Is it a dumba*s comment? Or is the situation so dumba*s that when the critical, underlying theme gets exposed to the light of day, that it just seems "dumba*s," because Canada (in this regard, and on this topic) is so used to living there, in the dumba*s, as it were? Does not a dumba*s usually reject poignant though as dumba*s in it's own right? A propensity to cling to familiarity is all too human a trait, and yet should that familiarity be, as you put it, dumba*s. Then, is not the uncomfortable truth--stood and delivered, fearlessly, and without selfishness--the light, and the way to rectification; "dumba*s-ness be d*mned by contextual circumstance? So I say to you, sir; Is it more constructive to talk about fact that the Titanic sinking, sparing true panic once the veil comes down; Or should it be more constructive to rearrange it's deck chairs, as to not frighten the women and children? Yet the issue of doom persists regardless; does it not? Constructive? Yes indeed, and in a REAL way! You see; constructive is, as constructive does, good sir!