Is Celine Dion nuts?

Seriously, she has a miscarriage, tries to get pregnant again & fails. And now she & her husband are trying artificial insemination. Not to mention, she already has a kid, she's 41, her husband is 67. Gee is it any wonder she had a miscarriage, then failed to get pregnant afterwards??? And if she wanted to have another child, why would she wait 8 years after having her first one? Why wouldn't she take a break for a few years after the birth of her son to try to have another kid?

good fricking grief!

Yeah it's quite some time since my last blog post. Why you ask? I'm not really sure why, I guess it's because I'm not really good at coming up with titles. Anyways on with the blog. Earlier this week, some panel recommended that the provinicial government pay for fertility treatments for singles, HIV positive people and also fund in vitro for 3 cycles for women under the age of 42.

My thoughts: If you can't afford to pay for more than one cycle of in vitro w/o success, well then perhaps you shouldn't be having kids in the first place. After all it costs $300,000 to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age. And besides deciding to have kids (or not) is a personal & private decision, so why would anyone in their right mind want the government to step in such a personal & private matter?

Science or religion?

That's a rhetorical question btw. The reason for the question is because an expert on polar bears was barred from a meeting in Denmark. Claiming that "Dissenting views on human induced climate change are not good". Sound like religion much?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/07/06/pbear-taylor-meeting.html.

I'm so pissed I don't know what to title this.

A 21 year old woman who already has a one year old & is pregnant with her second, has been refused a tubal by her OB. Because she is "too young". Which is such bullshit, because if she's old enough to have a toddler & a soon-to-be newborn, obviously she is old enough to have her tubes tied.

But then again, we live in a child centric world where a woman in her early twenties is old enough to have children, but yet too young to get a tubal. And yet tubals can be reversed, whereas children are forever (and I mean that as in, once you become a parent, there's no going back, not as children will live forever).

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard

http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/05/22/waitress-gets-canned-for-not-wearing-makeup/

As a woman who doesn't wear makeup, I was pissed when I read that. Seriously, of all the possible reasons to fire someone, management picked the most shallow: to fire a waitress for refusing to wear makeup. Granted, management can fire anyone for any reason they like, but even so, to fire someone over something trivial such as not wearing makeup? Gimme a break!!!!!

How could facebook be responsible for this?

Apparently, last month a Newfoundland man's lawsuit was foiled, due in part to facebook. However the article states that he suffered injuries in two separate car crashes, once in 2001 & once in 2003. Whereas facebook wasn't created until 2004.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/05/10/9413986-cp.html.

What better solution than to ban something?

Geez, the provinicial government seems to have an obsession with banning things. First it was pit bulls, then idling, now cellphones while driving are also banned (even though none of the other deadly distractions are banned). I mean really, if they were gonna ban cellphone use in cars, why wouldn't they also ban loud music, putting on makeup/changing clothes, eating, drinking (other than alochol) while driving as well?

It'll be interesting to see if this ban actually works or if cellphone use while driving will instead increase. Something tells me the latter is a helluva lot more likely.

I can't help but wonder...

With tea parties across the U.S. this past week, I wonder if there'll be a similar revolt across ontario against the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST).

I guess the left was right...

When it comes to our troops being in Afghanistan, that is. Because although I initially supported the war in Afghanistan, the news about a law making it illegal for women to refuse sex w/ their husbands (unless she's ill or if intercourse will harm her) has my support dwindling. Because after all, what's the point of our troops being there if the Afghan government is gonna go back centuries in regards to human rights?

This is sickening.

I mean why would anyone sell their kid into marriage for money, beer & meat? And what's even more outrageous is the fact that this man only faces up to 10 years in prison.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/04/07/9039531-ap.html