Friday, March 12, 2010

Scarlem Sunédrion: March 10, 2010 ruling. Judicial disposition


Don't call it `Scarlem'

Scarborough councillors to debate today if area gets fair shake from city

Published On Tue Jan 15 2008

Are they just whiners? Or are folks in Scarborough unfairly deprived and disrespected by their Toronto cousins who live west of Victoria Park Ave.?

It's a topic that vexes Scarborough politicians so much they've decided to debate, at today's community council meeting, whether their community gets a fair shake.

The talking points:

A report commissioned by the council that delves into city statistics to see whether Scarborough gets its fair share of city services.

An invitation to Toronto Life magazine representatives to discuss an article portraying the former city as a bleak, gang-infested "Scarlem."

A frustration that, once again, the city's Winterlicious restaurant promotion has bypassed every eatery in Scarborough.

Councillor Norm Kelly, who chairs Scarborough community council, decided to face the area's stigma head-on following the 2006 elections. During the campaign, Kelly said he found a "widespread and deeply held apprehension" that Scarborough has been shortchanged.






Scarlem Sunédrion: March 10, 2010 ruling. Judicial disposition


This affair just brought to mind the Dennis Miller joke recalling that as a child he thought of his father’s dick not so much as a penis but as a friendly glow-worm that always preferred a trade embargo over an air stike.

Therefore, in essence what I’ve sanctioned then is balls. Despite the usual assumption that if you had balls you wouldn’t need them sanctioned the truth is that they are strictly regulated, and carry permits are for an elite few; everyone else ties them down and mandatorily deflates them nightly in the glow of internet porn. Strangely the whole Christian thing was indeed on my mind at the time. As was the platonic concept of ethics in general, for that matter.

The ruling, I believe, advances a positive notion. By actually engaging in a discussion, and outlining or at least negotiating definitions you will be in an ethically superior position. Practically speaking, of course, you’re likely to be worse off. There’s a chance that this will appear to be an act, or cover fire for some sinister purpose. Egos are sure to run amok as the idea that you might have to communicate something intimate, with someone you’re schtupping no less, threatens to become a reality. This leaves you vulnerable. And committed. States generally agreed to be undesirable. This is the one person you may just like the most, what would happen if they actually got to know you? Nothing good, right?

Well if this doesn’t tear down the fabric of society, generate unbridled civil war, and cease all procreation, it might just help a couple of kids get to know each other. Respect each other. Initiate a process of mutual maturation. And five or six psychologically scarring relationships later they may just find someone they tolerate. Openly and honestly.

Or a buddy might just fool around a little on the downlow, tell me about it, then come back to marry a chick so pissed off she’ll never allow him his man-cave corner of the basement.


of course, i absolutely understand, you don't understand, man, it's cool. it's a tough sanction, but to not-sanction might be tougher. quoting scrapture, if i may be so old, i recall "tales from scarborough: balls vs. brains" plus "who's yo' bitch?" as words of his-dumb to consider, especially when mis-appropriation of balls can carry substantial penileties. whilst living in this cult-yore, the fabric of society is torn down with every tear, so at best we can minimize the damage by more carefully pulling on each others puppet-strings if we're so reclined. now, the younglings may work out their own estangements as they see fit, but if all they see is the wrong size, then nothing they wear out is going to fit. still, regardless of the snitchuation, if it's not purrr-fixed, sometimes attempts need to be made to see what's really happening. perhaps if a relationship is threatened, can people then ask, is it worth saving? and for whom? and why? i've been a fan of self-immolation for a minute, or the "it's not me -- it's you -- who's crazy for arguing to keep me!" type of thing, it works out well for everybody, though you get to relax first since you know it first. however, if they persist for their sake and not yours, then you can certainly remind them of how poor their choice will be if they sick with it. the cold-cuts of compromise may not seem appetizing, or they may, so that may be worth the discovery channel.

no worries, if you're still wrestling with this age-young dilemma, maybe the boys can help...

'cause sometimes, just sometimes, like in the 21st century, we need dat amuzak to loose at...

plus of course, being grown-ass kiddies, it may help to assess or assail assinine ass-capades...

Teenage boys watching hours of internet pornography every week are treating their girlfriends like sex objects

... These young women are articulate, confident, streetwise. They come from a selection of London's top independent and state schools, are dressed in slinky black skirts, dark tights, trendy T-shirts and Ugg boots.

They are charming and respectable, but what they tell me is shocking.

'Boys just want us to do all the stuff they see the porn stars do,' one 16-year-old girl told me. 'It's as if we have to pretend we are in a movie.

'They want us to dress like porn stars in sexy underwear, have bodies that look like porn stars, and sound and behave like them too when we are alone. That's why we like to have our friends around us now.'

Another 15-year-old told me that what her 16-year-old boyfriend had wanted her to do had made her cry.

The sexual request is not suitable to be described in a family paper, but as the mother of three daughters aged 16,15 and 13, I found it particularly upsetting.

Courtesy of -



Post a Comment

<< Home