So the quebec government has succeeded in getting us divided on a non-issue while we stop talking about real issues, well, at least some of us as there is still the occasional editorial and open letter here and there. But these are still taking time and effort away from discussing the fact that Quebec is now shedding 5000 jobs a month, and that giant craters are opening up and swallowing backhoes in the middle of downtown Montreal. Of course, this all goes towards a goal of evacuating the province of all those who are affected by this 'dress code' because these are not people who make up the desired demographic of morons who would vote for an independent Quebec that uses Canadian dollars (oxymoron intended). I am aware that outside of Montreal and Quebec City there is a large population of backwoods hicks who have never even seen a muslim except for those being labelled as a terrorist on the evening 'nouvelles', and who can't speak a word of "da H'english" save for having a "craque dans le windshield" or "un flatte dans le ti'er", or who eat at their backyard BBQ "les 'ot dogs et les 'amburgers" (note to non-Quebec readers: Quebec Francophones speaking English cannot pronounce "H" when it's at the beginning of a word, but somehow add an "H" to the beginning of any word starting with a vowel, without some level of practice). I mean it isn't like they are planning to remove the Catholic found just about everywhere... Majority of Quebec townships and streets are "Saint(e)" something-or-other, but that's OK because this is part of Quebec's heritage (of double standards). I mean, really, this doesn't even ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, separation of church and state my ass...
Yes I live in a place that is proud of it's own ignorance and would very much like to legislate ignorance as being mandatory... Truth be told, I have always had the freedom to choose to move away, but, I've always chosen not to do that. It hasn't been laziness or unwillingness to adapt to life elsewhere that has kept me here, perhaps I simply enjoy the controversy and would not know how to fill that void elsewhere. But enough about Quebec.
Ontario has been learning from it's corporate masters and might have this pesky deficit thingy under control soon if they keep this up. I hate to point out that paying employees of their own is the only true economic control that the government really has while it is spending debt dollars... They'd have more control if they stopped using debt dollars, but how often do I really need to point to the one thing that politicians want to continuously overlook?
OK, maybe not the ONLY thing as they like to overlook their own criminal activities too... They also love to pat themselves on the back for how well the plan of denying payments to those actually need them (and payed for such programs for years) have worked out by making misleading statements that sound good on their face but in the end still mean an increase... Yes, let's tote the non increase because it's $1.44 per year lower than the real increase was going to have been for the taxpayer (while still being a rise of $22.56 per year), while the corporate yearly non rise is $34 lower per year than it would have been (which is still $31.58 higher instead of $65.58 higher)... If I have lost you there, it's because of the language: premium freeze having been used somewhere to describe a higher annual rate... Or because I got lost in the verbiage somewhere myself because that was the plan... Not that these changes are a win or loss for me as I have no income to be deducted from and am part of the reason for the 'falling unemployment rate' given that I am not 'unemployed' I am simply 'not working'... But then I have not been counted as unemployed at any time during this year as I went from 'employed' directly to 'not in the workforce' so I have no bearing in the dropping of the rather arbitrary 'unemployment rate', do I?
Like so many things it falls to a language of confusion and obfuscation... I've held this headline for a while "Divided senate panel approves Syria resolution" Say what? I'm sorry, but would the word 'divided' not somehow imply a 'stalemate' or a 1:1 yea to nay vote rather than a 10:7 vote? Yes, one could say that there was no unanimous vote in this matter, but there is a clear majority of people who want to back these guys in whatever the plan is... But why should anything like this come as a shock when we already know who is bankrolling everything and everyone involved.
The fact is that the concept of humanitarianly bombing Syria has hit it's impasse regardless of who is being hit with what (like this, or this, or eventually, maybe even this) for the simple reason that people appear to be remembering the last time the boy cried wolf and are not buying it anymore (not that this helps the march for war, either). Maybe it's the 'credible sources' that are being used to promote the agenda, or maybe it's something more than that, but, most people now think that another new pearl harbour might be on the way, and though I may not have any idea as to where or when such a thing might occur, it certainly seems obvious that this is the only way to aid the faltering and back-pedalling politicians in this soap-box opera that is the Syrian chemical weapons saga... Honestly I've been losing track of where it sits now or who is supporting what timeline, and that is probably the whole point of the 'we must attack yesterday or next month with the U.N. unless they don't support the idea' constant cattle-prod parade of dead-horse headlines that's been going on in the past couple of weeks. Whether by apathy or confusion the agenda will continue, and let the games begin!