Power consumption is a good proxy for how well the economy is doing. The interview doesn't break down the good news by sector (i.e. especially breaking out domestic use to see if "we're" conserving), but here's two more Toronto Star stories:

<ul>
<li>
239,100 jobs `gone for good': An average of 190 good-paying manufacturing jobs are disappearing in Canada every day – most of them in Ontario.
</li>
<li>
Ontario sheds 77,000 factory jobs over five years: Ontario lost more than 77,000 manufacturing jobs from 2001 to 2006, according to the latest employment trends report from Statistics Canada. That trend is likely to stretch well into 2008 and beyond, labour market experts say.
</li>
</ul>

<p>
It's not all bad news though: I hear Comrade Dalton is increasing the choco ration to 10 grams!

It's be a great time to legislate the CBC away from bidding up the price for televising popular sporting events; a/k/a subsidizing the NHL.

We have a bird that we call the doo-dah bird, as i "dum dum dilddly eye dee dah dum, doo dah, doo dah", you know, Foghorn leghorn, the Sherrif in Blazing saddles?

Anyway, this funny bird sings the chorus to Camptown Races. It was funny the first hour while gardening until I finally got everyone in the family to admit it was the song (or a close proximity). After 6 hours in the sun hearing the fracking bird over and over again, I was sitting on my steps with my high powered slingshot and a can of beer waiting for it to come nearer....

I'm not sure if it is Chicken Littlism or suddenly being made aware of the operational realities of the modern administrative state and its tribunals.

And I am delighted to see that Ontario is following the requirements of Kyoto and M. Dion: reduce energy use by reducing middle class employment. There's a slogan for M. Dion and the Libs next time out.

You guys are economic Chicken Littles, too!

...yet...

You know, Al, we complain about those down here too. It's one step beyond, if you ask me. One that gets codified there seems to be no room for complaint or criticism because it 'generates a hostile environment'. I think it needs further revision. If it does not reflect in a students grades(per the UW rule), employment and wages, or violence said speech should be okay. THe NY one comes close to saying what I did last week: if it leads, directly, to illegal behavior it is itself illegal, otherwise suck it up cry baby.
See Ginsburgh defending the Illinois Nazi party as well. If you're going to start citing code and legal cases.

Look, I've seen these rules used to shut down ethno-biology and ethno-medicine on college campuses, to the detriment of the minorities, and so you can't say there are no consequences of import. At some point these rules are becoming idiotic. THey do need someone to push back to prevent that idiocy. I don't know a whole lot about the Steyn case, but, it does strike me as silly since we're talking about a magazine article where we have seen no violence, no Moslems being denied work as a cause of, or anything like that. All we've got, AFAIS, is 'it made me feel bad to be Moslem so they should pay!' That's idiotic, Al. There's no real damages. You could put political affiliation in there and one could sue liberals and conservatives by the standard I'm seeing here. It's just gotten to the point of silliness. Court's initial purpose may have been noble, but it's getting made into a joke.

Oh you guys are far too serious on a Friday.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gj9uEeuDtQ

that'll make you less Cucumberish Posterius

It's not idiotic. That is aggrandizing it. It's silly, an empty claim. And remember who did the work to ensure you could not name liberals or conservatives and punish them, baby.

I'm just curious what the substance of Al's complaint is. Is it that he thinks this aping-of-trial in BC is reasonable thing, or that the amount of anger it's generating is unreasonable? To the later: hey we're bloggers: it's not like we have anything else to be doing.

Treating a clearly unframable frivolous and vexatious case as a danger to western civilization. It this is what it takes to weaken our society, it ain't much of a society. It's more of the "same sex marriage will destroy marriage" stuff. Any good institution withstands real attack, not just this puff. Those clutched in fear are just self-marketing chicken littles.

I would claim that good institutions withstand attacks because they're vigorously defended; like soylent green, all systems are really just people. I think the bloggers' defense of Steyn/Macleans is in line with the claims being against them. Also don't forget that the primary objective legally here (summarizing) is to lose, bring it to a real court and have the relevant section struck. Being noisy ensures this politically is noticed.

I think it might set a dangerous preceent (and make us look silly) if it's successful.

Vigorous defense does not include rolling up and a ball and crying at shadows. Remind me not to see your assistance in a tavern brawl.

Well, I for one, far from curling up in a ball, managed to make a two language double pun in the cause of free speech.

Tavern brawl? I'd rather be with the talking crowd, as talking is not getting your teef kickt in. In the meantime: behold the mighty power of blogging! (see Coyne's last update at 12:04).

See, telling him not to live blog is consistent with any court and indeed many other forms of bodies. No one can use a microphone, a camera or a tape recorder in councils or committees or courts or tribunals. But when it's a blogger - wow! - that is now a slap against freedom.

I sees the future and I tell you what the future will be.<p>CBC executives need a hiding over this one.