This probably should come as no surprise. But, well, it does. A group of parents in Toronto has apparently decided that the wifi network services provided by their kids’ schools is responsible for making them sick. They took the matter to the Ontario government, who’s just now referred it to the federal. Who, just for the record, has already provided information that says they’re safe–as has the group most likely to pull the next health crisis out of a hat, the World Health Organization (WHO). Sadly, I can see at least half a dozen studies coming out within the next few years supporting this. Be careful around your wireless router–it may give you cancer! Or, you know, not. But that doesn’t generate headlines.

I’m usually not one of these people who sees doctors/drug companies/whatever as evil entities out to slowly and sometimes painfully kill us all after depriving us of all our hard-earned money. But sometimes, even I get a little confused. Particularly when, not even 48 hours after they officially declare an end to the H1N1 crisis that wasn’t, they’ve latched onto a new one. this one, which they’re just calling a superbug, already has global medical disaster written all over it, according to scientists in the UK among other places. Supposedly, it’s already shown up in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and several other places in between. And, much like another superbug we all know and love, it’s supposedly resistent to most if not all current antibiotics available–I see yet another new vaccine in our future.

Yep, on tuesday they cancelled the H1N1 disaster, and on wednesday we found out why. They now have a new one to splatter all over the newspapers. Just when you thought it was safe to come out of quarentine.

Just when you thought it was safe to jump across the border, someone up there’s pointing and laughing. Apparently, Ottawa’s local transit service isn’t the only one who sees a shutdown as the surest path to a contract dispute resolution. Greyhound Canada, also known as those people who will be meeting me in Toronto in order to get me the rest of the way home, is threatening to lock out its drivers on thursday. Assuming I can beat an answer out of people, and that answer is one I like, I’m due to return to the right side of the border on sunday. Houston, we have a problem.

As it stands now, provided they do actually end up locking out, I might be able to get as far as Toronto on the ticket I just purchased. As for getting me past Toronto? Well, that may require some degree of creativity.

Greyhound, you and I have been getting along famously this trip–I didn’t even have to fight with you over the purchase of my ticket for a bloody change. You do not want to start in with this crap now. Really, you don’t. So by all means, don’t. That would be awesome.

Also: What is it with bus services out of Ontario? OC Transpo was talking not too long ago about a lockout at the next contract negotiation, too. Really? Did we learn nothing from the 08-09 bus strike? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Update: Yeah, I thought so. Greyhound, if this happens, please find yourself a nice big fire and die in it. Thanks.

Sometimes, the department of national defense really screws with my head. I think they do it on purpose. Soldiers suffering from PTSD won’t be prescribed marijuana, which the folks on the pro-legalisation and/or decriminalisation side of the issue say can and does help with situations like that among other things. But, the folks who ultimately are in charge of such things apparently have little to no problem with testing out ecstasy under the same circumstances. Yeah, we’ll just throw you in jail at worst and kick you out of the millitary at best for making use of a supposed gateway drug, but here, let us help you blow right through that gateway at warp speed. Did I skip out on logic 101, here? Am I missing something? Or has the DND finally made that left turn at Loony avenue? I honestly lost track about a paragraph into that article. I can has clue plz?

She does a semi-decent job at pretending, though. Or is that just royally butchering?

According to the former U.S. vice-presidential candidate, her newly created word – ‘refudiate’ – is her contribution to the “living language.”

Please forgive me for not considering sending any future children to the Sarah Palin School of English Studies. Seriously.

Also: Hey, Sarah? The two worst possible reasons you could have ever come up with for trying to ruin the english language are “George Bush did it” and “Obama did it”. I mocked them for it, too; just not publicly–you’re special, so that’s more fun. Please, by all means, pass on your special version of the english language to your children/grandchildren. But for the love of everything sane, please stop screwing it up for the rest of us. It’d be appreciated.

Only in Quebec. A guy ends up with a property tax bill upwards of 200000 dollars. He’s not exactly enthused with the rate of increases to his taxes, and decides to make a point of telling the folks down at city hall exactly that by showing up, one assumes on or before the due date, with no fewer than 200000 dollars in pennies. Apparently, it required the use of a kiddy pool to carry them.

A Quebec man, fed up with his skyrocketing property taxes, carted more than 200,000 pennies down to City Hall to pay his bill. But he was denied, and asked to simply cut a cheque.

