Convergent Word Puzzles- 301-350

Answers to be supplied upon request.

Find The Convergent Word

Finfd the convergent words for each set of three words. Each set of three words fits into one of three categories: food & beverage, body parts, animals

301- a)tale-star-hook b)irate-halt-ire c)annoy-bear-love

302- a)computer-golden-sauce b)mix-walk-crust stain-wings-dry

303- a)figure-pin-line b)tie-acid-language c)sock-let-black

304- a)hop-cool-bone b)coerce-mass-stomach c)punch-artificial-shaped

305- a)nation-reich-party b)weight-paper-butter c)ilk-book-wood

306- a)blond-fields-pink b)vulture-wild-tom c)house-fin-pale

307- a)acid-import-fire b)church-computer-trap c)harass-dog-grey

308- a)boat-train-bonus b)ice-log-pearl c)roll-goose-hunt

309- a)king-complain-salad b)fool-egg-soup c)rubber-fingers-yellow

310- a)lone-prairie-she b) baby-con -in c)grease-business-bars

311- a)tack-tom-hole b)cancer-high-pool c)high-eye-beat

312- a)bell-pot-sergeant b)pie-face-oven c)house-case -job

313- a)tomato-kitchen-spoon b)apple-pan-bowl c)soup-evade-dead

314- a)hare-dead -teaser b)oil-deer -tight c)out-eye-backs

315- a)lock-bone-breaker b)block-master-lead c)dog-ion-boot

316 a)fed-pop-meal b) money-draft -small c)tale-star-hook

317- a)fault-stool-powder b)around hook-blue c)ball-big-hired -

318- a) follow-tired-bird b) hole-backwards-ail c)state-harass-honey

319- a)superb-night-barn b)ears-white-bush c)all-sea-hunting

320- a)basket-ginger-money b)bar-potato-days c)he-master-ski

321- a)boy-sour-nut b)mar-twist-cotton c)dog-monk-devil

322- a)close-elephant-ant b)naked-ram-eye c)gall -pleas-ten

323- a)ache-wind-knuckle b)dog-ache-nest c)leaders-check-pie

324- a)some-assistance-farm b)open-book-lift c)support-stern-diamond

325- a)dear-badger-comb b)green-nut-chick c)butter-stand-salted

326- a)cash-sacred-hide) b)hit-man-cricket c)bug-arms-tolerate

327- a)middle-identify-paint b)war-barrel-nut c)up-a-strap

328- a)string-let-sandwich b)thwart-ale-hop c)scampi-cocktail-boat

329- a)reap-alligator-led b)jelly-old-soup c)complaint-roast-eater

330- a)lash-breaking-fall b)shoe-be-bubble c)body-net-ball

331- a)circus-market-bag b)lily-woods-white c)cat-uncle-boy

332- a)republic-top-boat b)breast-soup-butter c)bill-plains-wings

333- a)tip-hold-clip b)wash-organ-off c)pump-close-fight

334- a)back-god-skin b)spare-steak-cage c)bone-deep-joint

335- a)sitting-soup-avoid b)eye-bald-American c)skin-basket-boat

336- a)rice-black-potato b)hole-ears-jack c)black-beret-bush

337- a)Indian-pudding-paddy b)bowl-fruit-green c)farm-fry-pink

338- a)button-beer-ache b)blue-give-artificial) c)milk-back-dry

339- a)throb-less -sweet b)top-swing-talk c)mark-shot-wig

340- a)juice-root-top b)cream-blue-cloth c)pie-wood-orchard

341- a)meat-loan-tiger b)hole-ears-jack c)opera-high-radish

342- a)lucky-collar-devil b)dog-rush-fighter c)sea-poke- pox

343- a)aired-imp-wife b)brown-cane-daddy c)hero-islands-tuna

344- a)slat-in-as b)pant-page-shackle c)berry-wild-mother

345- a)laid-lash-light b)jerk-pad-cap c)under-sandwich-white

346- a)cheese-Spanish-mushroom b)bar-bay-pearl c)garden-oil-black

347- a)vulture-wild-tom b)dove-neck-snapping c)white-killer-hunt

348- a)party-cozy-set) b)master-French-salute c)soup-sauce-juice

349- a)heat-peck-party b)wart-road-groun c)hide-crazy-power

350- a)part-rod-battering b)farm-fry-pink c)dog-pig-white

MOTHER"S DAY ARTICLES BY JEREMY &JENNIFER RICHLER

Mothers' Day bouquets in Mexico City Photo by YURI CORTEZ/AFP/GettyImages

For years, I hated Mother's Day. My mother died when I was 22, and every year after that, when spring rolled around and the greeting cards reared their heads, I felt the resentment start to bubble up. “Tell mom how much she really means,” the signs at Hallmark implored me. It felt like a mean joke, just another reminder of all I’d lost.

My mother and I had always been close, but in the last few years before she died, after I’d gone off to college, we’d gotten closer. We emailed a few times a day, relating the little details of our lives. I knew what she’d had for lunch, how her best friend’s daughter was settling into her new apartment. She knew which book I was reading for my Russian novel class, which of my roommates was pissing me off. We had catchphrases, inside jokes we’d repeat in the emails and cards we sent each other.

