Free Speech and Cartoons
I found this graphic floating around a number of websites recently, and apart from the fact I thought it was a cool pic (the flag is just neat), I figured that I could weigh in on this issue.
Especially since it's now spawned a lawsuit, and the
Western Standard publisher's have responded.
I have seen the cartoons. They were sent to me by an Egyptian friend.
And my first, immediate thought was quite simply: "That's it?"
I've seen far, far worse cartoons of Jesus Christ in the local student newspaper (the Gazette) than any of the ones published by the Danish mag. And it's not like that's an isolated occurrence - there's generally one highly offensive cartoon of Jesus in the Gazette each year - if not more than one per year.
And although those would generally spawn a letter or two of complaint to the Gazette, I don't see the UCC being burned down.
A bit of an excerpt from that blog, if you haven't clicked the link:
He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons. The bulk of his complaint was that we dared to try to justify it. He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.
That might be a bit strong (although I haven't read the statement of claim). But if indeed it's true - that the Western Standard shouldn't be even able to try to justify freedom of speech - that's a bit of a scary thought.
Were the cartoons unnecessary? Probably, yeah. Helpful? Probably not, no.
But should the cartoons have been published? Should they be restricted from being published merely because of the content?
Of course not.
"Of Course"
I stumbled across this news story on CTV.ca -
Honest Man Returns Cdn. Family's Purse worth $1M. There was a corresponding poll on the side that stated:
If you found a purse with roughly $1M US would you return it?
1) Of course (68%)
2) I'd have to give it serious thought (19%)
3) Finders keepers (13%)
I'm not sure if I should be happy that 2/3 of the people would immediately return it, without question, or sad that 1/3 would either keep it without second thought, or would actually have to consider it.
This, as far as I can tell, would be a pure moral issue - there technically is no legal requirement to return the purse. I guess it seems to me to be a sad reflection on our culture - I was expecting a much higher percentage to respond to the poll with "Of course".
Stephane Dion for Liberal Leader
I was discussing this with a good friend yesterday, and I honestly think that Dion would be the best Liberal leader.
Not that Dion would be good for Harper (in fact, I think he would be the greatest threat to Harper - by far), but the truth is, I like Dion. I truly believe that good things could happen in a Dion minority, or even a Dion majority (although I don't really see either of those happening).
Perhaps then a brief ranking of people I would most like to see with the Liberal Leadership:
- Dion
- Kennedy
- Dryden
- Brison/Stronach
- Ignatieff
This is based purely on a "what I think would be best for Canada if we elected a Liberal government". In terms of whom I would prefer to win the race based on "best chance for Harper to wipe the floor with":
- Stronach
- Ignatieff
- Brison
- Everyone else
- Dion
A dichotomy? Impossibility?
Heck, they don't call it the "Ironic Paradox" for nothing.
I Finally Understand Law School
I had an epiphany this morning.
I'm sure this has been mentioned by some other law student, somewhere. But if not, I'm taking credit and going to take out a patent on it.
(I should take this brief moment to mention that all blog posts are copyright 2006 by Jevant and may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of Jevant).
Anyways.
I think that I've actually figured out the rationale behind law school. It's quite simple, really.
Each year of law school directly correlates to the 3 different periods of your legal career.
You doubt? Fine. Here we go.
Law School Year 1 = Summering/ArticlingFrom the moment you walk in the doors of your first day of law school, you have no idea what you are doing. You're scared to death, have no idea what's going on. You run around the library, wondering what the heck you are doing - reading all the facts of every case, desperately comparing the length of your summary against your friends, working madly to simply survive. You start out doing early mornings, but soon the late nights catch up to you, and then you roll in to the library in a panic at 9:02 am, terrified you are late (or, at least, 2 minutes behind the frontrunner for the silver medal who walked in moments earlier). You pray that you are saying the right thing on exams when you really have no idea.
Which, apparently, is pretty similar to summering/articling.
Law School Year 2 = AssociateWhen you walk in the door for first day, year 2, you are generally feeling a little bit better. You've made it. You're there...until you realize that you actually have about twice the amount of work that you did while in 1st year, plus finding a job, plus doing extracurriculars, plus schmoozing, plus, plus, plus.
Somehow, however, you feel better equipped to deal with it. The stress moves from studying to looking for that elusive job. And there's a certain sense of power/superiority you can feel over the 1st years.