A cheque? Hell, I thought you wanted money! Tell you what, I’m just gonna go pay the whole thing off right now.

Like I said, where’s Foxworthy when you need him?

Parents, when a restaurant pushes out commercials advertising x toy with y meal, and you don’t want your kid(s) anywhere near that restaurant whether they’re giving out that specific toy or $150, do you:
1. Tell them no and stick to it, telling them exactly why you’re keeping them as far away from that restaurant as humanly possible
2. Tell them no and that’s it, falling back on the old classic “because I said so”
3. Eventually switch from telling them no to giving in and taking them to that restaurant to shut them up
4. Tell them you’ll take them to that restaurant after they do x for you
5. Organize a consumer group and sue the restaurant for having the nerve to include a toy in that meal

If you said 5, I’d like to introduce you to this group, who’s decided to threaten McDonalds with exactly that.

“McDonald’s marketing has the effect of conscripting America’s children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald’s,” Stephen Gardner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest wrote to the heads of the chain in a letter announcing the lawsuit.

The centre, which has filed dozens of lawsuits against food companies in recent years, is hoping the publicity and the threat of a lawsuit will force McDonald’s to negotiate with them on the issue. The group announced the lawsuit in the letter to McDonald’s 30 days before filing it with the hope that the company will agree to stop selling the toys before a suit is filed.

Ah, but it’s not really about the toys, says the article. It’s about those nasty marketters who’re forcing those poor kids, who’re then forcing those poor parents to drive to McDonalds so they can stuff their faces with crap that even on their healthiest happy meal isn’t exactly overly healthy.

The fast food company made a pledge in 2007 to advertise only two types of Happy Meals to children younger than 12: one with four Chicken McNuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat white milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk. They both meet the company-set requirement of less than 600 calories, and no more than 35 per cent of calories from fat, 10 per cent of calories from saturated fat or 35 per cent total sugar by weight.

CSPI argues that even if those Happy Meals appear in advertisements, kids order the unhealthier meals most of the time.

Nice switch, folks. So now it’s a health thing–that just so happens to be focused on whether or not the chain happens to be selling a toy with those particular meals they’re claiming kids shouldn’t be allowed to have. And yet, they still virtually ignore the fact that it’s not up to the restaurant to parent these people’s kids. Oh, wait; no they don’t. They just gloss over it.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of CSPI, says it’s the parents responsibility too, but he equates the toy giveaways to a door to door salesman coming to a family’s house every day and asking to privately speak with the children.

“At some point parents get worn down,” Jacobson says. “They don’t always want to be saying no to their children. We feel like an awful lot of parents would be relieved if this one pressure was removed from them.”

News flash, folks. Sometimes, parenting sucks. I’m not a parent and even I know that. Saying no to your kids is part of life. If parents are under that much pressure over a 2 dollar toy in a 5 dollar happy meal, I’d really hate to see what kind of pressure they’d be under when the kids stop looking for the toy in the happy meal and start looking for the car they just saw on TV instead. Are they going to start suing car manufacturers if they start doing something like giving away free MP3 players when you buy a certain model car? Which could, quite likely, start happening what with certain models now able to actually store music locally on their own physical hard drive. Are they going to start suing Wendy’s, because you can get a soft drink with your meal for the same price as a thing of milk?

You can’t legislate good parenting, folks. And you can’t enforce it in the courts, either. Not if you’re enforcing it against people who aren’t even responsible for the parenting of your kids. End of the day, you chose to drive to McDonalds with your kids. You chose to let them order the burger, fries, coke and whatever else their little heart desires. No one forced you to do it.

I wrote this post back in May about advertisers, their marketting strategy, and whether or not they’re ultimately responsible for you deciding to buy a particular product. As I said in that entry, all the advertiser’s doing is letting you know what’s available. You’re the one deciding whether or not that thing that’s available would actually be useful/beneficial to you. The same can easily be said for this situation as well–McDonalds advertises what it calls a healthier happy meal. Parents know this. If they absolutely must take their kid to McDonalds–and I firmly believe no one’s forcing them to even do that–if they want their kids to eat healthier, it should be their responsibility to make sure they actually do that. I’d argue the first step in that would be to not go to McDonalds, but if the parents are feeling that unavoidable pressure, part of parenting is actually, you know, teaching your kids which, of the current options, is actually better for them. If you can’t seem to do that, then I seriously question whether you should even be parenting. You certainly shouldn’t be suing a restaurant chain because they’re not doing the parenting for you.

