'Policing in urban areas is just different'

'heinous act of violence'

'Attack on the American people'

By 1969, Ten Years After, a British group featuring Alvin Lee on vocals and guitar, Ric Lee on drums, Chick Churchill on organ and keyboards, and Leo Lyons on bass, was on a roll. They’d crossed the Atlantic, performed at Woodstock, and brought their brand of jam-band-meets-psych-blues to the masses. Sure, Ten Years After’s style of music wasn’t uncommon for the time, per se, but few did it as well as they did. “We took all of those influences, and put them into what we did,” Lyons tells ClassicRockHistory.com. “And if you listen to our albums in their entirety, God The post Leo Lyons of Ten Years After: The ClassicRockHistory.com Interview appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

After a resounding 99-1 defeat last summer, efforts to enact an artificial intelligence moratorium are back, this time with a push to force it into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As Annie Chestnut Tutor notes, supporters say it is needed to stop “an unworkable patchwork of disparate and conflicting state AI laws” and to protect America’s lead over China. Yet the moratorium would undermine that very goal. America is poised to lead the world in AI-enabled biotechnology, and the best way to secure that lead is through federal-state partnerships, where states pilot clinical AI rules, accelerate safe deployment, and pressure federal agencies to modernize faster than any single national bureaucracy could on its own. America needs an AI framework that channels innovation toward human flourishing and sets limits on projects that fail to serve that goal, as states already do through age-verification pornography laws and AI chatbot protections for kids. For all its promises, a moratorium proposal in the NDAA would likely miss these marks. In practice, a federal moratorium would not simply “pause” regulation in the abstract—it would freeze state enforcement authority over the fastest-moving and most ethically sensitive AI applications in medicine and biotechnology. States would be barred from updating medical AI standards, restricting embryo-scoring algorithms, regulating clinical decision software, or enforcing emerging protections for children and patients. This would create a regulatory vacuum precisely where AI is advancing fastest, leaving life-altering technologies governed by corporate policy rather than public law. Some of the most promising near-term benefits of AI lie in biotechnology, especially in health and infertility diagnostics. President Donald Trump has been clear on this point. Earlier this week, he released a fact sheet on “The Genesis Mission to Accelerate AI for Scientific Discovery,” which establishes a national initiative to unify federal data, computing power, and scientific expertise. Two months ago, he issued an executive order aimed at using AI to unlock cures for pediatric cancer through the expanded Childhood Cancer Data Initiative. These actions recognize the power of large computation tools to break through scientific stagnation and spark a fresh era of medical discovery. Proponents of a moratorium argue that without uniform national rules, a patchwork of state laws will throttle the AI industry through burdensome compliance costs, regulatory gaps, and legal uncertainty. In the short term, a moratorium would reduce some of that friction by removing requirements or postponing new regulatory obligations. But it does not resolve the underlying conflicts; it merely postpones their resolution while eliminating the very state-level experimentation that has historically produced workable national standards. Uniformity achieved by freezing governance is not leadership; it is paralysis. AI-driven diagnostics hold particular promise. They can scan vast medical datasets and spot patterns that clinicians miss, giving patients earlier detection and more tailored care for infertility, rare diseases, and hard-to-diagnose conditions. Today, as many as 30% of infertility cases are labeled “unexplained.” Larger datasets and AI analysis tools could drastically improve diagnostics. At the same time, smarter algorithms could guide personalized treatments that restore health and give families hope. These are life-affirming, restorative uses of AI that deserve support. Yet every advance carries risks. AI-powered systems can misdiagnose. They can introduce bias. They can create black-box recommendations that further alienate the patient and clinician alike. And in reproductive medicine, these tools are already being used in ways that steer us toward a consumer-driven form of eugenics. Clinics now use software to grade and rank embryos. Companies market polygenic scoring tools that claim to forecast not only disease risks but also personality traits or cognitive outcomes. A blanket moratorium on AI regulation would directly undermine legitimate state efforts to prevent AI from being used to commodify human life. The lesson from recent technological history bears this out. Take the rise of sex-rejecting transgender surgeries. Medical advances made them possible, but Americans now recognize the deep harm they have caused, especially to children. Higher rates of suicide, depression, infertility, and regret underline that not every