Log in

A More Enlightened Time [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Beth Ann

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Angry in the Great White North ~ The Blogging Tories ~ The Conservative Party of Canada ~ Monte Solberg's blog ]

3 more days... [Jun. 10th, 2009|11:17 pm]
Beth Ann
I'll sure be glad when this is all over.
link3 have spoken|Speak your mind

... [May. 20th, 2009|11:38 pm]
Beth Ann
And with that, we own a house.
link3 have spoken|Speak your mind

This seems wrong somehow... [Feb. 23rd, 2009|10:20 am]
Beth Ann
Many of you have probably heard by now about Alfie Patten, whose story broke on February 13th. Alfie is a 13 year-old who looks no older than 8 or 9, and has been named the father of a baby girl, Maisie Roxanne, who was born earlier this month in the UK to a 15 year-old girl.

There are video clips on youtube of an interview that was done with him and the baby's mother. When the reporter asked him what he was planning to do financially, his reply was: "what's 'financially?'" The question was then reworded as, "what are you going to do for money?" He replied: "I don't know."

The story keeps getting more and more sad and bizarre as time goes on. Other teenage boys have since come forward claiming that they could be the father, as they slept with Chantelle (the baby's mother) around the time of conception. They claim to have done this in Chantelle's own room at her parents' house, with their permission. A DNA test will be done eventually to determine who the father is.

There's also talk of Alfie's father having seized on the opportunity to make money off his son's 'story,' which is certainly believable. Most teen parents don't have their faces plastered all over the news.

Poor little Maisie. There's no way she'll be able to avoid hearing about the firestorm surrounding her birth for long, and it seems her parents and grandparents could all use a few lessons in responsibility. I hope the poor kid has a chance...

And even weirder:What could happen if Alfie and Chantelle want their own place.
linkSpeak your mind

A sad loss for Canadians... [Feb. 10th, 2009|06:36 pm]
Beth Ann
M. Devloo, the 'grand-pere' of Vimy, died late last week. And he has left enormous shoes to fill. He was a retired schoolteacher who lived in the small town of Vimy, and had a deep appreciation for Canada, Canadians, and the Canadian memorial located about 10km away from his home. For 13 years, he would drive to the train station at Vimy (pictured below) nearly every day to check for wayward Canadians. If he found any, he would insist on driving them to the memorial, introducing them to the guides, and making arrangements to pick them up again later:Collapse )
link3 have spoken|Speak your mind

Seriously? [Feb. 4th, 2009|05:12 pm]
Beth Ann
Add another one to the "What in the world is wrong with people?" column...

Obama sex toy.
link1 has spoken|Speak your mind

What is a father? [Jan. 13th, 2009|07:09 pm]
Beth Ann
There's been some interesting coverage in the Globe and Mail recently about the case of a Toronto man, Pasqualino Cornelio, who was recently ordered by a judge to continue paying child support to his ex-wife for her 16 year-old twins despite the fact that he is not their biological father.

This is a tough situation. It's horrible that Cornelio's ex-wife deceived him, but the twins are not responsible for their mother's actions. It would not reflect well on Cornelio if he were to simply abandon them now that their biological parentage is known; after all, they've known only him as a father for 16 years, and he seems to have remained involved in their lives after his divorce from their mother. It must be hard enough for these teens to come to terms with the fact that the man whom they believed was their father, and who has behaved as such their entire lives, isn't biologically related to them at all. To have him cut off all support (financial and/or emotional) at this point seems unnecessarily cruel, especially as they'll soon reach the threshold of adulthood. So in a way I can see where the judge is coming from, although financially it's patently unfair to Mr. Cornelio, and I can't help thinking some sort of compromise could have been found. His ex-wife deceived him for years, and it's clear that he can't trust her. If he's to continue paying support, perhaps the judge should have given him the option to pay into a trust fund (or something similar) so that he can be sure the money is going to the children and not his ex-wife. As I understand it, payments for minors go directly to the custodial parent, and while the money is supposed to be spent on the children, there are no checks and balances in place to ensure that this is the case. This becomes especially desirable because some other things in the article suggest that the ex-wife was attempting to use her children to get back at Mr. Cornelio: "The issue of paternity only went to the lab for DNA testing when Ms. Cornelio recently sought to get an increase in child support and to restrict Mr. Cornelio's access to the children. He had long suspected that the children might not be his, but he never pursued the truth. In fact, he had dutifully paid support since 1998."