Canada’s parliament. Also known as that place where the country’s future–and sometimes present–are decided almost overnight. Sometimes. Or, rather, that place that inevitably takes me back to my highschool days. Really, now. this? In Ottawa? Really?

The remainder of question period was notable mostly for the insults. “Sit down, you clown!” a voice from the Liberal ranks bellowed at Conservative minister John Baird. “Kiss and make up!” a Conservative taunted Liberal Denis Coderre, who is still on the outs with party leadership.

You know it’s bad when folks from overseas feel way too familiar watching from the sidelines.

Dorjee said she has watched India’s parliamentarians in action on TV, and pronounced it “quite similar” to the Canadian version.

“I guess this is how it’s done,” she said with a slight grimace.

If anyone else has questions re: the lack of voter turnout for elections, might I suggest they ask our local parliamentarians. Or, if they want a straight answer, Ms. Dorjee. In the meantime, anyone wanna play “Whack an MP”?

A couple Canadian residents living in the US, upon Canada’s winning of the gold metal against the US during the olympics, took it upon themselves to replace a US flag with a Canadian one in response to a bet they’d entered into in a bar. In response to that, they were promptly arrested and charged. The excuse? The US flag was apparently damaged. So apparently, accidentally banging the flag up a little–if it was even these two who did it at all–is an offense worthy of being taken to court over. And all because of a little olympic fun. Sounds like someone doesn’t take too kindly to losing. Clearly, if you’re proud of your country, you’re not allowed to show it–unless your country is the US. Now that’s patriotism. And folks wonder why it is I shake my head at what goes on down there sometimes.

Suddenly, all the bad parenting stories I’ve heard in my life–yes, including the one about the kid smoking 2 packs a day–don’t seem quite so bad as this. Mom physically abuses her two-year-old, gives him crack for 14 months, nearly kills him, and winds up with 8 years in jail. Meanwhile, the kid’s pretty much, according to the article, not going to amount to a whole lot of anything–he’s pretty well brain fried, among other things.

Excluding the fact she had to have child services called on her before she took the kid to hospital for broken bones they’re saying she caused, what kind of brain dead thinking would make someone believe cocaine would do anything but screw this kid up? Granted it doesn’t look as though she particularly cared one way or another what it did, but still. There are more than a few things wrong with this situation, not the least of which being in the list of charges she was found guilty of, I don’t see attempted murder listed there. Granted I’m not a parent, but geebus criminy. There’s something broken with this system if a situation like that lands someone with a light sentence. All I’ll say is thank the divine power of the week we got rid of 2 for 1. Now at least she’ll be in there for 5 years, as opposed to significantly less. Yes, I already said it. But I’m gonna say it again. This system is broken.

Why you would go walking along an interstate highway at 6:00 in the morning is anyone’s guess. Why you would do it in an area you’ve never been? That’s a leap of logic I don’t feel safe making. Yet, that’s what lead to an LA woman being hit by a car in Utah. Now, she’s suing Google–who’s map directions she was following, and the driver of the car who hit her, for upwards of $100000 in damages. Her lawyer’s reasoning? It was dark.

The woman in question was following walking directions from Google, who’s service has for, like, ever had a notice on it that it was in beta and routes may or may not have sidewalks. She chose to try and cross the highway, at 6:00 in the morning, expecting there to be a sidewalk. She could not see the lack of sidewalk, however. Not that that ended up making a whole lot of difference–she didn’t actually make it across the highway before getting hit anyway. The logic behind that decision?

“She was in an area that she’d never been to before. It was pitch-black. There were no streetlights. She relied on Google that she’d cross there and go down to a sidewalk,” Young explained.

So. Basicly. She relied on a beta service. A service with a warning of possible lack of sidewalks. And she just assumed there’d be a sidewalk on the other side. And she had the misfortune of not timing her crossing such that, in spite of the street apparently not being busy at that hour, she still got smoked. And this is Google’s fault? Or the driver’s, for that matter–it’s a highway; there’s going to be fast-moving vehicles.

