The Death of the English Language: Last vs. Latest

Despite having little to no free time today, I sacrificed the ten minutes I had planned on using to shave to drop some knowledge.

While it is easy to confuse the terms last and latest, there are variations between the two that lead to more adequate usage in the proper context. If you are referring to something with last, it should pertain to a final effort.

The last episode of Cheers made me cry. What the fuck is Norm going to do now?

According to that sentence, it is clear that the final episode of Cheers is the subject, as oppose to;

The latest episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians was the television equivalent of euthanasia; their last episode could not come soon enough.

See what I did there? O AN HE CRAFTY HUH. In this instance, latest refers to the most recent, not last episode.

Now, before you run-off sharing this precious nugget of information with your friends, remember, there are exceptions. Last, when used in the sense of latest, can be as impactful as an idiom and should be used only when there is no affordance for ambiguity.

Cubs catcher Soto just made up for an error in his last at bat by smoking a hanging slider from Ramirez over the fence for a 3-run home run and 13th inning walkoff win for the Cubbies.

Why the Cubs? Well, that actually just happened moments ago while I write this. Allow that to be today's sign of the impending apocalypse.

Thanks for reading.

Bon Voyage Glenn Beck, you ignorant prick.

UPDATE: Notice above, the 'word' impactful in bold. I feel like dying right now solely because I included that in a post. Impact is not a verb, thus impactful is not even close to a word. I hate my life. Sweet dreams.

Mayor Rob Ford Says No To Pride: Who Cares?

Pride festivities have kicked-off in Toronto and much of the news surrounds Mayor Rob Ford's absence from a flag-raising event held yesterday at City Hall.

Ford's stand-in, councillor Frances Nunziata was booed unmercifully by the crowd; which begs the question - why so much disdain for the absence of a man with numerous examples of bigotry and shortsightedness when it comes to minority groups and ethnicity?


Instead of attending the Pride launch party, Ford had a confidential meeting with Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke, an advocate for gay rights whose son Brendan struggled with coming out before he was killed at age 21 in a car accident last year. Burke has confirmed his participation in the march, declining to discuss Ford's absence; "I do not view it as my place to criticize the mayor of this city for a decision such as this one."

Now that's what I call a responsible answer to an impossible question.

In hopes of not making unfounded generalizations; we can assume that the city's gay community did not flock to the ballots to support Ford. Much of the urbanites dwelling in the city's core didn't either according to voting statistics, and the gay community has George Smitherman, a veteran politician and proud homosexual who had done much in the past both for the gay community and the downtown neighbourhood on Church Street many call home.

If I was a part of a fledgling minority group who knew the Mayor didn't support my cause, would I be angry he's refused in invitation to Pride festivities? Not at all. It would be a disingenuous appearance at best, and to Ford's credit, why would he want to be part of a celebration that would likely see him mocked by large groups?

The story is splashed across the front page of many of the city's papers, most with a picture of the oft-smiling Ford being grilled by reporters and Nunziata looking as bewildered as a deer stuck firmly in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler. It's to be expected from many arms of the media such Anti-Ford posturing, but it's becoming a case of Much Ado About Nothing as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a big supporter of Rob Ford, more so for his stance on the arts and bicycle lanes prior to his appointment, then for his bigotry. Fact is, the man is our Mayor and he has since changed his positioning on a few key postulates, including the installation of bike lanes amongst others, and all signs point to fiscal responsibility amidst a mess of non-partisan opinions and needs at City Hall.

Is he the ideal Mayor for a city built on multi-ethnicities and the needs of minority groups? Probably not.

Should he be scolded for refusing to attend festivities which he clearly does not support? In the opinion of this website, the response would be a resounding no.

Let the man go to his cottage as planned Canada Day Weekend. When the city has many politicians and councillors such as the aforementioned Smitherman and noted gay rights supporter Kyle Rae planning to attend, can't we give the Mayor a break?

It's just not his thing.

