StevetheClub

And that is a well-articulated argument as to why his time as our starting QB is up.

Agreed. It's also been great to hear how it has been helping people with mental health struggles. Remarkable.

To be honest, I thought it was a little unfortunate that this element of the story seemed to be overshadowed by Riley rather than the other way around, so thank you for posting this.

It's mentioned numerous times throughout the report that the type of material found is consistent with material that is used "to lower the inhibitions of their intended victims and facilitate the molestation of said victims". I haven't done near enough research to take a position on the case, but if the documents are legitimate than that is awful concerning.

Which beliefs are those?

I could be wrong, but I don't believe it does. I think it means under 18, but as of a set date.

I'll be honest. After the way Hefney left this was my first response too and i think a valid question. After reading the Tait article, though, it's good to hear he looks back fondly at his time here. He was a great one in his time.

Totally fair. The same could be said for most unionized workplaces; I know it could be for mine.

Couldn't agree more. I don't know enough to have a stand on unions in general but it definitely seems (admittedly from the outside) that in some professions, like teaching, unions can sometimes protect poor workers. I work in a field in which I often either hear about the impact of or interact directly with teachers and there are many who I think should be paid more and many who I think should find a new job. In a lot of ways teachers are co-parents and I think that when they embody that role - which many do - they earn every penny; the problem is there are too many that don't and they are far too secure in their jobs.

I can see what you mean on the carbon tax, I'm also in favour of calling things what they are. I'm in favour of the economics of it, not the rhetoric. I do think they should be given credit for a measured response, which is particularly difficult in times of crisis. I will agree the boat is upside down.

Agreed. With respect to the bolded, I would include mental health staff who could respond to mental health issues that don't require forming (i.e., significant risk is not an issue).

I've been happy with the NDP government so far. Don't get me wrong, they haven't been perfect, but I do think they are doing a good job in a rough situation. What you see as "half measures" I see as being responsible; agree to disagree. With respect to carbon tax, if the money goes where it should it sounds like a good idea to me and I have no problem with it being revenue neutral. I have no problem with rebates for those with lower incomes. "Take money from the people with more and give it to people with less" (which is hardly an exclusively socialist practice) oversimplifies its purpose for the sake of derisively drawing unfair socialist parallels. As for public service wages, I agree (this coming from an AHS employee).

I'll be honest, I don't follow politics terribly closely, but I do try to keep informed. So far what I've seen is the NDP doing a good job at making the best of a horrible situation (that they had no part in) and setting us up so we can manage these situations better in the future. I guess I keep asking myself, "would we be better off if any of the other parties were in power?" and I don't think we would be.

While I agree with TUP that it oversimplifies a complex situation to say "they knew what they were getting themselves into so too bad for them", I think there are better arguments. That being said, I do think it's a systemic issue but I don't have the energy or time to get into that so I won't. One, when I think of hockey at it's best, when it's appointment viewing and the rest of the world stops while I watch, I think of international tournaments and the playoffs. In both, I think, you see hockey the way it was meant to be played, with speed, skill, and little to no fighting. I want less fighting, I'd even be fine with no fighting, so I can watch more hockey like that. Second, I firmly believe (biased, perhaps) Laroque when he says that the vast majority of fighters with they don't want to fight. I take that to mean that they would rather be in the league for their hockey skills rather than their fighting skills. I think that is very telling and indicates to me that hockey, at its purist, is about skating and stick-handling, goals and assists, and not what you do with your fists. For those of you in favour of fighting, I would be very interested in how you would define hockey IQ prior to this conversation if asked. I would be very surprised (though I could be wrong) that if unprompted, that fighting or references to it would be a part of your response. All this being said, I do find fighting entertaining, but I think that's what it is: entertainment. I know some of you will argue fighting's place on that basis and that fine. It's not that it doesn't have any value - I know it can get a team and a crowd going (I'm not convinced it does anything to clean up the game) - it's just that I think I'm ready to watch real hockey and not something that needs fighting to make it more entertaining.

It's my understanding, and in my opinion rightly so, that physicians can refuse to be involved.

I know. You shared your thoughts, I shared mine. I'm happy to have more of a conversation about it or we can agree to disagree, either works for me.

It looks like what happened spurred a conversation that will hopefully be the first steps in transforming what has been a place so many people avoid to a place where a sense of community could develop. That sounds good to me.

Found Dr. Sanjay Gupta: The epidemic of gun violence is treatable also enlightening.

A very good point I was trying to construct but you've articulated it better. I think motivation is of primary importance. In a lot of ways those who are radicalized are people who already struggle and just found a cause to attach their own struggle to. See this for a good, though short, interview on the profile of mass killers. I think, given the profile, why interventions such as the CureViolence approach find such success.

If you're actually interested in moving forward on a conversation about it then great, I'd just ask that you leave the name-calling behind.

I'd still disagree.

It doesn't have to. Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. Again, it doesn't have to. I actually think politics could be about issues and not leaders and discussion can be civil and rational and not about spewing rage at each other. Well, it never is. That is like saying Fantasy Land at Disneyworld is real life. Your opinion, I disagree. *edit: about politics, not Disneyworld.

First of all, their pay is not low according to the president of the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies Canada. Second, we can disagree, fine by me. Third, I meant he wasn't intending to use taxpayer money to pay them when he made the comment about the child tax credit last July, not when he re-hired them.

It doesn't have to. Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. Again, it doesn't have to. I actually think politics could be about issues and not leaders and discussion can be civil and rational and not about spewing rage at each other.

I think all of the questions in your (TUP) first paragraph are important and I think a greater priority needs to be placed on childcare for everyone, not just the PM. I think society is increasingly organized in a way that compromises one of our most basic needs - secure attachments - and that this needs to change (but that's a whole other topic). Anyway...I think that some of the positions that have been mentioned that are paid for out of that budget support the PMs well-being and we deem them acceptable in light of the demands of the job (cooks, for example). Simply put, this is how I think of child care. Agreed, museum visits and whatever other fun family stuff should be out of pocket. Given Trudeau's previous comments I'm leaning towards thinking he should pay for the nannies, but that's not the same as saying every PM should. It's just because of the stance he took. Hypocrite seems to fit but not liar in my opinion, not because of the strength of the word but because I don't think he planned to use the budget to pay for nannies and I think intention is important when talking about lying. I also don't think their ability to pay for it matters and I also don't think having a "National Nanny" matters. Not every PM has young children that require extra care and if a budget for items is provided I don't see any reason why he shouldn't use it.