I don’t want to have to say it. Really, I shouldn’t have to say it. Okay, I’m gonna say it. Your stupid does not constitute an emergency on Google’s–or anyone else’s–part. This lady chose to go for a stroll down an interstate highway. In the dark. In a city she’s never been in. Looking for an apartment building she’s probably never been to. She got run over. Yes, it’s tragic. Yes, it’s a little tiny bit–okay, a lot–frightening. But if she’d used her blackberry to maybe call a cab or something instead of follow map directions that came with a “may not be accurate” disclaimer, she wouldn’t be in the situation she’s in now. Or in court, really. She didn’t. She got hit. And it’s Google’s fault. Somebody explain this one to me. My brain just broke.

I’ve been trying to find halfway decent ways to save me some money–cutting back on things where possible, changing companies if another company offers me a price significantly lower than what I’m paying now, and most recently, looking for possible places to call my temporary residence that end up being relatively cheaper than that which I’m currently staying in. On top of trying to get me properly educated, but that’s another entry. Since no one around here wants to hire folks in my particular fields, and since no one in Ottawa has gotten around to calling me back yet, saving money until either situation changes is the thing to do. Enter a bit of research being performed on my part over the last couple days.

There’s a possible building I’m looking at moving into. When I called about it on Friday, they didn’t have anything available. I got a call just a few minutes ago that one of the renters there may be looking to sublet the apartment. Over the course of the conversation, the process of 20 questions ended up starting. Around question 19, I was in full WTF mode. He asked if I was working at the moment, which–okay, I get it–you need to be paid. So do I. I told him I was presently on disability, but that I had been working. I didn’t tell him if I have my way I’ll either be working or back in school by this time next year, mostly because that would generally lead to me informing him I’d be moving out just as soon as either situation came to light. Then, he asked my age.

I’m not one to keep my age a secret by any means–I’m 26, if you’re curious–but, er, what does that have to do with my ability or willingness to pay the rent? I don’t get it. If it’s a disability thing, I’m kind of WTFing just a little more–but that, at least, isn’t altogether very surprising. But, still. I have money in hand. I want to give this landlord money. I can keep giving this landlord money until such time as either I go completely and totally broke or he raises his rent beyond my price range. My age has very little if anything to do with that. So, uh, what’s it to him? Anyone have a clue? Can I borrow it?

I’ve met some bad–naye, horrible–parents in my 26 years. granted, I’ve med some even worse kids, too, but still. Nothing has quite come close to this.

“I’m not worried about his health, he looks healthy”‘ shrugged the boy’s father Mohammad Rizal. “He cries and throws tantrums when we don’t let him smoke. He’s addicted.”

There are rumours floating around that it might be a hoax. Whether ’tis or ’tis not, this post serves as notice. I am officially bringing back the moron of the year award. And this fine example of parenthood is the first candidate.

I just got off the phone with a nice young lady who apparently was under the mistaken impression this was not actually my apartment. The conversation went something like this.

Lady: I need to speak to Simon, please.
Me: I’m sorry, who?
Lady: Simon.
Me: I’m sorry, you’ve got the wrong number.
Lady: I’m pretty sure Simon lives there.
Me: I’m pretty sure he doesn’t.
Lady: Oh. Well, bye.

Telling me you need to talk to a guy who doesn’t live here, and then telling me he lives here, does not mean he lives here. Just general FYI. And if you call me back again, I’m probably going to suggest you put down the crack pipe. Thank you for not listening. Twice.

Excluding the hundred billion privacy issues they’re dealing with, now Facebook takes interpersonal guessing games to a whole new level. Apparently, its CEO has decided to perform his own little experiments and see if he can predict who folks would end up in a relationship with based on their Facebook interactions. Now, temporarily excusing the fact the last thing we need is another freaking match making site, he seems quite impressed with a 33% accuracy so far. I’ll restrain myself from pointing out he would have never predicted Jessica and I, for the simple fact of both of us barely use Facebook and she only joined after we’d started dating. But, good try, Zuckerberg. Might I suggest just buying out EHarmony, instead?

So apparently today’s the thirtieth anniversary of the PAC-MAN game for arcade. And apparently Google’s taken to cellebrating it with an annoying recreation. For the next two days, a trip to Google’s homepage will reveal a very playable, and very irritating–when you’re not in the mood for playable–recreation of the original game. For about 30 seconds, it was cute. Then I actually wanted to get things done. Happy thirtieth birthday, PAC-MAN. Now kindly get the hell off my Google.