Colangelo Shows Balls, Drafts Jonas Valanciunas

Following the Raptors decision to draft 19-year old Jonas Valanciunas of Lithuania with the 5th pick in Thursday's nights NBA Draft, I was a skeptical as many a Raptor's fan.


Initially, the need for defense and a quick remedy to a succession of lacklustre seasons leaped to mind as a priority. In hindsight, my opinion of the pick has gone from mildly negative to unabashedly optimistic.

The fact of the matter is, North American-bred NBA players aren't exactly flocking to Toronto vis-a-vis trade or free agency; I'm not completely certain why, but they don't. In reality, the city's multiethnic community and emerging waterfront adjacent to the ACC would cater perfectly to many an NBA player if they only gave it a chance.

Problem is, the Raps cannot become a perennial playoff competitor by simply filling stop-gaps through free agency, they have to build a core of young players who actually want to play here.

Much of the criticism towards GM Bryan Colangelo is that Jonas is under contract to play with his club team in Lithuania for another season, and barring a miracle, will not suit up for the team until the 2011-12 season. Considering he's 19, 7 feet tall with a 7'4 wingspan and a 9'3 reach, I think we can wait a year.

Kudos to Colangelo for making a risky move, especially considering he just signed a 2-year contact extension with a club option for the third. Most GM's would have overreacted and drafted the best available athlete on the board ready to play next season.

Yes, Jose Calderon is a liability at the 1 and his back-up Jerryd Bayless is rubbish, but drafting UConn's Kemba Walker or Kentucky's Brandon Knight would not have provided a defined starting point guard, while Valanciunas might be the most talented player in the draft.

He will play defense in the blocks and be able to post-up any player in the league. He has the look of a star and seems elated to eventually join the Raptors.

Considering this year's draft was lacklustre at best, Colangelo may have drafted the best available player regardless of contractual obligations to his club in Europe. Say all you will about the Raps and their penchant for signing European players, but 6 of the first 7 picks of the draft were born outside of the United States. Perhaps Colangelo deserves more praise and a little less criticism. Only time will tell. Thanks for reading kids.

The Death of the English Language: Gender Trolls

Let me preface today's entry by saying I'm bitter, unemployed and it just rained for the duration of my lunchtime barbecue party of one, only to stop the moment I came indoors. Such is my life, and without it, I probably wouldn't have any luck at all.

*Also, off-topic but really, perpetually on; for those who like to slip a little 'entire' before your 'durations' because you fancy upping the word count, think again, duration implies an entirety, requiring no quantification at all.

Onward with the nitpicking; today have I got a treat for y'all(s).

"Because of his gender, Lawrence Taylor had trouble getting into the girls locker room at St. Peter's School for Young Girls in Camden, New Jersey."

Ripped from the headlines, like an episode of Law & Order: Who The Fuck Cares Unit, is this doozy of a quote. (I lied; that quote is fabricated - also, I didn't lose my virginity when I was 13. I was 8.)

The word gender, in this case qualifies the subject, Mr. Taylor, and is substituted for sex (Haha yes please, I'll have two.)

Gender was originally employed as a grammatical term, until the 19th century when it became a euphemism for those too conservative to echo the word sex. While the taboo surrounding the word sex has diminished, gender is still the preferred word when referring to a person's sex.

I say fuck off to all these modern interpretations and applications of words. Can we not at least make the most minute of efforts towards this cause or do I have to have buttons made?

Be off with yourselves. Tell the woman you love that you barely tolerate her, grab a twelve of something cheap and get ready for the NBA Draft. If you don't hear from me tomorrow, it's because the Raptors drafted another white guy and I've killed myself.

FIFA Corruption: Jack Warner Steps Down.

Yesterday, FIFA vice president and CONCACAF chief Jack Warner stepped down amidst a several months long corruption scandal into a $1 million bribery for Caribbean World Cup votes and potentially fixing the June 1st Presidential Elections.

