Maybe his columns from the Club Med Minimum Gaol were lucid because for awhile Connie of Crossdressing was where he belonged for that period of time and thus his writing could flow naturally from whence it was meant to issue!

“But to compensate, we’ve hung our opprobrium on a few minor vices. ”

Have read a few reactions from the so called intelligentsia in defense of Flanagan and it makes me wonder what those people do with themselves in private and when they gather together for relaxation and entertainment.

The (her) defensive reaction to the football player situation could be seen in a number of ways, but I can’t see any that would be positive. It’s as if they (she) thinks because someone is incapacitated, and especially because it’s largely, if not wholly due to their own actions, then it’s ok to commit any number of vile acts against them. Can’t see that and especially with a teenager or any child. I hesitated to use the word child in this instance because the legal definition for a child in their teens has become so murky.

Overall I find her defense of personal freedoms, while musing society has gone too far with many social issues and associated freedoms, a confused position. As confusing as her husband writing reasonably lucid columns for the National Post when he was in the hooscow, and the slew of far right wing gibberish he’s turned out since his release.

“It’s like you entered a contest to be the worst person of the week. Rape-apologist, pedophile porn Oking, sexual harassment trolling..I don’t even know where to start with you. Go home Barbara, you’re drunk.”

That pretty much nailed it.