I promise, there’s an actual update about, well, me coming eventually. But in the meantime, have a techy rant.

I’ve never really been an overly huge fan of Bell Canada. Usually, I’d default to them only because the alternative–which, at the time, was Rogers–isn’t exactly a whole lot better. I’d heard halfway good things about some of the smaller ISP’s, but couldn’t be bothered to switch–most noteably because they still escentially sold their services over Bell’s equipment. Then they started throttling their customers for doing anything they didn’t agree with–like, for example, downloading a season of a TV show via torrent. Then, because the kicker for the smaller ISP’s was they could start advertising they didn’t do that, Bell decided shortly thereafter to start throttling the smaller ISP’s in much the same way. Meanwhile while this was going on, they were inventing new and creative ways to try and screw me over entirely.

In May of 2008, shortly after word came out about Bell’s throttling of third party ISP’s, I switched my internet service to TekSavvy. While yeah, they’re still borrowing Bell’s services for their own uses, at least my money wasn’t going directly into their pockets this time. And I ended up paying less of it overall. Apparently, Bell’s decided users from third party ISP’s should be paying through the nose for their services, much like they would be through Bell directly. So they’ve opted to introduce a rather ridiculous overage fee on a per-byte basis to the third party ISP’s. It amounts to, according to the linked article, roughly $1.13/gigabyte. And naturally, it has CRTC approval, so prices will probably start going up even while the appeals by the affected ISP’s are being drafted. Way to go, Bell. If we had a third option, you’d get none of my money entirely. Sadly, I’m still not entirely enthusiastic about the alternatives.

And, of course, while I was writing this post, a friendly neighbourhood nag agent from Bell itself thought it might be fun to call me up on a Saturday afternoon and inform me my apparent new phone bill is now approximately $11 higher than it should be for same service. Once again, Bell’s got the wrong idea here. Here’s a random thought. You already lost me on your internet service–largely because your internet service, and the folks who support it, fail–contrary to the regular junkmail I’m still seeing in my mailbox encouraging me to reconsider. Are you trying to lose me on your phone service, too? You’re succeeding, if you are.

Update: And now I read Bell’s doing exactly the same thing to its direct customers. So much for unlimitted plans.

The CRTC noted almost all the individuals who voiced their opinions were “unanimously opposed” to Bell’s application.

And yet, the application was approved anyway. Officially screwed, again.

How old were you when you first got the talk, from either parents or teachers, about the tiny little details of the typical sex act? Bet you anything you weren’t this old.

Sex education belongs in the province’s schools despite criticism from some people who oppose exposing students as early as Grade 3 to sexual content in the classroom, Premier Dalton McGuinty says.

“And I speak not just in my capacity as a premier but as a father,” McGuinty said Tuesday. “(Children) are going to get this information. Either we can provide it in a format and in a venue over which we have some control or they can just get it entirely on their own.”

And of course, in typical “this is what we’re doing and you can suck it up” fashion, his choices are simple.

Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky said parents who object to the topics taught in health can take their child out of class.

Consider it done. If and when I end up with kids, I’ll be looking for places to get them a proper grade 3 education. Probably out of Ontario, if this actually ends up happening. Let’s leave the sex education to the sexually active, shall we? Nah, I didn’t think so.

Scary, but not the slightest bit surprising. Approximately 2000000 Canadians personally know someone–a family member, friend, co-worker–who’s been sexually abused by a catholic priest. That’s way too freaking many. I don’t even consider myself catholic and I feel dirty right now.

All over a trafic violation in Cleveland, Ohio, two guys decide they’re going to make a chase of it. It started out as a high-speed car chase, only for them to realize they probably weren’t going to outrun the cops. Then they thought it might be fun to make a foot race out of it. Ditch the car, jump a fence, say hello to a couple female innmates. Um, what?

Turns out the fence they jumped put them right into the yard of a female corrections center. Where, naturally, they were promptly, well, taken in.

I guess it could be argued they were just turning themselves in. If that’s the case, someone should probably point out to them they turned themselves in to the wrong prison. Hopefully while on their way to the right one. Apparently, a couple more guys who didn’t find themselves on the wrong side of the wrong fence at the wrong time were also arrested. So much for bragging rights. Instead, the whole group gets nominated for moron of the year.