In hopes of retaining his position as Minister of Transport and Works in his native Trinidad and Tobago, reports state that Warner followed Mohamed Bin Hammam of Qatar by voluntarily stepping down to quell speculations of corruption. Reports suggest that Warner's post in Trinidad is of great value and unethical business practices with FIFA could negatively affect his tenure. Just last week, Warner was influential in his decisions to replace a sewer lid and have a boulder removed from a section of busy gravel-topped road by a group of schoolchildren for a modest fee of a thousand dollars and the first-born children of anyone involved.

If you prescribe to the logic that FIFA is the most corrupt sporting entity in the world, Warner's voluntary removal also helps FIFA President Sepp Blatter's case, as two of the most senior and controversy riddled henchmen have stepped down before further investigations could take place to identify said examples of unethical practices.

Before I go, may I remind everyone that you are free to share your opinions below in the comment section. A Google ID is not required if you choose to comment anonymously. Any comments are appreciated; even if they are comprised of poo and pee humour and a brazen disregard of functional grammar and spelling.

The Ethics of Rioting - A Ridiculous Argument From The Toronto Star

In what must seem like old news, today's Toronto Star features a column from 'ethics' writer Ken Gallinger that questions the ethics of witnesses to the riots and friends of rioters who identified suspects using tagging features on a popular social media sites.

The author of said article does his mightiest to call into question the ethics of a person identifying a culprit without using common channels such as first notifying authorities.

The article is below in italics, used without permission from the Toronto Star.


Q: In the aftermath of the Vancouver riots, people are posting pictures on social media “tagging” supposed culprits for all the world to see? Is this right?

A: One ugly act usually begets another.

The performance of the Canucks during the latter half of the finals was, let’s face it, pretty ugly — not ethically ugly, but in Canada the boundary between hockey and ethics is soft at the best of times. The on-ice shambles predictably led to on-street shambles that the whole world now knows about. Canadians feel rightly humiliated; in most parts of the world, such scenes are motivated by human rights abuses, power hungry governments, oppression of the poor. In Canada, we riot because Luongo can’t stop frozen rubber. Good grief.

But if the riots were ugly, the spate of social media vigilantism isn’t pretty either.

People who witness a crime have an ethical obligation to report what they’ve seen to the police. Nowadays, when everyone carries a camera in their techno-umbilical cord, it’s often possible to record evidence and pass that on, too. As we learned in the case of Robert Dziekanski, Tasered to death in, yes, Vancouver’s airport, such video evidence can make the difference between bringing bad guys to justice or setting them free.

The Dziekanski case, however, also underlines that police can’t always be trusted with the evidence. There were attempts to withhold that video from the public, and it was released only when the cops were forced to do so. That, along with less savoury motives, is why it’s de rigueur to skip the cops entirely, and go straight to the public, via social media.

But that’s dangerous. Cameras generally point one direction. Riot images tell what those in front of the camera were doing — but show nothing of what the person behind the camera was up to. Clearly, these amateur photogs were in the midst of the action, and (one can surmise) enjoying what was going on. They didn’t choose to go home.

The images I’ve seen establish who was there, but there’s nothing illegal about being in the streets of Vancouver at night. Some establish that those before the lens did little to stop the looting and violence, but was the picture taker any different? And one, at least, shows a man we’ve now decided was a ‘hero’ for protecting the Bay store — but do we know what he was doing one minute before the video was recorded? Or five minutes after? After all, he chose to be at the scene of the crime, like everyone else.

A picture may be worth a thousand words. But a thousand words can tell a lie as easily as the truth. People with pictures of that terrible night are free to post them, insofar as they establish the disgusting scene that unfolded. But as far as “tagging” the culprits, that’s a task best left, in the first instance, to the cops.

When the cops fail to do their job, however, as in the Dziekanski case or the more recent assault of Dorian Barton during the G20 in Toronto, then, and only then, it’s fair and right for those with evidence to go straight to the public.

First he points out that we have an ethical obligation to report crimes to authorities, but alas, often times said authorities cannot be trusted with such evidence. Comparing it to the case of a man killed by police tazers is an absolute waste of print when he ends up theorizing that capturing a brief moment on film and casting judgement based on it might be unfair.

