this was a consequence of the laughter, and entirely out of his control.

actus reus - clearly
mens rea - certainly not

verdict: not guilty.

that is either a very small didgeridoo, or a very large amount of bullshit.

they've found laputa, clearly.

again: it's the smell.

you want to imagine an imaginary forcefield of odour around the pumpkin that the dog is aware of but we are not. if you work this in as you're watching it, the dog's movements begin to make more sense.

having such a sensitive sense of smell is probably a burden, and you probably shouldn't belittle the creature for it. it takes time to adjust.

clearly fake.

but the teacher has no right to take the guy's food or yell at the students like that and ought to be immediately fired.

matthew Sedillo
If it's a school rule for students to not eat in class, than the teachers have every right to do so. An old math teacher of mine used to throw away student food. He made it perfectly clear that it wasn't allowed, but of course our generation of kids love to defy rules

jessica
+matthew Sedillo but, it's an individual choice to eat, is it not? such a rule would break the constitution of any respectable institution. the teacher does not have the right to such an abuse of power!

ok, so let's take a step back.

1) the existing deficit is structural. there will be no sell-off of auto shares next year. and, oil is not rebounding. the upcoming changes in the tax system are necessary to prevent another ten years of deficits. i know that's not how the liberals sold the idea, but it's the actual truth of it. here is the reality: if harper had won, he would have run a deficit due to low oil prices and silly tax cuts. the liberals simply realized the nature of the structural deficit, and spun it around to present the expectations of unavoidable deficits for the next few years. and, if we're going to have deficits anyways, austerity is just shooting yourself in the foot. smart politics. but, do not be confused: we're in a structural deficit, and the changes they're making are necessary to fix it.

2) the liberals will probably take interest rates up a little; that's a historical truth with the liberal party. but, we're not fighting stagflation. it's not the 70s, and we won't see those kinds of interest rates. the reason is they want people to buy bonds. right now, canadian bonds are a crappy investment. and, housing is in a bubble that needs to crash, anyways.

3) an under-reported part of the liberal platform is that they're planning on returning to more lending from the bank of canada. on some level, this is a meaningless accounting issue. but, if they're increasing borrowing from the bank of canada (specifically on infrastructure spending), then where interest rates are set is less important to the overall debt-to-gdp ratio, because the interest on the new debt grows at a lower rate, even if interest rates go up. that new green infrastructure bank is going to be a subsidiary of the bank of canada. this is a big deal that not many people understand.

4) legalizing marijuana will both act as a huge boost to gdp and as a significant revenue generator.

the liberals pulled this trick in the 90s: next year is a wash, but expect "surprise surpluses" starting a year or two early, even with the infrastructure spending.

the key to balancing the books, even if it's all political, is in diversifying the economy and fixing the tax system - not in cutting spending. this is actually the liberals' strongpoint, as a party. you can take this for granted. i'm more concerned about making sure they hold up to their promises on the social side of things.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/20/liberal-party-economy-taxes-interest-rates_n_8337240.html

i remember feeling a few when i lived in ottawa - and remarking more than once that they really ought to shut down the reactor in deep river.

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/earthquake-rattles-town-near-ottawa/58800/