Read more...Collapse )
link2 have spoken|Speak your mind

So I was given a book... [Jan. 3rd, 2009|04:06 am]
Beth Ann
And in this book is an article. It was published in 1894. Have fun!

Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride
by Ruth Smythers, Beloved Wife of the Reverend L.D. Smythers

The Article (almost in full)Collapse )
link3 have spoken|Speak your mind

Hey Ontario, what gives? [Dec. 4th, 2008|05:35 pm]
Beth Ann
Note to self: never attend an institution of "higher learning" in Ontario. In the past few weeks, several displays of idiocy have come from them.

First, Queen's introduced "student facilitators," who will live among others in residence and attempt to make students more "socially aware." They've denied that this is some measure of thought-policing. However, it's difficult to believe them when their stated aim is to "make Queen's University students more self-conscious about using offensive language," especially when you consider how it's going to be achieved:

In an editorial in the Queen's Journal, the university's main student paper, the program was described...

"Six trained student facilitators who live in residence will intervene in dining hall and common room conversations when they hear social issues or controversial topics being discussed," it said.

Next, Carleton University decided to stop participating in the annual Shinerama campaign because Cystic Fibrosis is a white man's disease, and is not inclusive enough. When criticized, the author of the motion claimed that "continuing to support CF would reflect 'the same mentality that kept slavery legal, and prevented the women's vote.'" Predictably, there has been substantial public backlash against this decision, and they are apparently reconsidering.

The most recent display of idiocy? Lakehead University has decided that all campus clubs must have only "positive" messages. They cannot "be seen to be offensive or disparaging and they are not allowed to impose their views on anyone else." This will improve the campus, apparently:

Richard Longtin, the president of the Lakehead University Student Union, in Thunder Bay, Ont., said the new rules are designed to create a more civil atmosphere in which students respect one another.


Any student that is offended by the material of any club can bring their complaint to the student union and the issue would be reviewed.

Idiocy, thy name is Ontario universities.
link1 has spoken|Speak your mind

Earth's Facebook account [Nov. 26th, 2008|07:08 am]
Beth Ann

linkSpeak your mind

When are adults adults? [Nov. 19th, 2008|12:15 pm]
Beth Ann
I had nothing to do for much of the morning at work, so I spent some time reading about the a new piece of legislation recently proposed in Ontario. If passed, this would place additional restrictions on drivers 21 years of age or younger. These include:

-A 0.00 blood alcohol limit enforced for all drivers under 22.
-Severer penalties for drivers under the age of 22 caught speeding.
-Drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 being limited to one "teenage" passenger (although they say exceptions will be made for family members).

There are articles about it here and here, and in lots of other places I'm sure.

Admittedly, I haven't read the legislation itself, so there could be things I'm missing. But if the articles are a decent representation of what it says, I have a few issues with it. It's ridiculous to punish two adults differently for the same infraction because one is slightly older than the other. For that matter, to have speeding become less of a "big deal" on your 22nd birthday also makes no sense. And ideally, all drivers would have a blood alcohol level of 0.00, but the reality is that if an adult of any age has one drink with supper and goes out a couple of hours later, his BAC will likely not be a perfect zero. This doesn't mean he's impaired or that he deserves criminal charges, especially if they come simply because he hasn't reached 22 yet.

The last issue is the most restrictive, given that the age of majority in Ontario is 18, and the drinking age is 19. 19 year olds can vote, join the military, go to bars and drink, etc. and yet under this new legislation, they wouldn't be able to drive two of their friends to the movies on a Friday night (or even afternoon). Nor would they be able to carpool to school, extra-curricular activities, or a job. Theoretically, this could have exactly the opposite of its intended effect: 19 year-old designated drivers would no longer be able to drive more than one friend home from the bar (which they legally entered and where they are legally entitled to consume alcohol). DD duty is not generally popular, and if people don't live in a big city with good public transit and/or are too cheap to pay for cabs, this could theoretically result in more DUIs.

A side issue is that this law is being pushed by a man (Tim Mulcahy) whose 20 year-old son Tyler crashed an Audi into a lake, killing himself and two of his friends. "Speed and alcohol are believed to have contributed to the accident." Last I checked, speeding and driving drunk are already against the law, no matter what the age of the driver. I really doubt that this legislation, had it been in place last summer, would have saved these three lives. If you're already ignoring two laws, what's a third? Just more money spent on bureaucracy...
link4 have spoken|Speak your mind

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]