Jesus H Christ, get off your bloody high horse and realize that a picture of a person stuffing a sock dipped in lighter fluid in a police car's gas tank is evidence enough that the person captured on film deserves to be punished. What he did leading up to those actions are immediately there after have far less bearing on the incident than does the incident itself.

It is not only fair to resort to such means when police fail to adequately perform their duties, as the author suggests, because it is impossible for justice to be brought against an unruly crowd when the police are taking a passive wait-and-see approach.

Let's reward those that used social media as a means of bringing others to justice when the police are unable without questioning the ethics of it.

Book Of The Week: Father's Day Edition - Joy In Mudville

My dad doesn't care much for Father's Day. To him, it's just another day, but for me it has become a day to reflect on just how blessed I am to have a father as wonderful and as loving as my own.

Without getting into too much detail in fears of divulging family secrets; my dad wasn't required to be the amazing father he is to me, but he was, and to this day, he is still the person I call when faced with both obstacles in life and the joys of accomplishments.

Today presents a perfect opportunity to share with you what my father shared with me; the love of reading and a deep understanding of baseball literature. Atop the list of books my father has either given me or loaned permanently never to be returned is Joy In Mudville: The Big Book of Baseball Humour.



The collection of essays, drawings and articles features many of the sport's heavy hitters, including Ring and John Lardner, Roger Angell and Garrison Keillor. There are contributions from ex-players (Yogi Berra), cartoonists (Charles Schulz and Bill Watterson) and that special brand of sports writer that waxes nostalgic while making many a reader cringe (Mitch Albom.)

An excerpt from the book's sleeve says it best; "Who's funnier? Casey Stengel or Yogi Berra? Ring Lardner or John Lardner? Alibi Ike or Babe Herman? Garrison Keillor or Russell Baker? The Dodgers or The Mets? Calvin Trillin or Marv Throneberry? They're all here, and so are such literary sluggers as Philip Roth, Robert Coover or George Plimpton; such poets of Broadway as Damon Runyon and Jimmy Breslin; such playwrights as Herb Gardner and Neil SImon; such sports columnists as Mitch ALbom, Ira Berkow, Mike Downey and Tony Kornheiser."

If you love baseball, or any of the aforementioned writers and artists, this is a must-read collection.

Every time I pick-it up for a read, it reminds me of playing catch with my father in the backyard, Jays game blaring on the radio with me struggling with my two-seamer, all ears, absorbing all of the knowledge my father has to bestow.

Call your dad, or even better yet, find the man and give him a giant hug will you?

Lebron James: Paradoxically Yours

Cut me a slice of humble pie - and while your at it - how about one for yourself.

With no consideration paid to his season and an uncharacteristically sub-par playoff performance; I think an unfair amount of unreasonable hatred has been directed towards Lebron James.

Following 'The Decision', Akron's own became a lightning rod for criticism from sports writers and fans alike. Much of this criticism was deserved immediately after the televised declaration, as Lebron's method and its representation of all that is wrong with sports became a focal point. He represented the spoiled superstar capable of holding one franchise by hold, while the jobs of front office executives and season ticket subscriptions hung in the balance for a half dozen teams vying for Lebron.

Beyond the Kornheisers and Wilbons of the world spouting vitriolic diatribes towards the man on national television, both sports fans and atheist alike found commonality in a general consensus of dislike towards Lebron. Momentum gained all the while Lebron and teammates made promises of multiple championships with generous helping of speculative cocksure.

As a collective, much of the Lebron hate surrounds his decision to join a fellow top 5 player and NBA title winner Dwyane Wade and perennial all star Chris Bosh in Miami.

For me, this is the most unfair element; we put such a great value on winning, but criticize the man for making the decision that arguably gave him the best chances to do exactly that. Bill Russell sits comfortably within the pantheon of greats; why? Because he won 11 Nba Titles, including Two as a player/coach. Part of the reason for why Jordan has been anointed the greatest of all time is because he won 6 rings in 6 opportunities and topped-it-off by winning MVP in each of those series. Recently, with Nowitzki winning his first title, conversations on sports radio and television argue whether he is a greater player than those who never hoisted the Larry O'Brien trophy like Charles Barkley and Karl Malone.