The first Mother's Day after she died, passing by some greeting cards in a store, I thought about buying her one. Maybe, I thought, I could start a ritual of getting her a card every year—a kind of “taking back” of the holiday. But then I thought about how I’d never actually send the cards, how they’d just sit in a drawer somewhere, the way the flowers I brought to her grave every year just lay there, wilting, until someone threw them out. And the inside jokes would never change—my mother and I were frozen in time, like the picture of us on my nightstand, taken just a couple of months before she died. I decided not to get her any cards. And I continued to hate Mother's Day.

But then, a little more than 4 years ago, I became a mother. I didn’t have to be excluded from Mother's Day anymore, I realized—I would get cards! And I have—hastily scribbled by my son, with Thomas the Tank Engine stickers affixed haphazardly. I have been allowed back into a club from which I’d long been excluded.

A bit more than a year ago, I became a mother again—this time to a girl. I am half of a mother-daughter pair again, and this reality has churned up a longing I haven’t felt in years. I remember the things my mother and I liked to do together—the leisurely lunches and shopping trips, punctuated with laughter and gossip—and I imagine doing those things with my daughter. I remember how we could confide in each other our deepest worries—mine usually about a boy I was pining after, hers substantially deeper, often about her aging parents—and I imagine doing that with my daughter. I think about all the things we never got to do, the parts of our relationship we never got to explore—her giving me parenting advice, me helping her mourn the loss of a parent—and I imagine having all that with my daughter. So much seems possible.

And yet, I know I can’t—shouldn’t—recreate with my children the relationship I had with my mother. Maybe my daughter won’t like shopping. Maybe my son won’t email so often. And that’s okay—we’ll do other things. We’ll have different catchphrases, different inside jokes.

What I do hope stays the same is the feeling I had, when I would come home late on weekend nights as a teenager and my mother would be waiting up for me on the living room couch. She wasn’t waiting to make sure I didn’t miss curfew—she simply couldn’t sleep soundly until she knew I was home, safe. At the time, I teased her for being neurotic, but even then, it felt like a warm hug. That’s what my mother gave me, above everything else: the feeling that she was looking out for me, cheering me on, loving me with such purpose. I hope I can give my children that; to know that I had would be the best kind of gift.

 

Mother's Day Articles Featuring Articles by Jeremy Richler & Jennifer Richler

Single-tier health care system questioned

JEREMY RICHLER

While Canadians strongly support health care as a basic, fundamental right for all, questions have arisen on whether the monopoly of provinces delivering a single-tier, universally-administered system should continue, Toronto lawyer Jeremy Richler writes in Lawyers Weekly.

In a recent Environics poll, 54 per cent of Canadians “agree that individual Canadians should be given the right to buy private health care within Canada if they do not receive timely access in the public system,” even if this were to weaken the principle of universality, with some having quicker access to care than others, the article says.

Forty three per cent of respondents disagreed, it adds.

“The legal precedent for this line of reasoning can be found in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2005] S.C.J. No. 33, whereby the Supreme Court used the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow limited private insurance for the delivery of medically necessary care,” writes Richler.

