I didn't see the "at war" part in the full text of the speech, and I don't rememer hearing it when I watched it. Perhaps it was in response to one of the questions after the speech?

My objection centres around the wording, "Premier is essentially the same as a US Governor".

Not, "similar", or "somewhat the same responsibilities", "essentially the same".

Yes, lots of countries use the term "Governor" for the leaders of states and provinces. But specifying, "US Governor", adds a ton of baggage to the term that essentially makes the statement incorrect.

It's a Parliamentary system, a different form of government and the roles are not "essentially" the same.

There's a fair number of lawyers in northern Ontario who also do a lot of work in Manitoba. Winnipeg to Kenora is something around a 2 hour drive.

"With a fucking dildo!"

This is essentially incorrect. Canadian provinces use a parliamentary system very similar to the federal government. The Premier of a province is analogous to the Prime Minister of the country, but for a single province.

The Premier in not elected separately like a US Governor, nor does he act separately from the legislature of the province. He's the leader of the party that holds the most seats in the Legislature and forms the Government of the province.

The Sun is the same, in a relative way, but you're older Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

The scope of the powers is virtually identical within their jurisdictions. Provinces are clearly not going to be negotiating international treaties, for instance, but they are going to be negotiating inter-provincial relations.

Well, I object to the need to somehow relate everything to an American frame of reference. The two systems are fundamentally different, and the roles are not really analogous. Far better to say, "Like a Prime Minister, but for a province." What's hard about that?

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes 🍅

something manufactured of whole cloth and meant to divide us

I'm not so sure about that.

My parents grew up in London during WWII. My father told me that, on any given day, at least one or two of the kids in his school had recently received a letter from the government telling them that their father, uncle or brother had died in the war. Not to mention other deaths from bombings that happen on and off for years. For the most part, the rest of the kids in school never knew who had just had someone killed in the war, although I suppose it eventually came out to become public knowledge. The point being that you could be playing ball with some kid who had just lost a family member, and you wouldn't necessarily know it. He said that this shaped his attitude that death is just a part of life, and something that (in true British fashion) you accepted and moved on with.

This came up when my sister-in-law lost her adult daughter some years back and she was (and is) still struggling with it. My father has a hard time understanding her feelings. The two of them are just 22 years apart in age.

WWII is something that casts a pretty big shadow. But when I was born, it was less than 20 years later and its influence on my attitudes is several orders of magnitude smaller than on my parents.

At the other end. It's hard for anyone much less than 25 years old today to remember life before modern smart phones (if you assume the start of that as the iPhone in 2008). It's hard to deny that the smart phone has radically changed the way that we interact with each other and the world. Yes, old farts like me have adapted to it, but young people today have these things hard-wired in from the beginning.

So far, in this century, it's changing technology that casts the big shadow.

The point being that, while society changes in a continuum, big things that cast big shadows tend to define "eras" that shape the way that young people develop. And those big shadows are what cause "generations" to tend to clump together in attitudes and behaviours. And, no, I don't think this is made up just to divide us.

Buy Canadian is best, but anything will do if it isn't American.

Take a look at this:

This is in the Museum of the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome, and it comes from an ancient Roman Villa in Rome. Probably painted in the first or second century CE. There's walls of this stuff in the museum.

It's not realism, but minimalistic sketches that, in many ways, outdo realism in artistic quality. To me, this looks more like something that you might find in Leonardo's sketchbook than on the wall of on ancient Roman Villa from 1200 years earlier.

Except this is Canada, and $7.50/hr is about as relevant as comparing it to child labour in a t-shirt factory in Bangladesh.

Calling customers, "guests". A customer is someone with a business relationship with someone/something else. They're exchanging money for goods and services and have a right to expect certain value for their money.

A guest is something else entirely. A guest has no implicit right to expect a certain any particular level or quality of services. They are dependent on the magnamity of the "host".

Calling a customer a "guest" robs them of status.

I'm totally unqualified to comment on this, but something has always itched in my brain about dark matter. It smacks, to me, to be the aether of the 21st century.

Religion. Ruins. Everything. Every. Time.

How about we charge them $62B to keep NORAD running?

The "supposed to be...", is a really big problem.

First, it's factually wrong. Homosexuality occurs all through nature and it's not a mistake or random abberation. Presumably there's some advantage to having a percentage of any population not reproducing. Perhaps so that they aren't burdened with children and are free to fill other roles in their community, herd, flock or whatever. This increases the group survival/reproduction rate, even though they aren't reproducing themselves.

Secondly, "supposed to..." implies that there's something wrong with any non-heterosexual individual. It sounds like, at best, you'll accept their homosexuality as natural but, at the same time, you understand that they're actually defective. That attitude isn't going to lead to good things, and not something I would like to see widespread in society.

And finally, the fact that you would even say this points out the need for more education on this in schools, not less.

The US has been there before with the Nullification Crisis of 1832. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis?wprov=sfla1

If you read the article you'll find out that the fibre piggybacks on the structures built for power transmission. And the power transmission has already been halted and is scheduled for dismantling.