Considering how much of winning depends on variables like teammates and opposition, perhaps too much value is put on winning as both a statistical measure and a barometer for a player's legacy. Regardless, if winning is everything, I think we should give the man a break for his decision to join Miami.

Everything else is open-game - and please; don't get me wrong, ny no means am I implying that I suddenly like the guy - I don't. Let's just give the man a little extra rope to work with.

Time, Time, Everywhere is Time

People are lazy.

We spend so much effort vegetating, consumed by a voluntary, yet crippling malaise, that in other aspects of our lives, a great deal of value is put on saving time.

Time cannot be saved.

Though quantifiable, the linear measure of time cannot be accumulated, nor wasted; simply put, the most resourceful of us, those who excel at time management and epitomize the term busy bodies, have as much time in the day as do those who laugh in the face of productivity.

Sure, our existence on Earth is a finite measure.

The blue-haired lady celebrating her centennial splashed across the cover of the Springfield Coupon Clipper has lived a far longer life than that of a newborn who succumbs to a debilitating congenital disease, nevertheless, in a single day, they have both had 24 hours with which to operate.

Time can be allocated efficiently, but still, cannot be created or destroyed, only manipulated.

Just because you skipped your morning run in order to arrive at the office at 7 instead of 8 to deal with the mountainous collection of files on your desk; it doesn't mean time was saved.

Not a single minute of it in fact.

For all of the Earth's mysteries and concepts comprehensible that plainly escape the grasps of my understanding; if there were but a few things I believe with absolute certitude - this is it.

Of course, this understanding of time is a planetary notion below the hypotheses and deductions of quantum physicists and the possible manufacturing of the time-space continuum. If you'd fancy reading about theorems of time, may I suggest Timothy Ferris and the like.

The point is, time is not ours to save or waste, it is only ours to manipulate in a fashion that appeases our anxieties and limits our fears.

Just some thoughts - as always, thanks for reading.

The Death of the English Language: Have's and the Have Knots.

Recall earlier, during one of my "Death of the English Language" diatribes, when I discussed the concept of "Light Years" and its common misapplication.

The term is often confused as a measure of velocity, whereas it actually represents a measure of distance. When misinterpreted, people assume that by stating something is light years away, that it applies to a time unknown but still quantifiable.

Since both time and distance are linear measurements, technically the misuse of the term is not incorrect, but usually applied incorrectly with regards to the context.

Seems like I'm nitpicking a bit doesn't' it?

That brings us to today's seat-of-my-pants tutorial on "Knots" of the nautical variety.

You'll never catch a sailor making this mistake; but many a writer has used "knots per hour", when knots is a measure of nautical miles an hour. Writing "knots per hour" is redundant and technically means "knots per hour, per hour."

Hopefully reading that made you cringe half as much as I did whilst typing it.

Thanks for reading - find a patio tonight, consume an unquantifiable number of beers on an empty stomach and vomit incontrollably on the diaper changing station in the women's bathroom as a symbol of the disgust you see in the inequality of modern child rearing methods.

The Death of the English Language: Proverbials

Greetings friends - just a brief note today concerning something that has bothered me for quite sometime.

The unnecessary usage of the word proverbial bothers me to no end. When somebody utters a sentence that is inherently proverbial, it does not require a statement intimating that it is.

You just hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Or even worse; a true abortion of the English language;

You just hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.

Jesus H. Christ; you have given me no other option but to eat your first born progeny before regurgitating it on a bed of mixed greens before lightly covering it with a drizzle of a bitter vinaigrette.

All that requires being said is; You just hit the nail on the head.

Unless the person you are addressing is actually framing a home by driving a nail into a 2X4, it is commonly understood that it is proverbial.

The only exception to this is when the sentence actually refers to a proverb, the difference being that a proverb is a fixed expression, whereas a proverbial expression allows room for alteration.

