Friday Soccer

A bit thick at soccer last night. Blork says it has something to do with northern fires and it is not smoggy smog, the brown air of August. This* tells the whole story, if you can handle the truth.

A thrilling 0-0 tie against the break away schismistic Red Rovers. You see my team, the Golden Nuggets, of last year has morphed into two teams, the Nuggests and the Rovers according to what jersey you grabbed. Fancy, too. Numbered shorts. Except one or two have the number on the butt. Glory stories? They would all feature the word “almost” I fear. I did ding the point where the cross-bar meets the upright with a curling corner kick. That would have been great. I was almost…OK…I see your point.

*

weather2

 

When The Rich Go Bad

It is always sad – yet funny – seeing someone with inordinate access to resources doing something incredibly stupid:

A South African man who paid a relative to serve a jail sentence in his place has finally been put behind bars. Engineer Rupert Reddi was sentenced in 2001 for kidnapping and assault. After an appeal process, a man believed to be Mr Reddi was imprisoned in 2003. Three months later, prison officials discovered that the prisoner in question was in fact Roland Archery, a relative of Mr Reddi. Both men have now been sentenced to three years’ jail for the fraud. Mr Reddi was originally sentenced to four months’ jail in connection with an assault on his employees following a robbery at a factory he owned.

Totally Dad

Isn’t it funny when the Boingsters go totally Dad and denounce average students for disagreeing with what they say or not worshipping because Boingsters are, like, Wired-hired bloggers [despite not having much to add] and, ummm, they are older people so…you know…you better respect us ’cause…we know better than you?

Lesson: everyone goes Oldie Olson. Some know when it is time to admit it.

Tantrama City Health Summit


First Plenary Session, June 10, 2007

Given the surprise devolution of powers two weeks ago to Atlantic Canada through its new Free Zone and Autonomous Regional Capital, Tantrama City this weekend will be the scene of a swiftly arranged summit to determine what now could be done with the health care fiasco two years after the end of universal medical coverage triggered by the June 2005 Supreme Court of Canada case, Chaoulli v. Quebec given Tantrama City’s new and surprising access to the Federal treasury. Representatives of the four Atlantic Provinces as well as representatives of the breakaway regions of Cape Breton, New Brunswick’s Acadian Penninsula and the Souris Downtown Region (Alleged) met in the shadows of rapidly forming capital plaza of Tantrama City in temporary facilities to work out the implications for health care of new financial decision-making powers extended irrevocably to Tantrama City’s Provisional Government.

Calgary: August 2006

In the two years since the ruling, much has changed in Canada, requiring delegates at the summit to consider many models and exercise prudence. In Quebec, the ruling was been extended by subsequent cases under the Quebec Charter of Rights to all government operations leading to reverse nationalization and the eventual buy out and lease-back of the entire provincial government by Quebecor and the impending renaming of the province as Quebecor. In Calgary, former Premier former Prime Minister now Prime Deacon Harper of the renamed Congregation of Alberta faces only 23% popularity after that province’s ravaging by bird flu in the summer of 2006, the following social collapse, mass evacuations and subsequent default on equalization payments all due to Harper’s decision to cease all public health activities by the province on his theory, announced after the Chaoulli decision, that “the private sector…will fill in…any gaps…left by these changes…seamlessly…in a swift…and moral…fashion…”

In this context the representatives of all Atlantic Canadian communities will meet over the next four days to determine how the newly and mistakenly granted access to the Federal Treasury can arrest and reverse the collapse of healthcare within Canada’s poorest region. At the first plenary session this morning, First Minister Designate of the Tantrama City Provisional Government, John McDonald MacKay Archibald, left, introduced by a bagpipe rendition of “We’re In The Money” praised the leaders of Atlantic Canada for gathering so soon after the announced devolution of fiscal powers and regional autonomy, especially given the “quite valid but, frankly, pointless dissatisfaction voiced over the lack of constitutional precedent or electoral support for the recent realignment and the decisions to be made at this glorious summit,” comments which were met with stoney silence from the room except for the delegates from the Souris Downtown Region (Alleged) who cheered wildly.