This sounds like being an associate. You know what you are doing now, there is a tonne of work, and you are desperately schmoozing/working/trying to achieve partnership. And there's all those little articling students to boss around.
Law School Year 3 = Partner
You don't walk into law school on the first day anymore. You walk in about 3 days late (and never arrive at the library before 11 am). The work level is similar to 2nd year, but it's a completely different mindset. You work smarter, get the stuff that you need...and spend the rest of your time goofing off. Set your own hours, work your butt off at the appropriate times, and make it through.
You are revered by the 1st years as wise founts of knowledge. 2nd years treat you as equals, but you both know that you're not. Afterall, you have the summaries that they need to survive those brutal 2nd year courses...and you need them to do the bulk of the work on group projects, so it's a symbiotic relationship.
Which pretty much sounds like a partner. Roll in late, leave early to golf, get other people to do work, but work hard when you have to, and look smart doing it.
I realize that that epiphany may have bored some of you, especially my non-lawyerling readership, but I hope you enjoyed it nonetheless.
To keep those of you who only read this blog looking for funny links:
here you go. The famous "puppykat" - bred in San Diego. Maybe you can order one on Ebay.
Blogging LIVE! from Weldon Library (On A Saturday Night)
Well, let's try this again. The first time was fun, and it actually got a comment (even though it seemed to indicate that I should abandon this blog). But anyways - onwards we press. If they care enough to comment, that probably means they care enough to read ;)
7:22 pm - My Insurance Law textbook is open to page 9-22. Remember that number. We'll see how far it gets. Part of the goal of this evening is to try to search
AutoTrader to find a car for usage this summer. Also, live free video feeds of the NCAA tourney is again calling my name. But for now, anyways, Insurance Law.
7:36 pm - Oh wow, I almost forgot about liveblogging. Basically, I've gotten to p.9-23 in Insurance Law, and talked on MSN and wasted some time on Facebook. Who said studying can't be fun??!!
7:48 pm - Incredibly, I'm at p.9-28. It's been a more or less productive last few minutes. The LSU/Texas A&M game is going down to the wire. The thing I find most interesting is the commercials, probably. They are all about either a) joining the US army, b) deodorant (which apparently helps you meet incredibly hot women), or c) horror movies. It does indeed seem like they are playing to the 18-25 male audience.
7:57 pm - Why, in basketball, are you allowed to wear the "number" "0"?
8:02 pm - Page 9-32, or in other words, the end of the chapter. The question then becomes whether or not to continue on in Insurance, or to switch over to Employment.
8:27 pm - Well, I'm currently looking at cars. I like the Toyota Celica - import, looks good, used ones with low kms. So I ran an insurance quote - and it's in the range of 335/month. Ridiculous.
8:41 pm - Now, I'm on to apartments.
8:44 pm - "Starseed" by OLP is a great song.
8:56 pm - After a long break (since 8:02 pm, approximately), I've decided to continue on with Chapter 10 in the Insurance book. Here we go.
9:15 pm - We've made it to p.10-5, but now I've decided to reexercise my growing Ebay addiction. Could be trouble.
9:41 pm - I've realized the main problem with this whole liveblogging tonight is that unlike in class yesterday, where there was all kinds of exciting things to observe around the room, this particular table in the library is in a location where you can't seen anyone else. Which means that it is incredibly impossible to snoop (except when the annoying UGG girl in the next carrel starts talking loudly on her cell phone).
10:30 pm - Page 10-9. Lots of NCAA watching. They just announced that the circulation desk will be closing in 15 minutes here, and I think all 3 of us at the table just about jumped out of our chairs.
11:45 pm - Looks like we're about to head out. It's been a blast. I'm now currently winning 10 items on Ebay, have found 2 potential cars (both Celicas), and several potential apartments - all which are grossly out of my price range. Oh yeah. And at p.10-19. Sweet. Time for McDonald's.
Blogging LIVE! from Civ Pro!
"Jevant, you need to update Jevant." - CL
"Jevant, you never update your blog." - KS
"Jevant, you need to move out of your house (oh yeah, and you never update your blog anymore)." - JL
"Jevant, why do you never blog anymore?" - AD
This is a small summary of the complaints that have been reaching my ears of late. I appreciate the fact that people actually care, and therefore I am making a more serious effort to provide reading material for people, like myself, who are bored to death in Civil Procedure.