“In a split decision, the majority for the court found that private health insurance is entirely legitimate where a public monopoly impedes access to health care services, undermining both the security of the person and the principles of fundamental justice.”

Though Canadians will continue to passionately debate the merits of increased privatization of health care, initial polling shows the pendulum swinging in favour of Chaoulli and limited two-tier care, writes Richler.

“The sooner our politicians are pro-active in addressing these principles of fundamental justice instead of stale, misguided talking points, the better off Canadians will be,” the article says.

Beyond platitudes: Two-tier health care to preserve principles of fundamental justice.

Canada’s publicly administered, universally accessible health care system has since its inception, been at the core of our national identity. Most Canadians strongly support the notion that access to health care is a basic, fundamental right, one that must be preserved regardless of ability to pay.

What is becoming less clear is whether the provinces that deliver health care should continue to have a monopoly with a single tier, universally administered system.

In a recent Environics poll, a small majority (54%) of Canadians “agree that individual Canadians should be given the right to buy private health care within Canada if they do not receive timely access in the public system,” even if this were to weaken the principle of universality, with some having quicker access to care than others. 43% of respondents disagreed. (The Environics Institute, “What Canadians think about their health care system.”)

The legal precedent for this line of reasoning can be found in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) 2005 SCC 35. (hereinafter Chaoulli), a case whereby the Supreme Court used the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter “Charter”) to allow limited private insurance for the delivery of medically necessary care.

In a split decision, the majority for the court found that private health insurance is entirely legitimate where a public monopoly impedes access to health care services, undermining both the security of the person and the principles of fundamental justice.

Justice Deschamps, in her ruling, sides with the majority opinion, but differs slightly in that she places emphasis on the public monopoly’s violation of s.1 of the Quebec Charter, rather than s.7 of the Charter. She squarely advocates the need for change, citing that “ inertia cannot be used as an argument to justify deference.” (Chaoulli, at para. 97.)

McLachlin and Major note that the “Charter does not confer a freestanding right to health care. However, where the government puts in place a scheme to provide health care, that scheme must comply with the Charter.” (Chaoulli, at para. 104) Their ruling finds that the virtual monopoly of the government in delivering health care leads to erosion of the security of the person and principles of fundamental justice in this authoritative passage:

The state has effectively limited access to private health care except for the very rich, who can

afford private care without need of insurance. This virtual monopoly, on the evidence, results in delays in treatment that adversely affect the citizen’s security of the person. Where a law adversely affects life, liberty or security of the person, it must conform to the principles of fundamental justice. This law, in our view, fails to do so. (Chaoulli at para. 106)

Binnie and LeBel, in their dissent, challenge the central assumption that the proliferation of private health care will ameliorate outcomes and security of the person. They insist the majority view point provides “an overly optimistic view of the benefits offered by private insurance” and “an oversimplified view of the adverse effects of the public health system. “ (Chaoulli, at para. 169)

Their final point is that the majority is overbroad in its construction of s.7, which is meant primarily to address rights inherent to criminal law as enshrined in ss.8-14 of the Charter.

While the dissent challenges the assumption that enabling private insurance will necessarily lead to improved health outcomes, their reasoning misses the point, and their narrow construction of s.7 is a central flaw therein.

The Charter is meant to underscore the relationship between the individual and the state, and to highlight the most basic, fundamental freedoms with which any government legislation must comply. The courts must guard strenuously against using the Charter to make policy, as this is role inherent and central to elected legislatures.

The relationship between private health care and patient outcomes is a red herring. What is very real is the prospect of death for any sick Canadian where medically necessary services are required, but absent.

It then follows that as a principle of fundamental justice, individuals must have the right to purchase public insurance when wait times are long, medically necessary services are unavailable, and acute illness or death are distinct possibilities.

Though Canadians will continue to passionately debate the merits of increased privatization of health care, initial polling shows the pendulum swinging in favour of Chaoulli and limited two-tier care. The sooner our politicians are proactive in addressing these principles of fundamental justice instead of stale, misguided talking points, the better off Canadians will be.

Jeremy Richler is a sole practicing lawyer in Toronto in good standing with the Law Society of Upper Canada. He is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, and can be reached at www.jeremyarichler.com