Discrimination Against Wealth?

It is not really the argument the two plaintiffs have brought to the Supreme Court of Canada today but it is close:

The Supreme Court of Canada will rule Thursday on whether it’s unconstitutional to prevent someone from paying for private medical care – a case that could change the face of Canadian health care. The plaintiffs – a Montreal patient and a doctor – want the court to strike down sections of the Quebec Hospital Insurance Act that prevent people from buying health insurance for medical procedures covered by the public health plan.

Whatever the outcome, the logic of today’s ruling will be interesting to review. I’ll see if I can have a look at it at noon. These rulings usually come out around 11 am I think.

LUNCHY UPDATE: I thought italicization, bold and upper case was warranted.

Here is the ruling and uni-level health care is gone-dee. The majority of the Court only relate it to Quebec’s Charter of Rights and finds it breached. The minority agrees and says it also breaches Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Hang on – there are three rulings from the seven judges with a 4-3 majority. Two majority but different and one minority dissent, maybe in part. Hmmm. I don’t have time to figure this out. Geewilikers. Shouldn’t all law be digestible in under three minutes?

For me, the interesting bit is the minority’s discussion of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the three of four judge majority decision, or at least the version from the headnote of every lawyer’s cheat best pal:

Where lack of timely health care can result in death, the s. 7 protection of life is engaged; where it can result in serious psychological and physical suffering, the s. 7 protection of security of the person is triggered. In this case, the government has prohibited private health insurance that would permit ordinary Quebeckers to access private health care while failing to deliver health care in a reasonable manner, thereby increasing the risk of complications and death. In so doing, it has interfered with the interests protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter.

Section 11 HOIA and s. 15 HEIA [Ed.: the operative provisions of the Quebec statute in question] are arbitrary, and the consequent deprivation of the interests protected by s. 7 is therefore not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In order not to be arbitrary, a limit on life, liberty or security of the person requires not only a theoretical connection between the limit and the legislative goal, but a real connection on the facts. The task of the courts, on s. 7 issues as on others, is to evaluate the issue in the light, not just of common sense or theory, but of the evidence. Here, the evidence on the experience of other western democracies with public health care systems that permit access to private health care refutes the government’s theory that a prohibition on private health insurance is connected to maintaining quality public health care. It does not appear that private participation leads to the eventual demise of public health care.

So the government cannot have a regime where it statistically kills us? Is that it? Unnecessary pain is unacceptable? I hope the libertarians out there kiss the ground the Supreme Court of Canada sits upon as this is a great example of the highest court of the land recognizing the autonomy of the individual under the Charter.

Interesting Events

I have had two interesting events blogwise, or rather beerblogwise, this week. First, I was offered my first free sample for review. It is from a distributor in New England so we have to figure out how to get a free sample across the border. Free beer is an interesting concept. Until now, I have always bought my own for reviewing.

Second, I was contacted by a reporter from The New York Times about an item I ran last January and could she quote me for her article. Well, apparently, copy editor willing, there A Good Beer Blog shall be come Monday, Business Section on the Media page. I have alerted the good folks who lend me use of their servers in case there is some wave of A Good Beer Blogmania across the USA. We shall see if the coal-fires stay lit and the dykes hold.

Girl

I don’t know if I can forgive you. Have any of you told me about “Girl” from Beck’s release Guero of earlier this year? No.

Fortunately the timing was perfect despite your indifference, with this warm evening, the apricot light turning to candy floss, I could get six listenings in while in the car going about the town. Though you never shared, I will share: [3.3 MB, .wma file]. It could make me dance again, as long as the DJ played nothing else – except perhaps Franz Ferdinand and endless rocksteady.