Since I don't feel obligated to search for an actual proverb, I'll assume that if your read this site you are inherently brilliant and require no further explanation of the difference between the two.

I will now leave you to enjoy the second half of the Mavs game. But, before I go, remember that proverbial statements differ slightly from idiomatic expressions. Should you require a brief refresher on what Idioms are; search the column on the right for Idioms, certain that I've already covered that.

Blatter Wins FIFA Presidency - Appoints Kissinger - People Worldwide Scream 'What The Fuck' In Unison.

As covered below, Joseph S. Blatter beat an army of hungry and ethical aspiring FIFA heads in today's election. By that, of course I mean he beat himself to capture his 4th term as the head of football's governing body.

Amidst much speculation and finger-pointing concerning allegations of unethical and corrupt practices, Blatter announced today that he has asked former Secretary of State and controversial proponent of Realpolitik Henry Kissinger to be on a "committee of wise persons."

You can read more about the appointment of Mr Kissinger here [ESPN] - but my interest is not in taking an objective approach like our friends at the World Wide Leader.

Before I delve into my opinion of Henry Kissinger, I'd like to preface the entire discussion by pointing out that Kissinger is German-born, an avid supporter of the beautiful game and in 1978, was appointed the Chairman of the North American Soccer League [NASL] Board of Directors and had a part in the U.S. bid for the 2022 World Cup. Motivations are clear - he has his experiences with soccer and is fit for a bi-annual conference call with a hefty stipend; while a corrupt body like FIFA is surely seeking to improve it's tattered image by hiring a renowned political mind and mediator like Kissinger.

What does irk me about the whole situation is the bizarre impression people have of Kissinger. His opinion seems to be of the utmost importance to people far more intelligent and powerful than Blatter and he is paid exorbitant amounts of money to speak at colleges and before groups. The problem I have with all of this is that he has had his hand in genocides, ethnic cleansings, government over turnings and coups that have been wisely veiled and celebrated by many American policy makers and Presidents. Sure, it is not as easy to find direct evidence of all of his human rights violations and practices of sacrificing innocents for the greater good of the implementation of democratic governments, and we owe much of that to aforementioned politicians who chose to seek acclaim than responsibility, but he is a controversial figure nonetheless.

Much of my opinion of Kissinger stems from two experiences.

Firstly, during a 4th year International Diplomacy class, we were asked to compose a lengthy thesis-like argument for or against a significant diplomat or politician by comparing the chosen subject to others. I compared Henry Kissinger with Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet and Serb tyrant Slobodan Milosevic. The more I researched the more I began to realize that the only thing that separated these three individuals was their relation to the U.S. Government.

The three men all had their rotund hands in the same cookie jar, yet Kissinger is regarded in a far more positive light than the others in the annals of time because he was protected by the American heads of state that employed and consulted Kissinger.

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize in hindsight may have been better awarded elsewhere.

The second reason I have a strong opinion of Henry Kissinger is because I was heavily influenced by the prose of no-nonsense writer Christopher Hitchens in his scathing tour-de-force The Trial Of Henry Kissinger. In his text, Hitchens is able to eloquently describe the prevalent double-standard that I am currently struggling to emulate; Kissinger is an evil man who is praised because his radical decisions brought about change. For the most part, this change was influential and reared the U.S. and other nations in a direction of political and diplomatic responsibility and sobriety. However, there are the other instances where Kissinger's consultations proved costly for other parties involved. In Hitchens' book, he plays the role of the prosecution with Kissinger on trial for his human rights violations in Indochina, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Chile and East Timor.

Kissinger was the Secretary of State between the years 1973 - 77 under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

In lieu of time constraints, rather than list his positive contributions with thorough explanations, I'll attempt to truncate this entire mess by pointing-out that detente policies strengthened Soviet- U.S. relations and led to increased channels of discussion with Mao's China. Strategic relations and meetings concerning disarmament proved fruitful and there's really no way of knowing long-term just how beneficial such relations were. Before this, the path to China was an uncertain one, and without a doubt, Kissinger's involvement did pave the way for discussions between the U.S. and its Cold War opponents.