innovation is a step forward. The same pattern occurs with non-human research, too. AI tools can now generate new genomic sequences in microbes and viruses. This opens the door to new treatments in non-human specimens, but the same technology could also accelerate the creation of smart bioweapons that target particular countries or demographics. Research labs around the country are deploying systems that grow cells into organoids and run self-driving laboratories that complete thousands of experiments each week. Some of these platforms even advertise that “tech expertise is not required.” That should concern us. As these systems grow more complex and as human oversight shrinks, researchers may lose the ability to fully understand or interpret what these AI-run machines are producing. These breakthroughs are not only scientific. They reshape culture and politics. As philosopher Marshall McLuhan argued, we must judge technology not only by what it does but by what it does to us. It changes relationships. It shifts power. It affects the core structures of family and community. The states are where technology, people, and policy first intersect. That is why our national AI strategy ought not to deny their role to guide innovation toward life-giving, human-centered, and restorative ends. Our service members deserve a swift resolution to the NDAA. They also deserve policy that strengthens American innovation toward human flourishing. A moratorium on artificial intelligence would do the opposite. It would weaken public oversight and freeze state protections at the very moment we need thoughtful, principled, and purpose-driven policy to govern these tools, especially as they shape the creation, selection, and development of human life. The post The Hidden Biotech Stakes of AI Moratorium Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It appears the dam is finally breaking as Republicans in the House advance a package of child safety bills that bereaving and aggrieved parents have waited years for. The House Energy and Commerce Committee revealed 19 bills to be considered in a legislative hearing, among them a version of the Kids Online Safety Act. From a generation-defining mental health crisis, a sexual exploitation pandemic, and now AI chatbots that fuel suicidal ideation, America’s kids have been devastated by Big Tech, aided by a Congress bogged down by excuses. Now, all that seems set to change. Or will it? An AI moratorium was first announced in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s reconciliation package earlier this year. The final version eventually failed 99-1, due in no small part to concerns from child safety advocates. Now, just as pressure from House leadership escalates to force a measure preempting state AI regulation into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), child safety bills are getting the green light. This invites a troubling question: Is Republican leadership attempting to use child safety as leverage to accomplish a greater goal of deregulating the AI industry before any federal safeguards are in place? As Politico Pro has reported, It is widely viewed by insiders on Capitol Hill that the child safety bills are being offered by Republican leadership to get child safety advocates to stand down in their opposition to Congress’ preempting states from regulating AI, despite numerous valid concerns raised by their citizens. Politics can’t wait for pure motives, however. Those who have been involved in campaigns around the country to make the internet safer for kids should welcome Congress’ sudden interest in child safety. But if this is a high-stakes negotiation—using America’s children as hostages—these should be our terms. Release the Kids Lawmakers should disentangle child safety from the pressure cooker of the NDAA and the battle over preemption. Industry lobbyists are using the opaque conditions that they have contrived to slip in poison pills and water down the child safety bills themselves, while also seeking to secure what they ultimately want: the power to strip states of the right to regulate AI systems. This is a raw deal, to put it lightly. But it’s also totally unnecessary. In a post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump himself said that Congress should use either the NDAA to establish a federal AI standard or, instead, Congress should seek to “pass another bill.” Neither child safety nor preemption of state AI regulation have anything to do with the NDAA. Detach preemption from the NDAA and detach child safety from both. Bills pursued through regular order give every American an opportunity to speak into their objectives and language. This is as true for a federal AI standard as it is for child safety package, which will be perhaps the two most consequential pieces of legislation of this generation. Both deserve care and democratic input. Decoupling these bills is also what Americans want. New polling by the Institute for Family Studies with YouGov finds that voters oppose including preemption in the NDAA by a margin of 3 to 1. Serious Problems Furthermore, several of the bills on offer suffer from serious problems, particularly the House version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 2.0. After years of careful negotiation in the Senate, the House stripped out the duty of care provision from KOSA, which required social media companies to design their platforms with the wellbeing of children in mind. In a statement released Tuesday night, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., herself—who spent years working across the aisle with her senate colleagues to craft KOSA—panned the House version, saying that it “would not ensure Big Tech companies like Meta prioritize the safety of children over profit.” The duty of care must be restored, especially if KOSA is the centerpiece of the Congressional package.  