Jim Flaherty on health care, in his own words
“We will keep it at six per cent for whatever the duration of the agreement is.”
If they try, we’ll make them wear it, big time.
“We will keep it at six per cent for whatever the duration of the agreement is.”
If they try, we’ll make them wear it, big time.
Does the above, seen of the front pages of newspapers across Toronto this morning, make you ill? It does me. I think the couple – who decided to bump uglies in the full view of commuters on the Bloor-Danforth line, mid-afternoon – should be imprisoned for life.
I’m a prude. Not only do I oppose most pornography, I also favour categorizing PDAs as a criminal offence.
I subscribe to George Bernard Shaw’s maxim: “The position is ridiculous, and the pleasure is momentary.”
What do you think? Vote in our super-scientific poll, below!
When a broad consensus is reached on an issue — in this case, bullying — it’s right for media folks to offer up contrary points of view. Dissent is a good thing, particularly when only one point of view is dominating.
This fall, there has been an avalanche of coverage about bullying in Canada. Every paper and every broadcast, it seems, has had investigations into the nature and extent of bullying. Many of the stories have detailed the tragic tales of teenagers who, after being subjected to bullying, chose to take their own lives.
Politicians have picked up on the media’s refrain. On Parliament Hill, and at provincial legislatures, politicians of every stripe have come together to denounce bullying, or to suggest measures to counter it. Some of the politicians haven’t necessarily practiced what they preached — like those federal Conservatives who have claimed to oppose homophobic bullying, while simultaneously opposing laws that would give gays true equality — but it has been nice to see the unanimous denunciations of bullying.
If you don’t care about this, you’re with the terrorists.
Now that the lunatics are running the asylum, with majority control, get used to more of this:
The ban takes effect immediately.
As I wrote some months ago, you should also get ready for every kook and bigot with some spare time on his hands commence litigation against the Sikh’s turban and beard, the Jew’s kippah and the Hasidic Jew’s clothing, the Hindu’s tilak facial markings, the styles favoured by traditional Mennonites and the Amish, or perhaps even the ostentatious display of a nun’s habit.
Oh, and there’s this campaign, which started in Israel last Fall:
And here’s a Canadian angle:
And so on and so on.
In 2011 A.D., it amazes me that we still need to say this, but apparently we do: Religions should have no control over what governments do – and, as in this case, governments should have no control over what religions do. If no one is being harmed in some way, social conservative nutbars like Jason Kenney should back off.
And will the NDP say anything about this? Not on your life. Liberals? We shall see.
UPDATE: From a sharp-eyed reader, this gem. We all expect Kenney to place Eve under citizen’s arrest, now.
As I write this, I am (again) on hold. I – and many other Ontario lawyers – have been trying to meet our Continuing Professional Development requirements for the year. There’s no one to talk to, they don’t return messages, there aren’t enough sessions, and those sessions that exist are full.
Good thing these people don’t run the judicial system or anything.
Oh, wait.
UPDATE: Spoke to an actual person, she said she would immediately connect me with someone else. I’m back on hold, and have been for 20 minutes. These idiots should work for Rogers.
UPDATER: Been on hold for close to an hour, now. Have started to do a film about this, for later broadcast (I’m not kidding). Emails sent to every available LSUC address have gone unanswered.
I think I need to interview him for the new book. Anyone with an idea about how I can reach his agent, email me!