Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit announced the charge following its investigation into the July 27 shooting.
In a separate incident, Oscar Pistorius, otherwise known as the ‘Blade Runner,” was indicted Monday in South Africa on a charge of murdering his girlfriend.
400451-forkWatch out for those Aussies, kids!
A rather bizarre incident happened in Canberra Australia,  when a 70-year-old went to the hospital, saying that he had lodged a fork in his penis.
The fork was 10 cm long.
The medical personnel might have thought it was a practical joke, but when they did an x-ray, the claim turned out to be true.

1144045-Cartoon-Of-A-Chorus-Line-Of-Naked-Men-Dancing-The-Can-Can-Royalty-Free-Vector-Clipart It was reported as ‘An Unusual Urethral Foreign Body’ in the International Journal of Surgery Case Report of the same name.
The man confessed to have attempted the weird act on his own to gratify himself on a purely sexual level.
(Purely for interests sake, The Perspective Research Department, as well as members of the Naked News staff,  are attempting to find out whether it was a dinner fork, or a pastry fork!)

ice_breakerAs Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes his annual visit to the North today to observe military exercises, Arctic experts suggest he would be wise to also take a look at what’s happening in Russia. Shipping on that country’s Northern Sea Route across the top of the continent is booming and hauling resource projects in the Russian North along with it.
Canada may be missing the boat on using Arctic shipping to encourage development at the same time Russia steams ahead on its own northern waters.
“At this stage, we’re not really in the game,” said John Higginbotham, a Carleton University professor and former Transport Canada deputy minister. “The marathon started some time ago, but we haven’t even sent in our application yet.”
We’ve already discussed the odd and somewhat sickening way in which certain mainstream journalists have been clearly cheering on the criminalization of investigative journalism, but Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald took it to a new and incredibly disgusting level this weekend, with a now deleted tweet in which he gleefully announced his eagerness to see the US kill Julian Assange, and then to defend the government for doing so.
This isn’t just cheering on despicable government actions — including the extrajudicial execution of a fellow journalist — but it’s saying ahead of time that no matter what the situation, he’ll be right there to back up the official party line from the government. Today’s modern journalist, Michael Grunwald, is going beyond the typical stenographer role of so many journalists covering the government, to the point where he’s directly letting the government know that he’ll be their propagandist backing up a despicable and heinous act.This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes Assange. From all the reports, he seems like a perfectly dislikable individual. I don’t agree with many of his views on the world or how he goes about doing certain things that he does. But I certainly support his ability to stay alive.Of course, this isn’t new territory for Grunwald and Time Magazine. In “defending” his tweet, he pointed to a column he wrote a few months ago, in which he directly supports taking away Americans’ rights if it means stopping terrorists.
Eventually, Grunwald deleted the tweet, but not so much because it’s despicable and indefensible, but rather because leaving it up, according to Grunwald “gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in.” Only an hour later did he apologize, saying that the original tweet was “dumb.”Either way, why would Time Magazine employ someone who flat out joyfully proclaims his eagerness to support the US murdering the head of a competing news organization — one that has shown what a joke Time Magazine has been in terms of holding the government accountable. What major government abuse stories has Time broken lately?
booz-allen-has-fired-edward-snowdenMEANWHILE:  The owner of an encrypted email service used by NSA leaker Edward Snowden could be facing contempt of court charges after refusing to hand over his users’ information to spooks, according to a recent report.Ladar Levison dramatically shut down his email firm, Lavabit, after being whacked with a secret federal court order. Although Levison has not revealed details of the order, it is likely to have demanded that he hand over reams of information to investigators working on the Snowden case.By closing down Lavabit, Levison may have sought to avoid giving spooks the information they were looking for.”I could be arrested for this action,” the rebellious email boss told NBC reporters.“I would love to tell you everything that’s happened to me over the last six weeks. I’m just legally prevented from doing so,” Levison told the Russia Today newsite.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/19/lavabit_founder_in_hot_water_snowden_nsa_tempora/
We got a hint of what NSA defenders would say to try to respond to the latest revelations of thousands of abuses per year by NSA agents, but late Friday (the best place to try to hide from the news cycle) we saw the official response plan roll out and, my goodness, is it ridiculous. The NSA held a conference call, in which it said, sure, sure, agents had abused the system thousands of times, but it shouldn’t count, because they didn’t mean to:
“These are not willful violations, they are not malicious, these are not people trying to break the law,” John DeLong, NSA director of compliance, told reporters.
Except… the NSA also admitted separately:
Mr. DeLong reported, however, “a couple” of willful violations in the past decade. He didn’t provide details.
Wait, hadn’t Keith Alexander just told us that there had never been a willful violation?
Meanwhile, Senator Feinstein is trying a similar “but they didn’t mean it” argument with her statement:
The majority of these ‘compliance incidents’ are, therefore, unintentional and do not involve any inappropriate surveillance of Americans.
As I have said previously, the committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes.

A view of the National Security Agency at Ft. Meade, MarylandTwo points in response to this. First, John DeLong admitted during the call that there have been willful violations. Feinstein — the person in charge of oversight — is claiming that she’s never heard of an instance of intentional abuse. Either she’s really, really, really bad at her job and should be removed from the Intelligence Committee, or she’s lying (and should be removed from the Intelligence Committee).
Second, the next time someone is accused of a crime, can they just say they didn’t intend to violate the law and get away with it? Because that seems to be what the NSA and Feinstein are saying here. Good news for Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning, right? Both of them have made it abundantly clear that they didn’t “intend” any harm at all. In fact, they “intended” to help America. So, based on Feinstein and the NSA’s reasoning, they should be in the clear, right?
The other talking point, which we’d briefly discussed last week is this idea that because these abuses are such a small part of the NSA’s overall surveillance, this isn’t a problem. The NSA’s DeLong tried this line of reasoning as well:
The official, John DeLong, the N.S.A. director of compliance, said that the number of mistakes by the agency was extremely low compared with its overall activities. The report showed about 100 errors by analysts in making queries of databases of already-collected communications data; by comparison, he said, the agency performs about 20 million such queries each month.
untitledOther defenders of stamping out the 4th Amendment, like commentator David Frum, bizarrely argued that as long as the NSA does more spying, that’s actually better because the ratio of abuse to spying is so low. Uh, that’s not how it works.

Again, going back to the Snowden and Manning examples, for the vast, vast majority of their lives, neither of them leaked a damn thing. It was really just one day in their life that they leaked something. So, according to the reasoning of the NSA and Frum, they couldn’t have broken the law, since it was such a tiny, tiny part of their lives, right?
Does anyone actually think these arguments make sense? Systematic abuses of the system are not okay just because they’re not “intentional,” and they’re not okay just because they’re a small percentage of all the spying the NSA does. This is still about the NSA breaking the law, and then failing to have any real oversight concerning its activities (not to mention lying about these abuses repeatedly).