COPPA 2.0 also needs strengthening. It inexplicably maintains 13 as the age of internet adulthood, while adulthood is 18 years of age in every other sphere of life. The upshot is that COPPA 2.0 allows children ages 13 or above to give internet platforms permission to use their personal data without any parental consent required. This fails to safeguard the vast majority of American adolescents from predatory surveillance by social media companies. In Harm’s Way Turning the personal and social lives of children into a source of revenue has helped build up exploitative social media empires, that strategically put millions upon millions of kids in harm’s way just to extract as much data from them as possible. A weakened KOSA and an insufficient COPPA 2.0 won’t do much to help children, and they are certainly not worth handcuffing states that seek to dutifully protect their citizens from abuses of AI. Tying child safety to preemption and the NDAA only gives Big Tech what it wants: leverage over the Republican base. Republican leadership should instead answer President Trump’s call by pursuing federal AI standards through a separate bill, where narrow preemption of state AI laws may be appropriate, while advancing child safety through a standalone legislative package. Our children deserve protection, not to be used as pawns in a grand game that gives Big Tech all the cards. The post Don’t Let Big Tech Hold America’s Kids Hostage appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Most dog owners struggle with nail trimming, yet regular dog nail care prevents painful overgrowth and potential injuries. Studies show that 78% of pet parents avoid this task due to fear of hurting their furry friend. We at DogingtonPost believe every dog owner can master this skill with the right knowledge and tools. Professional groomers charge $15-30 per session, but home trimming saves money while strengthening your bond with your pet. Understanding Dog Nail Anatomy and Growth The Two-Part Nail Structure Your dog’s nail consists of two distinct components that dictate safe trimming zones. The hard outer shell protects the pink quick inside, which contains blood vessels and nerve endings. Light-colored nails reveal the quick as a visible pink triangle, while dark nails demand more careful examination. Veterinary research indicates the quick extends roughly two-thirds into the nail length, which leaves the outer third as your safe cutting zone. Natural Growth Patterns and Schedules Dog nails grow continuously according to veterinary studies, though active dogs on concrete surfaces naturally wear them down faster. Indoor dogs typically require trimming every 3-4 weeks, while outdoor dogs may extend to 6-8 weeks between sessions. Regular weekly paw checks help monitor growth patterns and catch problems early. Activity Level Impact on Nail Wear Dogs that spend time on hard surfaces (concrete sidewalks, asphalt roads) naturally file their nails through daily walks. This natural wear reduces trimming frequency significantly compared to dogs that primarily walk on grass or carpet. However, rear nails typically wear less than front nails regardless of activity level, often requiring more frequent attention. Clear Warning Signs Several indicators tell you when trimming becomes urgent. Nails that curve downward toward paw pads create pressure points and potential injuries. Split or cracked nails expose the sensitive quick to infection risks. Dogs that click on hard floors need immediate attention, as this sound indicates nails touch the ground with each step. The Standing Test Method The most reliable assessment involves placing your dog on a flat surface – properly trimmed nails should never touch the ground when your dog stands normally. Dogs that show reluctance to walk, limp, or favor certain paws often suffer from overgrown nails that alter their natural gait. Waiting longer than 6 weeks between trims allows the quick to grow longer, which makes future maintenance more challenging. Now that you understand nail anatomy and growth patterns, selecting the right tools becomes your next priority for successful home nail care. Essential Tools and Preparation for Home Nail Care Professional-grade nail clippers outperform cheap alternatives by significant margins, and the Millers Forge Professional Nail Clipper stands as the top choice among veterinarians for dogs over 20 pounds. This clipper maintains sharp edges through hundreds of uses while cheaper models dull after 10-15 sessions. For smaller dogs under 20 pounds, the Millers Forge Pet Nail Clipper with Safety Stop prevents overcuts through its built-in guard mechanism. Large breed owners with dogs that exceed 60 pounds need the Millers Forge Large Dog Nail Clipper