This is clearly the year of the overtaxed Canadian, nevermind what the Chinese say it is. And as always, it starts from the top down.

first off, Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP) wants to tax any and all new MP3 player purchases. Or purchases of iPods, possibly external hard drives and laptops. Because, you know, everyone who buys one’s a bloody criminal. You’ll note the MP who’s pushing the bill in question calls it a levy. Which, really, is just another way of saying pirate tax. We already have one on blank CD’s and casette tapes, just in case we’d dare buy one and use it for all those songs we legally bought off iTunes. And people wonder why I’m of the opinion free shit’s good shit.

Relatedly in the WTF column, everyone’s favourite Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has decided to allow broadcasters and cable/satelite providers to negotiate a fee for carriage. Which, escentially, means cable and satelite subscribers will be paying for the local TV stations we’d be watching anyway. Because, you know, Rogers and company won’t be letting it cut into their profits if they can help it. I don’t know that I’d call it a straight out and out tax, like some of the advertisements I’ve seen about it proclaim, but it’s definitely at the very least an unneeded user fee. And, well, very naive to think any price the two sides agree on won’t be transfered to the consumer. Tax or not, though, it’s not doing a thing to change my mind about watching most of my television for free. But then, maybe that isn’t the point. Oh well.

Not to take the spotlight entirely away from our friends over there in Ottawa, though, but over in the other direction–in Toronto–we have even more reason to scratch our heads and give serious thought to going just a little tiny bit insane. Ontario’s liberals, not exactly known for being easy on our already taxed–literally–wallets, are up to their usual tricks again. This time, in the name of conservation and green energy programs, they’re instituting a tax on electric bills to the collective tune of $53000000. No, my finger didn’t get stuck on the 0. That’s how much they’re thinking will be pulled in by this new hydro tax. The reason for it?

Ontario electricity customers will soon be slapped with an additional tax to cover $53 million of the Liberal government’s new conservation and green energy programs, the Star has learned.

So, it was Dalton McGuinty’s idea to go all energy conservation on us in the middle of a recession, and now residents of Ontario get the bill. Meanwhile we’re still watching the course of the HST torpedo, which is scheduled to hit both Ontario and BC in July and do I have no idea what to the usual household budget. On top of the fact that someone living on a disability pension budget because multiple dozen attempts to get employed somewhere doesn’t make close to minimum wage–there’s a rant in there for another entry later. And people wonder why I’m not a very big supporter of the natural governing party at the moment.

I get that Ontario’s in a little tiny bit of deep crap financially–I have no idea what the NDP’s motives are federally, beyond their favourite word is “tax” (sorry, “levy”). But this just stinks of wicked cheap. Yes, our government’s in the poor house. So are the voters. This one in particular would love a break. Say, like an equal playing field financially. How ’bout it, Dalton? No, didn’t think so. Thanks for trying, though.

I’m not by any means a religious person. My parents say I’m Christian, but I haven’t practiced since I was much too young to do so willingly. Ironically enough, it’s been about that long since they’ve entered a church for anything other than a wedding or funeral too. Sadly, this is a pretty good explanation as to why.

A highschool in Rome actually did something rare for a state-run institution–it came up with an actual brilliant idea. Vending machines that sell condoms, and for cheaper than those which you’d have to drop by the drug store to get your hands on. One would think this to be a good thing–kids that age are probably doing it anyway, might as well minimize the risks, right? Apparently, not if you’re a member of the Roman church. Or, for that matter, its still far too church-oriented government.

The newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference said Thursday that sex was being reduced to “mere physical exercise.” The newspaper, L’Avvenire, lamented that young people these days have no spiritual guidance on sexuality, and that educators are more concerned with “the health and hygiene consequences of sex” than its moral implications.

Good God, they’re fussing about their health! Quick, lock them in confession–yesterday! Now, before someone jumps on me for supposedly saying “to hell with morality”, I somehow doubt that’s going to be the first thing on some kid’s list of worries if they discover, through the experimentation just about everyone was doing in one way, shape or form in highschool–yeah, you, don’t say you weren’t–that they have HIV or some other health complication. Or, as happens far too frequently–yes, even in Rome, there’s a pregnancy involved. Please. You have kids sneaking off to dark places to smoke a joint, and that’s actually against non-religious laws. You have kids hanging out in the woods with various things of an alcoholic nature, in spite of the fact underaged drinking is also against non-religious laws–except in Europe. You’re not going to prevent them from doing the bed sheat tango over some moral or spiritual obligation to keep it zipped or face eternal damnation–particularly if, as is becoming more and more common in North America at least, they’re increasingly more likely to laugh it off as the empty threat it is.

