Huh, I’m hardly Justin’s biggest fan, but that reading is silly.
Justin was asked flat out something like “what do Canadians dislike about Americans?”.
Other that totally dodging the question (“I can’t say Canadians dislike anything about Americans in general, the similarities between us are too great”) or answering with some sort of barely disguised flattery, exactly how could anything he said not have resulted in an allergic reaction from the thin-skinned?
But he has an emotional intelligence.
All kidding aside, that’s true.
But I am, I admit, largely disinterested in what politicians say, and much more interested in what they DO. People seem very impressed by the things Mr. Trudeau says - or for that matter when he plans to have other people say many things, such as the inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, where people will say many things that are already well understood.
That doesn’t really help anyone, though. There are times when a leader’s words DO matter, of course. In times of crisis, sometimes words are all you’ve got. But words didn’t get more Syrian refugees into Canada, they’re not going to save aboriginal people’s lives, and they’re not coming up with any sort of coherent carbon policy. The government has less than ahlf a year in office and they’re already using words to obfuscate the truth and make themselves look better than they are. Today’s breathless announcement that they have a “plan” to have 305,000 immigrants a year is so hilariously sad I don’t know where to begin; the government has had a “plan” for that many immigrants basically forever, so they’re just restating what has always been true but grinning while they do it, and people just eat that shit up. It’s amazing. It’s not nearly as bad as Trumpism but its the same core phenomenon; the believers nod and smile and say “Yup” no matter how obvious the lie or misdirection.
Oh, and they’re holding an “open competition” for new fighter planes, except it’s not open to the F-35 and everyone knows they’ll go with the Super Hornet. But they said it was open, so those are the right words, I guess.
What’s their rationale for excluding the F-35 a priori?
Has the Trudeau gov’t accomplished anything by now? Passed any important bills?
Allegedly they can get other, suitable planes for a lower price. Which might be true, but it’s not an open competition. It’s entirely likely F-35 IS overpriced - it’s been a disaster, actually, though no one knew it would be when the Chrétien government first got us into it - but until you do the bidding process, who knows.
Not sure how many of you have seen this, but it is in the National Post, so I guess it is national news:
In spite of being reported in the national press. this is a local matter. I have no part in it, though I do know the Crown involved, on a professional basis, and we were discussing the matter informally recently in a social setting. And one of my paralegal students knows the accuseds personally, and has told me about them. The Crown does not know that I know a friend of the accuseds, and the student does not know that I know the Crown–I have shut up to both sides, in other words. (I’ve nodded in what I believe to be a sage manner towards each, before changing the subject. :)) So I’m not about to make a call either way; and if asked to act for either side, (which is unlikely), I will recuse myself on ethical grounds.
But I’d be interested in our Canadian Dopers’ responses to the news report. Knowing that I cannot and will not act in any way on this, what do you folks think?
It’s incomprehensible that people can be so misinformed. How do you not seek real medical help for your kid under these circumstances?
I feel sorry for the parents, but they’re idiots. WTF are these people thinking?
No kind of sentence is going to bring back the kid, but a message needs to be sent that this is unacceptable. We have hundreds of years of incrementally scientific research to rely on and you give your kid garlic and ginger? You idiots.
I’m for science based medicine, not woo. Want to raise a child? Be responsible when making health care decisions.
I’m not sure how much the State should get involve in disabusing people of those silly notions. On the one hand, my liberal instinct is for the State to remain largely neutral. On the other hand, it’s difficult to tell people they’re free to believe whatever they want but then expect them not to act as if their beliefs are true. It sounds like: “Of course, your ideas about naturopathy have just as much of a place as any. Except if it involves important decisions about your kid. Come on, mate, get off the woo-woo train.”
But yeah, those parents should do prison for some type of culpable homicide. We can think of that kid’s death as vaccinating Canadian society against woo.
Hey Spoons:
Here’s how I’d formulate their defense, if I was required to do so.
According to the article, they took the kid to a “naturopath” after being informed that the symptoms matched meningitis. They then gave the kid a “naturopathic medicine” for meningitis.
In Alberta, naturopaths are a regulated profession of medicine.
I hate woo, and I dislike very much the fact that the practitioners of woo are accorded this sort of legitimacy.
However, in defense of the parents in this case, they could well argue that they took their kid to a health professional licensed and recognized by the province itself, and followed the regime prescribed by that professional.
Now, I would hope we here in this thread know that naturopaths have no business prescribing bullshit woo-based “cures” for serious diseases like meningitis, and would instead send the kid directly to emergency at a hospital. However, given the fact that they are evidently taken seriously and regulated as a species of “doctor” by the province, how can the parents - idiots though they may be - be criminally faulted for having relied on one?
The criminal fault ought to lie on the so-called professional, or on those who decided that such professionals ought to be allowed to hang out their shingle to practice with a stamp of official approval.
This story, and ones like it, should never be printed without the name of the Naturopath and name of clinic, right there. And it should be cited every time the story is referenced.
Then it would be an effective vaccine, I think!
It isn’t illegal to be stupid.
Malthus’s argument is entirely sound. The state can’t license someone as a medical professional, and then when you go to a licensed medical professional for help, claim that you didn’t seek medical help. The law in Alberta even says a licensed naturopath can call themselves “Doctor.”
These people are fools and their foolishnes resulted in tragedy, but the government was setting this sort of tragedy up by kowtowing to the woo crowd and allowing snake oil salesmen to pass themselves off as physicians.
“Syrian refugees in Canada got housed in same hotel as VancouFur furry convention”
Wait 'till they realize that it wasn’t a convention, and that we put on human costumes when we are in public.
There’s an Onion headline in there somewhere.
Hell, you could write Onion headlines all day, playing off the Syrian refugees arriving in Canada:
Syrian Refugees Already Fed Up With Edmonton Oilers
Hmm…I remember the charity boxing match, but I must have missed the charity “Reach For The Top” competition.
I agree with Malthus and Rick Jay. If they took their child to a health practitioner licensed by the province and followed the instructions of that provincially licensed health practitioner, where’s the mens rea?
Hair boy made it a campaign promise to kill the 35. As the the 35 goes into squadron service down stateside, used superbugs will go on the market, so we possibly get a good deal.
Declan
Good question, and I agree with you folks.
It continues to be big news around here. I am looking forward to reading the decision when it is published.
Thanks, all, for your comments.
Yes, that’s right, I checked. Naturopaths are regulated under the Alberta Health Professions Act and are specifically allowed to call themselves “Doctor”.
Is it judge alone, or jury?