for adequate power through thick nails. Grinder vs Clipper Performance Dremel nail grinders provide superior control and smoother finishes compared to traditional clippers, particularly for anxious dogs who fear the sudden snap of cuts. Keep grinder speed below 15,000 RPM to prevent friction burns, and tap nails periodically to monitor heat buildup. The Safari Professional nail trimmer offers precision cuts for owners who prefer clippers, while Miracle Care Kwik Stop styptic powder stops blood within seconds if you accidentally nick the quick. Workspace Setup Requirements Set up your workspace on a non-slip surface with bright overhead lights, and position a penlight nearby to illuminate dark nails. Choose a quiet room away from household distractions where your dog feels secure. Place all tools within arm’s reach but out of your dog’s sight to prevent anxiety before you begin the session. Preparation Techniques That Work Transform nail care from a struggle into cooperation through strategic preparation that addresses your dog’s natural instincts. Start to condition your puppy to paw touch during their first week home, and touch each toe daily while you offer high-value treats like peanut butter. Dogs have sensitive paw areas that require gentle handling, making slow movements necessary for comfort. Place a silicone mat with peanut butter at eye level to provide distraction, and schedule sessions when your dog feels naturally calm rather than after exercise or meals. The right tools and environment set the foundation, but proper technique determines whether your first attempt succeeds or creates lasting fear of nail care. Step-by-Step Nail Trimming Techniques Master the Two-Person Hold Position your dog on a non-slip surface with one person who holds the dog firmly while the second person handles the clippers. The holder wraps their arm around the dog’s chest from behind while they grip the targeted paw with their opposite hand. Use your thumb to separate individual nails, which prevents accidental cuts to adjacent digits. Dogs that weigh over 40 pounds require firmer restraint, while smaller dogs need gentler pressure to avoid injury. This two-person method reduces trimming time compared to single-person attempts. Locate the Quick with Precision Techniques Light-colored nails show the pink quick as a distinct triangle shape that extends roughly two-thirds into the nail length. For dark nails, use a penlight that you position underneath the nail to illuminate the quick’s shadow, which appears as a darker area within the nail. Cut only the white chalky tip that extends beyond the quick’s edge, and leave at least 2 millimeters of white space as your safety margin. The quick recedes over time with regular trimming every 3-4 weeks, but grows longer when nails remain untrimmed for extended periods. Execute Clean Cuts with Proper Angles Hold clippers at a 45-degree angle to the nail and make swift, confident cuts rather than hesitant nibbles that can split the nail. Position the clipper blades perpendicular to the nail’s natural curve to achieve clean cuts without crushing. Apply steady pressure in one smooth motion, and avoid multiple small cuts that create jagged edges. Professional groomers complete each nail in a single cut, which reduces stress for both dog and owner. Stop Bleeding Immediately When Accidents Happen Apply Miracle Care Kwik Stop styptic powder directly to the bleeding nail tip within 10 seconds of the cut to achieve immediate clotting. Press the powder firmly against the nail for 30 seconds, then release pressure gradually. Flour works as an emergency substitute when styptic powder isn’t available (though it takes longer to stop bleeding completely). Clean the area gently after bleeding stops and apply a small amount of antibiotic ointment to prevent infection. Monitor your dog for 24 hours to prevent excessive licking, which can reopen the wound and delay healing. Final Thoughts Anxious dogs need patience and gradual conditioning to accept dog nail care without stress. Touch paws daily for one week before you attempt any trimming, and reward calm behavior with high-value treats. Dogs that pull away or show signs of distress benefit from shorter sessions where you trim just one or two nails per day rather than complete all four paws at once. Severely overgrown nails present unique challenges that demand careful attention to the extended quick inside. The quick grows longer when nails remain untrimmed for months, which means you can only remove small amounts during each session. Plan to trim overgrown nails weekly for 4-6 weeks until they reach proper length (this allows the quick to recede gradually between sessions). Professional veterinary intervention becomes necessary when nails grow into paw pads, show signs of infection, or when dogs exhibit extreme aggression during handling attempts. Ingrown nails require surgical removal under anesthesia, while infected nail beds need antibiotic treatment that only veterinarians can prescribe. We at DogingtonPost provide comprehensive resources for responsible dog ownership, including expert advice on health and nutrition topics that support your pet’s wellbeing. Regular nail maintenance prevents costly veterinary emergencies while keeps your dog comfortable and mobile throughout their life.