Ironically, of course, I am typing this while in Civil Procedure - and I'm not missing anything.
Maybe I should start liveblogging Civ Pro.
Okay, let's try.
11:52 am - A question! Someone is actually paying attention? Impressive. Wait, nevermind. A question by someone who simply asks questions for the purpose of asking questions, therefore we can disregard it. PP responds with a loooong answer that simply makes everyone more bored and confused.
11:53 am - Email and Ebay check. Currently winning 2 items: an Ipod Shuffle, and Season 3 of 24. Awaiting feedback from a seller to decide whether or not I should purchase some cheap DVD's from him.
11:55 am - Someone has a new blog in law school:
Area-Man. Pretty funny (like most law school blogs. We all need an outlet.)
11:57 am - Email check. Nothing since last email check.
12:02 pm - Email check.
12:03 pm - I'm looking around the room. NOBODY is paying attention. Over on the left, someone is watching a movie in the lecture - headphones and all. In front of me, someone is playing something off addicting games. Beside me, someone is actually doing research...for another course. Wait, I was wrong. Someone IS paying attention - sitting right beside me. Ups to you - you are able to pay attention when nobody else can/will/is even trying.
12:04 pm - Nevermind. Now you're looking at CNN. Oh wait, back to notes. Hmmm. Better than myself, anyways. Email check.
12:07 pm - Why don't we have a special day for Dutch people? Today is St. Patty's Day - celebration of all things Irish. We need to have a day for the Dutch. It can be St. Joel Day - everyone wears orange and doesn't drink at all for the whole day. Sounds boring. But we should have it.
12:17 pm - Email check. Still nothing.
12:21 pm - Class break!
12:29 pm - On the bright side, NCAA basketball has finally begun. And thanks to free video, the last hour of class won't be so bad. Except I've just found that I'm 14,963rd in line waiting to get in. But it seems to move up about 1,000 every minute. Which means that if I'm lucky, I should get in in approximately 13 minutes.
12:31 pm - Email and Ebay check. Nada.
12:41 pm - I can't believe that I can actually watch live NCAA tournament FREE online. The quality isn't great, but it's there.
12:44 pm - Another question! PP looks confused - which probably just means he's trying to fit in with the rest of the class. The response from PP (the prof)? "Uh.....generally, that's had no impact." SMACKDOWN!
12:47 pm - Email check - and an email! Unfortunately, it's telling me I have now been outbid for 24 Season 3. Time to ebay it up.
12:48 pm - Season 3 of 24 is out of my price range now. Will have to wait for another one to come up.
12:51 pm - Oh no! NCAA basketball live feed has crashed!...but fortunately started up again moments later. We are OK.
12:56 pm - Ohio State needs to do a better job on the offensive glass. Davidson had 5 guys in the paint going after the rebound - Ohio State had 1 guy in the paint, and 4 guys around the 3-point line. That's probably why Davidson is up 29-25...looks like I might have picked the wrong 15 over 2 upset (Lofton's great shot at the buzzer cost me the Winthrop-Tennessee game).
12:59 pm - The funniest thing about this live feed is that it has a boss button - if you are watching at work and the boss is coming by, you click it, and it brings up a financial statement so it looks like you are working. Pretty impressive thinking by those guys at NCAA.com.
1:00 pm - PP just told us to ensure that us, as lawyers, determine what is relevant, rather than take our clients word for it. I would think that would be obvious, considering we have been trained as lawyers, whereas our clients have not been. However, based on emails that I discussed earlier this week, I'm not sure if we can legitimately accept that basic premise that lawyers are good judges of what is relevant (since apparently a significant number of law students don't find reading the instructions on an exam particularly "relevant").
1:02 pm - Switched over to Bucknell/Arkansas because the Ohio State/Davidson game is at the half. Is there any cooler mascot battle than Bison vs. Razorback? Who would win between a buffalo and a pig?
1:11 pm - Some excitement on ebay. I get 2 emails almost simultaneously - one telling me I've been outbid on the Ipod, the other saying that person cancelled their bid...and I'm the high bidder again.
1:12 pm - Iowa/Northwestern State. Why in the world is "Northwestern State University" in Louisiana? Shouldn't it be "Southeastern State University"? These are puzzling issues...though not quite so puzzling as this class.