Beyond this, Kissinger's influence on the state of world politics cannot be denied; unfortunately, many of his consultations have led to human rights violations and the deaths of countless innocent people.

During the Vietnam war, Kissinger worked under Richard Nixon and assisted the president in fulfilling the primary postulate of his platform by pulling American troops out of Vietnam and entrusting power and in increased enabling in the hands of the South Vietnamese Army. In order to do this, Kissinger advised Nixon to debilitate the opposing forces of the North Vietnamese army (Vietnam People's Army of PAVN) and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, a Communist guerrilla organization. To do so, Kissinger ordered a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia to disrupt PAVN and Viet Cong forces striking South Vietnam from its southern border shared with Cambodia. The attacks killed an estimated 40,000 Cambodian combatants and innocent civilians and despite fracturing the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh, which gave rise to an increased participation from Cambodia militant Khmer Rouge. As Hitchens argues, the long-term effects of the decision are still visible today with regards to the state of Cambodia and militant factions in southeast Asia.

In 1970, Chile elected Socialist Party nominee Salvador Allende president, causing serious concern in Washington concerning his socialist platform. Beyond the threat a Socialist government caused to the West, the U.S. had a stake in Chile with American owned and regulated copper mines and the feared nationalization of such resources. A 40-chair committee led by Kissinger elected to surreptitiously promote a coup in Chile to oppose Allende's tenure. Soon enough, the Chilean Supreme Court accused Allende of numerous infractions including the support of armed groups, torture, illegal arrests, muzzling the press, confiscating private property and not allowing nationals to leave the state. The accusations were deemed unconstitutional and were dropped for lack of evidence, but despite this, the seeds of overthrow had been planted, and during a military coup in 1973, Allende committed suicide. With Allende out of the picture, the man who led the group, General Augusto Pinochet took control of the country. What was initially a planned intervention to suppress the potential threats of socialism, turned into a 20+ year reign of terror at the hands of Pinochet and his oligarchic rule. Thousands of human rights violations in Chile have been reported, not the least of which were unconstitutional executions without proper evidence and a slew of other violations that crippled the Chilean state. Even with all the documentation that depicts Pinochet's support from Kissinger and his committee and the numerous human rights violations, Pinochet died without even a slap on the wrist and Kissinger lives to influence FIFA and drive people like myself absolutely ape shit.

As Hitchens suggests, there were countless other incidents in Bangladesh, Cyprus and East Timor that have forever tarnished Henry Kissinger's legacy; I unfortunately do not have the time to account for all of these, nor am I seeing one red cent for this extended diatribe.

The point I hope to have adequately conveyed is that while many place Kissinger on a pedestal reserved for the masters of diplomacy and influence of modern history, the man is as guilty of as many human rights violations and inexcusable sacrifices as many of the world leaders we have crucified for their acts - and now the prick is working for the most corrupt non-governmental organization this side of the Russian Mob.

FIFA Presidential Elections: Something Fishy

Following a week of allegations and corruption scandals, football's governing body FIFA held elections today for their most powerful position.

The incumbent, Sepp Blatter, was poised to run against Qatari football chief Mohamed Bin Hammam, until the FIFA Ethics Committee's slap on the wrist forced Bin Hammam to remove himself from the running (see his humble quote posted below.)

Without competition, it appears as if nothing stands in the way of Blatter's pursuit to continue his 13-year run at the helm, and in doing so, reduce the world's softwood lumber reserves and the colour cartridges in FIFA's Epson 1000.



Best wishes to FIFA in their long-term plan to become the world's most corrupt entity.

UPDATE:

Blatter has upset his main rival, himself, in winning a 4th term as President of FIFA.

Rumour has it the 2026 World Cup will either be hosted by Qatar, again, or Mars, who have sent delegates to Blatter's home in Zurich to convince him of the viability of having a World Cup take place in a tropical, zero gravity environment.