this Guide, it’s because I doubt the Guide’s potency.  Not all problems will go away if they are ignored, but this book is one beast we should probably stop feeding.