Thursday, September 13, 2007

Today's Front Page

On today's front page of the Hamilton Spectator there were three things that caught my interest. Well, four actually if you count the abbreviated weather report (and a beautiful day it was!)

The first is about how when Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty came to Hamilton for a campaign stop he didn't answer questions about some of the 'hot' topics, like the native occupations. This shocked some people.

I can't say I'm surprised though. Big 'D' has some tough campaigning to do in this town after three of the Liberal incumbents have decided not to run again. Not only am I not surprised that the D-man hightailed it back on his bus, it was really the only thing he could do. Why is that? You may ask, and it's a great question! Because he's ahead in the polls (right now); that's why.

Taking questions you aren't prepared for about hot-button topics right in the area they are hottest means his answers would largely be 'off the cuff'. This makes it far too likely he'll make a political gaffe. He's father ahead to prepare answers and speak when he's in Windsor, or Thunder Bay. He did exactly what he should have done in my opinion, and I don't even qualify as amateur. I only have an interest in politics and I figured it out. The Spec however thinks this is front page news.

Next is an article how "The nuclear family isn't so typical anymore". It mentions how nationally, married people are in the minority (although not in Hamilton). The 2006 census also showed for the first time that there were more couples without children than with kids.

It goes on to say that a McMaster University sociology professor states "the decline in religion has made alternative unions more acceptable, including common law and same-sex couples." Also, the single parent family statistic has risen by more than 12% since 2001.

What does all this mean? I don't know. I'm from a single parent home. I'm also a happily married man who hopes one day to have a house full of kids (the exact number Jac and I are still discussing, it will be more than two and less than twelve).

The definition of family has become much more broad of late, I think. A number of factors contribute to this, not the least of which are things such as legalization of same-sex marriage, greater public acceptance of common-law relationships, and perhaps the evolution of our way of thinking.

Either way, I found it very interesting.

The third posting on the front page was about obesity (truth be told there was also something about Brian Melo, but he doesn't interest me). A columnist for the Spec with whom I have had serious misgivings about her writing of late is reporting about a man who is, in her words, 'too fat to work'.

Right now, obesity is only considered a disability if it comes from an illness, accident, or birth defect. Apparently there is a movement to change that. The man in the article hasn't worked since April of 2006. He was on modified work, then sick leave, then unemployment, all of which has run out and all the while he has not lost the weight that is preventing him from working. He is also waiting for news from OHIP to see if they will cover a gastric bypass surgery in the United States.

While reading the article it has became clear that the reason this man is as large as he is, is not by accident, illness, or birth defect. He eats too much. My tax paying dollars may fund his surgery because he can't put down a fork. Now before anyone jumps on me for that, bear in mind that I fully realize the fork is my yap far too often as well. He states that his weight loss efforts haven't worked; the article doesn't say whether or not that's due to lack of determination.

I sympathize, I really do, but I don't think the government should cough up because he won't stop eating. I can say much more on the topic but I think I've said enough to get me in enough trouble already.

So that's what I'm thinking today.

Be well all.