They’re going to drink. They’re probably going to smoke–if for no other reason than just to say they’ve tried it. And if you cram otherworldly reasons why they shouldn’t down their throats, they’re just going to do it and not tell you. And then you have two problems to deal with.

By all means, talk about it with your kids. Tell them why they should really think about maybe not getting naked at 16. Just please, for sanity’s sake, leave the bloody bible out of the conversation. And in the meantime, don’t shit all over a highschool looking to provide those of them who’re just gonna do it anyway with a way to at the very least lesen their risks. Or, better yet, buy them the condoms yourself if it’s that much a concern. You can’t force people to make what you believe to be the right decisions. No, not even your kids. But if you’d spend less time worrying about which direction they’ll be heading in the afterlife and more time lessening their chances of falling flat on their faces from a mistake in their present life, you might actually learn you also don’t have to. Oh, and do both yourselves and your kids a favour while you’re at it. Tell the Italian Bishops’ Conference where they can shove their moral and spiritual guidance. It hasn’t been working well enough for them to be worrying about throwing it at everyone else.

Admittedly, my ability to be politically correct is practically nonexistent. No, I don’t go around dropping n-bombs every 20 seconds, but I haven’t rewritten a large part of my vocabulary to take into account some tiny fraction of the town I live in–who’s population isn’t all that large anyway–might be offended either. And I have no plans to. I also have no plans to do any kind of supporting the latest gem to come out of Ottawa’s parliament.

In yesterday’s throne speech, it was suggested that Canada’s national anthem needs a tiny bit of reworking. Um, what? Specificly, the part that says “all our sons command”. Again, um, what? Now our very own anthem isn’t gender-neutral enough? There’s accomodation and then there’s just overkill. That, well, is just overkill.

It’s been a complete non-issue for as long as I can remember, in spite of the fact we’ve had multiple governments with their own ideas on gender neutrality come in and screw up the country in their own ways. It’s been pretty much exactly the same in that respect, too. Except in the last decade or two it’s been forced bilingual all across Canada, except maybe in Quebec–do they even still sing that one? And now, after it’d been played about 50 billion times during the olympics, there’s talk of rewriting it for gender-neutral purposes. Someone wanna tell them drugs are bad for you?

Hey, if we’re going to rewrite the thing anyway, here’s a thought. Let’s remove or modify that whole “God keep our land” section while we’re at it. Don’t want to offend the non-Christian folks either. Or, you know, we could leave well enough alone and be happy with not having to sing “God save the queen”. I would vote for that option, too. It’s the national anthem–as much a part of Canada as hockey and beer. Don’t mess with it.

Only in England does something like this come up. And, only in Canada does it actually make headlines. And, only on this blog will it be mocked. A 23-year-old from London, while walking his dog, decided just because the dog wanted a walk doesn’t mean he had to. London’s legal system felt otherwise.

Prosecutors said Paul Railton was spotted driving at low speed along a country lane in December, holding his dog’s leash through the car window as the animal trotted alongside.

Railton pleaded guilty Monday to not being in proper control of a vehicle. His lawyer, Paul Donoghue, said 23-year-old Railton acknowledged “it was a silly thing to do and there was an element of laziness” while exercising his lurcher, a type of crossbred sighthound.

Yes, I’m lazy. Sometimes, too lazy. Way, way too lazy. But even I’m not quite *that* lazy. Even if they actually wanted to give me a lisence. Say, can he also be charged with being a contender for 2010′s moron of the year?

I get that not everyone’s going to agree with the olympics. I get that there’s probably not going to be anything short of a small miracle that’ll change their mind. And I get that even if their mind changed, they’d more than likely still insist the olympics be paid for by someone else who isn’t them–while they enjoy the benefits thereof, of course. That’s fine. That’s cool. Wonderful, even. That’s their right. This isn’t. Way to go, morons. You’ve just successfully punished people who probably had little to do with the games, short of maybe going to watch. Yeah, you’ve definitely made your point. Now kindly go to hell.