Medical Progress: Something We Can All Be Thankful For

On Wednesday afternoon in the 2:00 p.m. Eastern hour, a suspect opened fire outside the Washington D.C. subway system’s Farragut West station on members of the National Guard who were deployed as part of President Trump’s focus on crushing crime in major U.S. cities. We learned less than an hour after news first broke that both National Guardsmen – a male and female from West Virginia – were dead. The legacy media were quick to respond as, in many cases, their D.C. bureaus were blocks away from the scene. While there were thoughtful and sober coverage (such as here and here from ABC), there were sadly a number of predictably idiotic hot takes. MS NOW host Katy Tur was most emblematic of the compassion needed as she nearly broke down crying over the shooting having taken a deadly turn: WATCH: MS NOW host Katy Tur nearly breaks down in announcing to viewers both National Guard troops shot outside a D.C. metro station had died After reading the announcement, Tur said she's "a bit speechless because it is just so awful and the timing is making it even worse,… pic.twitter.com/zIoVVXHbCV — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   That said, below are some of the worst compiled from the first hour of coverage. First up, we have MS NOW making absolute fools of themselves. Justice reporter and Deep State tool Ken Dilanian blamed Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) for what we would learn was the murder of two U.S. soldiers: MS NOW's Ken Dilanian just after 3pm Eastern on the shooting of two National Guard troops in Washington D.C... "[O]f course, you know, there's so much controversy happening in the United States right now with ice, who are also wearing uniforms and wearing masks. And so there's,… pic.twitter.com/p6IPk6XTWl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   Before the announcement of the soldiers having passed, Tur and her assembled analysts repeatedly scoffed at the President’s deployment of the Guard and wondered if it served any real purpose since, as we’ve learned, led to two losing their lives: MS NOW’s Katy Tur at 304pm Eastern: “Has there been tension with the National Guard? I mean, NPR spoke with a number of National Guard members from Ohio on the condition of anonymity, and they talked to them just the other day, November 10, and they talked about the deployment to… pic.twitter.com/PTraBRGAaJ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025 Without naming him directly, MS NOW lashes out at President Trump for deploying the National Guard to Washington D.C., putting their lives in danger…. Law enforcement analyst Rob D’Amico: “Well, I think you're going to start seeing some question – more questions again, the… pic.twitter.com/iD0ne9dCXt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025 Going over to CNN, senior law enforcement analyst and liberal toadie Andrew McCabe wondered if the National Guard on scene really knew what they were doing in terms of responding to a hostile actor: CNN's Andrew McCabe on two National Guard troops being shot outside a Washington D.C. metro stop: "So, add to this very confusing picture, the National Guard who've been around in D.C. for a little while. So they're not quite as novel as they were in the first week or two. But… pic.twitter.com/2dZlKv9niN — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   CNN News Central fill-in co-host Omar Jimenez went down this same rabbit hole: CNN's Omar Jimenez speculates on whether the National Guard troops who were shot in Washington D.C. were had any real experience or knowledge to respond to a hostile situation like police officers do pic.twitter.com/TrjMJFAqTt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   ABC chief investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky surmised on ABC News Live if the suspect’s motivation stemmed from anger over the President’s agenda, including his “immigration policies”: WHAT?! ABC's Aaron Katersky speculating on a motive in the shooting of two National Guard troops in Washington D.C..... "Focus will turn to whether these guardsmen were specifically targeted. If that's the case, it would fit with what we've been hearing from law enforcement… pic.twitter.com/cyB4SFlPMs — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025 Katersky had help in peddling this tone-deaf narrative as, on CBS’s streaming channel CBS News 24/7, senior coordinating producer for crime and public safety Anna Schechter cited the “explosive rhetoric around the administration’s policy in terms of deploying the National Guard to cities” and “the immigration policy”: CBS's Anna Schecter, speculating just after 330pm Eastern on a possible motive of the National Guard shooting in Washington D.C.... "What led -- what was going on in that perpetrator's mind to carry out this attack? There's been a lot of tension, a lot of headlines, a lot of… pic.twitter.com/N9vWbNOkEA — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025  

