Jessica doesn't understand any life perspective which extends beyond the tip of her nose. When you watch her play life, I think you subconsciously absorb her lack of perspective, her lack of wisdom, and her narcissism. Pretty soon - unless you are incredible grounded, you begin to focus on what other people think of you, instead of freely enjoying your play in life. It's insidious, and it's debilitating.
I don't think going to Cabo San Lucas, with a blond entertainer, is something which necessarily will detract from playing well in the game of life. A lot of people disagree, but I don't see the trip as a big problem.
I do think hanging with Jessica - be it in Cabo or in an Irving grocery store - insidiously increases your risk of playing life badly.
But that's NOT what I want to highlight today. Several intriguing topics must take a back seat to something which is far more important: Canada's national disregard for free speech. Canada, as a nation, simply does not value free speech. This is one of those "world ends with a whimper" situations. Make no mistake: lack of morality can end a nation - possibly quicker than anything else. Canada's lack of morality, i.e. failing to stand up for free speech, has already delivered a vicious blow to her citizens' quality of life - most citizens just don't know it yet.
First, a Canadian Human Rights Commission has charged super-outstanding political writer Mark Steyn with "offensive" speech. The truth, in Canada, is possibly illegal to utter. Steyn:
My defence is I shouldn't have to have a defence. The "plaintiffs" are not complaining that the article is false, or libellous, or seditious, for all of which there would be appropriate legal remedy. Their complaint is essentially emotional: it "offended" them. And as offensiveness is in the eye of the of??fended, there's not a lot I can do about that.Second, Canada has interrogated publisher Ezra Levant in a show trial over why he published the Mohammad cartoons, and whether he broke Canadian law by doing so. To his everlasting credit, Mr. Levant pointed out, in his opening statement: "freedom of speech is not the gift of Canadian bureaucrats but an inalienable right bolstered by 800 years of English Common Law."
the federal and British Columbia human rights commissions [presume] the editing decisions of Maclean's fall within their jurisdiction. Or to put it another way, I don't accept that free-born Canadian citizens require the permission of the Canadian state to read my columns. The eminent Q.C. who heads the Canadian Human Rights Commission may well be a shrewd and insightful person but I don't believe her view of Maclean's cover stories should carry any more weight than that of Mrs. Mabel Scroggins of 47 Strathcona Gardens. And it is slightly unnerving to me that large numbers of Canadians apparently think there's nothing wrong in subjecting the contents of political magazines to "judicial review."
Let's take it as read that I am, as claimed, "offensive." That's the point. It's offensive speech that requires legal protection.
link 2: Levant's statement
Human rights in Canada, attacked and defended. They said it couldn't happen here[in the West]. Think again. Radical Islam is the symptom not the disease.Wretchard is saying the rise of radical Islam is a symptom of our underlying societal immorality, just as shaking is a symptom of Parkinson's disease. It's not the shaking which most urgently need be treated and cured - it's the Parkinson's. I am using immorality in it's classical sense - meaning it is immoral to evade truth and promote fantasy. Evading truth and promoting fantasy - immorality, in the classical sense - is the disease afflicting the Canadian nation, as well as the U.S.A. and all of the West. It is the disease which most urgently need be treated and cured.