CuriousByNature

I wish I could stay IN the British Museum... that place is amazing.

So quite literally, one man's macro is another man's micro?

Never had one - but it sounds like it must be nice

That's a good question. I wouldn't be surprised if someone on each shift needs to have some degree of french proficiency, since a person can ask to be dealt with in either language in theory.

One thing to point out - many jobs in the Canadian government do not require bilingualism. An uncle of mine worked for many years as a federal employee in Saskatchewan and never needed to learn french. Apparently positions in Ottawa, Quebec and New Brunswick often require a degree of fluency in both languages, but most parts of Canada require fluency in english only. I imagine the higher level positions anywhere will have a higher likelihood of french requirements, and not having a solid understanding of the language could be career-limiting. But my uncle was making a very good salary of more than 120K per year when he retired, and french was not a requirement for his position.

This is ridiculous. I'm all for people learning new languages, but in no way should Trudeau be telling the CEO of a private company that he needs to learn french. AirCanada is not a department or agency of the government, nor is it owned by the government. It has been a private company for more than 30 years and is responsible to its shareholders, not to the political elites. The government owns about 6% of the company and Trudeau has no right to compel the CEO to learn another language. The only place in Canada that is officially bilingual is New Brunswick. And if memory serves, Quebec, which is overwhelmingly francophone, even has laws that restrict the use of english rather than encouraging its population to be bilingual. It is true that there are likely more francophones who can speak english than there are anglophones who can speak french, but this whole situation only serves to show that once again Canadian politicians are missing the target on determining what is important. Rather than focusing on urgent matters like pandemic recovery, Canada's leader is concentrating on a matter that means very little to the majority of Canadians.

I get that, for sure. But in a pandemic everyone needs to be mindful of how their choices might impact the health of others. As someone who believes, myself, I know it is less fulfilling when not being able to meet in person, but the right to gather in worship doesn't trump public health concerns. Many churches now have pre-authorized giving, so hopefully the lack of attendance is not too impactful on finances. And some of the operating costs are not accruing at the moment. But I do understand what you are getting at.

Don't try walking to that area from the cruise port - it is way further than it looks. Trust me.

I'm finding it hard to link his firing directly to his personal faith. Covid restrictions are a public health issue and not a personal freedoms issue. Thousands of churches have been operating in a virtual capacity, though there are a few - relatively very few - that have contradicted restrictions by insisting on in-person worship. Worship does not require people to gather in one place. Yes, it may facilitate the fellowship aspect of worship, but worship does not depend on it. I question those who insist on gathering whether they are motivated truly by worship, or if it is primarily about the social aspects of it.

Does anyone know what happened to Big Dale? I haven't seen any of his posts in a pretty long time...

Another whose posts I miss is Big Dale - I haven't seen anything from him in ages....

Packaged phyllo pastry and and packaged puff pastry to save time.

I often look forward to a flute of nicely chilled Yersinia Pestis '47 at the end of a long day. It's not just for celebrations.

If I recall correctly, you regularly provide links for others. Just wanted to say it is appreciated

Yup - Kookaburras just sit in the old gum tree...

That's have gone.

Fanciful or not, that is what I remember reading in a guidebook. I think the square may date from the 17th century but was known by a different name originally. The use of 'soho' as a hunting call apparently dated to late 15th century to 16th century Tudor times when that area still had woodlands.

Not sure how accurate this is, but I read somewhere that Soho was once a hunting ground in Tudor times, and that the word 'soho' may have been a hunting cry. There was a square built that was eventually called Soho Square sometime in the mid 1700s, but I don't know if the name of the area came from the name of the square, or vice versa.

They are searching for a way to be relevant. Even though they are no longer part of the inner circle of the Royal Family, they are still magnitudes of degrees better off than the average person, yet they portray themselves as having similar struggles to everyone else. They really seem to be out of touch. I have no doubt their struggles are real, but they are not the same struggles as mine or yours. Part of the issue is that many Americans seem to gravitate towards royalty as if they are trophies, and put them on pedestals to get in their good graces. Harry and Megan no longer have royal gravitas - they are now simply a young, good-looking, rich couple with a family living in a privileged situation. Had they truly wanted to have a quieter life outside of all the limelight and paparazzi, they should have stayed here in Canada. The fact that they chose to live amongst the celebrities in Southern California suggests to me their deeper desire to remain in the public eye but without any duties or obligations that are expected of those who are royal. I wish them well, but I think they need to be more honest about their motivations for the change that they made.

I think I read somewhere that giant sequoias, when fully grown, are very resistant to fires. I can't recall if it is the thickness of the bark that provides the protection, or something else. It's likely General Sherman has withstood numerous fires over the centuries, and hopefully will continue to do so for many more to come.

Even though I am in Ontario, I am not too familiar with how the coverage here is for seniors because all of my relatives have died at home or in the hospital, without going into care. Except for one aunt and one great uncle in BC who had different circumstances. My aunt was quite well-off and went into something called 'independent living' at a pretty posh place when she was in her late 70s. If I remember correctly she was paying about $6,000 per month and it was not subsidized at all because she didn't need care, but chose to be in a place where she could have all her meals made for her, socialize with others, etc. She eventually died before needing any extra assistance. My great uncle was not well off and went into assisted living when he could no longer live on his own. It wasn't by choice, but by necessity. The family was concerned because the costs were normally around $8000 a month and I think his pensions came to less that $2000 or $2500. He was able to get a subsidized room at a care centre for either 85% or 90% of his net monthly income, if my memory is accurate. He ended up needing even more care at a nursing home, and I assume that was subsidized as well. The idea of spending retirement on a cruise ship has it's attractions, but I do not think the various article promoting it tell the whole story. One cannot compare the costs of a nursing home and a cruise - a cruise will not provide the level of support that people in extended care or even assisted living might need. It is more accurate to compare the costs of independent living communities to that of a cruise ship. Even at a posh place, like where my aunt lived, the cost was about $6000 per month. Some cruise companies say that the cruise fare runs around $100-$125 per day, but it is important to remember that these quotes are likely per person, double occupancy. And may be for an inside cabin at those rates. Single supplements are often 100% of the fare cost, so it is likely that a daily rate for a basic cabin could be in the $200 range quite easily, and even $300+ for a balcony stateroom. Then there are port taxes and charges for every leg of the journey that must also be included. Medical care on board may be available, but I do not believe it is generally included in the fare either. Nor are most beverages included on most cruise lines - even most non-alcoholic beverages are charged on lines such as Princess, Holland America and Royal Caribbean. On high-end lines like Oceania, Azamara, and Regent, there are many more things included - but expect to pay closer to $1000 per day. I have heard that a lot of lines have rewards for frequent cruisers, such as free laundry and dry cleaning, but those benefits are likely outweighed by the additional costs such as fuel surcharges, automatic tipping and taking part in the odd shore excursion. I have read that a single person cruising for a year on a mid-range ship, in an outside/balcony cabin (not a suite) should be prepared to spend approximately $100,000-$150,000 per year depending upon their discretionary spending onboard. And no subsidy for those who don't have the necessary income

Thank you 😊 I do what I can 😉

I really hope you meant to write 'draped' instead of 'trapped'. If not, congrats on being able to escape. 😆

But he lived a good, long life. It's not like he was only sixteen going on seventeen. Okay, I'm done. 😉

And their town motto is "Tomball. Texan for fun"... seriously.