Vice President JD Vance did something remarkable last week: He described Canada more honestly than most of its own political leaders.In a short series of posts on X, Vance captured the two anxieties that now define Canadian life — mass immigration and a refusal to take responsibility for national decline.The deeper problem is leadership that seems consistently more focused on the fortunes of global capital than the welfare of Canadians.“While I'm sure the causes are complicated,” he wrote, “no nation has leaned more into ‘diversity is our strength, we don't need a melting pot we have a salad bowl’ immigration insanity than Canada. It has the highest foreign-born share of the population in the entire G7 and its living standards have stagnated.”Vance continued, “And with all due respect to my Canadian friends, whose politics focus obsessively on the United States: your stagnating living standards have nothing to do with Donald Trump or whatever bogeyman the CBC tells you to blame. The fault lies with your leadership, elected by you.”Truth hurtsThose comments struck a nerve because they describe a reality that Canadians live with every day. Immigration levels have soared to historic highs. Canada’s population is closing in on 40 million, with roughly 23% foreign-born in the 2021 census — and likely much higher today, given the recent revelation that 42% of babies born in 2025 will have foreign-born mothers. For years, political and media elites insisted that this was a sign of national strength. Ordinary people can now see the strain everywhere: stagnant wages, collapsing services, unaffordable housing, and infrastructure buckling under the load.Vance’s second point was equally accurate. Canadian politicians — especially Liberal ones — have long relied on Trump as a universal scapegoat. No matter the problem, the reflexive response has been to point south and blame “American extremism” for Canada’s failures. It was a convenient distraction from the consequences of their own policies.Man with no planPrime Minister Mark Carney was a master of this blame-shifting. Before entering politics, he spent years burnishing his reputation as a global technocrat. Yet when he ran for prime minister, he adopted an almost paranoid tone toward the United States, claiming in one speech: “President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. … We need a plan to deal with this new reality.” His “plan,” as it turned out, was simply to win power — and once in office, Carney abandoned the rhetoric even as he continued neglecting basic economic and security interests.Nowhere has that neglect been clearer than in defense procurement. Ottawa is reportedly considering scrapping the F-35 fighter jet program in favor of Sweden’s Gripen — an aircraft incompatible with the F-35s flown by every branch of the U.S. military and central to NORAD’s interoperability. As U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra has warned repeatedly, such a move would be sheer folly, undermining both North American defense and Canada’s most vital alliance.The deeper problem is leadership that seems consistently more focused on the fortunes of global capital than the welfare of Canadians. Brookfield Asset Management — the firm Carney chaired before deciding to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada and replacing Justin Trudeau as prime minister — recently surfaced in headlines for its involvement in an $80 billion agreement with the Trump administration to produce nuclear reactors. That deal may be good business, but it has only reinforced public suspicion that Carney’s loyalties were formed long before he stepped into elected office.RELATED: Is this the end of Canada? Dave Chan/Getty ImagesSoft authoritarianismMeanwhile, Canada’s once-vaunted bureaucracy is looking increasingly ideological, unaccountable, and hostile to the people it purports to serve. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s ongoing occupation of a family farm — and its insistence on slaughtering hundreds of healthy ostriches despite nearly a year without symptoms of avian flu — has alarmed Canadians across the political spectrum. It is the kind of aggressive, unrestrained government action that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.All of this is unfolding as the Liberal government pursues sweeping censorship and surveillance legislation, from online speech controls to broad new powers for federal regulators. The United Kingdom has already slid into a soft authoritarianism that polices “offensive” speech through arrests and intimidation. Canada appears determined to follow the same path.This is what Vance was speaking to: a country drifting into economic stagnation, cultural fragmentation, bureaucratic overreach, and political corruption. A country that no longer seems capable of telling itself the truth about what is happening. A country that responds to national crises not with reform, but with scapegoats — whether Donald Trump, American conservatives, or anyone who challenges the official narrative.Canada is not yet lost. But it is undeniably breaking, and the political class shows little interest in repairing it.As Vance noted, the ultimate responsibility lies with Canadians themselves. They elected the leadership that brought the country to this point. Whether Canada recovers will depend on whether they are willing to demand something better.