I had planned to go for a day-in-the-country on Friday 28th, so by Friday 21st I was scanning the Weather News in The Toronto Star.
I read “Monday 23” and Tuesday 25” and “Wednesday 27” and thought “My God! They have REALLY screwed up the dates this time!
We have all read letters that start “I have been a lifelong reader, but ...” so we know what is coming next.
Some of us have even written such letters to magazines such as The Bulletin (Australian), but that is another story.
To end such a letter along the lines “seems below a paper like yours” misses the point completely.
It is because the Star is so far below, in the letter-writer’s opinion, that the subscription is being cancelled.
Margaret Wente joined in the debate on Charlie Gard’s life.
Not a bad set of arguments.
Here’s just one teeny error: I don’t think that it is Charlie Gard’s parents money. From what I have read it seems that the money was crowd-funded.
OK. So still and all it is handed over to Charlie Gard’s parents.
Even if Donald Trump turned out to be human after all and financed the whole trip, it is someone else’s money.
And that is where the argument breaks down.
Society as a whole has values. Society is the corporate body of all of us.
Which is better: Spending a million dollars to save one Charlie Gard, or spending ten lots of a hundred thousand dollars to save ten other children?
I promise you, if we put it to the parents to vote, the other ten parents will always out-vote Charlie Gard’s parents.
All this, of course, apart from the hereditary argument, and I’ll be writing about that in a few days.