1:14 pm - "Hawkeyes" is a very cool nickname.
1:18 pm - Iowa/NW State gets to the half. I'm going to end this live blog now, because class should be over any moment. If you've read down this far, thank you, and I don't think anyone can ever say again that I don't make a sincere effort to please the readership.
And happy St. Pat's Day, even though there is no St. Joel's Day.
Fun With Email
I'm taking a page directly out of Digital's book and posting a lovely email that I have received from a friend. This was sent to the 2nd year Evidence class at law school, following the midterm:
My thoughts in italics.
=====
Interesting ResultsThere were a number of interesting aspects to things students did (or didn't do) on the test.
1. Several of you (I didn't want to see them so I didn't make an actual count) wrote your names on either the question sheets or the Scantrons. This kind of defeats the purpose of using a blind exam number. Duh! I had naively thought that it was so obvious that it didn't warrant a specific instruction not to do that.
I'm not sure which part I like better - the fact that he directly slams people in the last sentence, or that he uses the word "Duh!"2. On the other hand, several did not put their exam number on the question sheets (there
was a specific instruction to do that). This makes it impossible to check in case there was a problem with the Scantron (fortunately, there wasn't any as far as I know).
3. Six people entered their exam numbers improperly.
This is a 4 DIGIT CODE. It's called "read the instructions". I'm pretty sure any 7-year-old Grade 2 student could properly fill out the code.4. Either there were two guests who wrote the test or two of you entered an incorrect exam number because there are two results that don't match anyone in the class. If you in fact wrote the test, but your result is shown as DNW (Did Not Write) then you must have entered the wrong number. Please let (adminstrative support staff member) know your true exam number and the number you think you may have erroneously entered.
5. One person in the class got the "freebie" question (Question 1) wrong. I'd be interested in talking to him/her because I'm curious as to the logic that was used. Please see me after class sometime.
I really wish I could remember what this question was (I wrote the same exam last year), but I do remember that the first question was an absolute giveaway.6. A third (23) of those writing lost the free mark for Question 25 for which the answer was given in the Instructions. Some of you may think that device was a silly trick. However, careful reading and paying attention to instructions
are important. Consider it a valuable lesson -- one that should have been learned about Grade 6 -- that you now got cheaply: the one-mark loss will make no difference in the final analysis and it's less painful than being sued for negligence.
The roasting continues...Given some of the above, I'm contemplating making things simpler for myself on future tests. Perhaps there's no need for any Evidence questions and the test can consist just of instructions and having to fill in your exam number.
Yup, like any kindergarten test.
=====
Seriously, though. And law students make fun of other faculties? Oops - might have to lay off on that for a while.
Vote ALW for Legal Society Prez
Quick shout out:
VOTE FOR AARON LEE-WUDRICK FOR UWO LEGAL SOCIETY PRESIDENT.The most qualified candidate, who has been one of the hardest working student for UWO Law over the last 2 years. Experience matters, and go with the candidate who has already proven their commitment to UWO Law and a strong desire to ensure Western Law will continue to be the best law school in Canada.
Law Ballin'
I attended Western Law's Ball on Saturday. Think grad prom meets formal meets drunkfest.
It was a good time.
CLF won the 2005-2006 Western Law Legal Society Club of the Year award, which was supremely cool. Mad ups to everyone who made the club possible this year, with a special note to the Big Man Upstairs.
I've been receiving extensive comments about my lackage of posting, and I do sincerely apologize. I just seem to be busy with stuff, but I can never seem to identify exactly what is making me busy. One of those "running around like a chicken with my head cut off".
I haven't been a movie theatre since I saw King Kong back in December. There's something supremely odd about that, especially for me.
It will be fabulous once the CivPro assignment is done, then it's just 3 exams before I close the chapter on Law School forever. It's only about 5-6 weeks. That's a little scary.
Harper & ChildCare
He's being asked to
back down.
He better not.
It was one of his 5 points. One of the key platform planks. You were elected to go through with it.
He better stick to his guns this time.
Oh yeah, and isn't that an awful pic of Jean Charest in that link? Did he gain 50 lbs since he became premier?
Top 5 Worst Movie Characters A Judge Could Compare You To
Based on
this judge's decision to use a quote from Billy Madison (the classic Adam Sandler movie) in his court order, I've come up with the Top-5 movie characters you do not want to be compared to by a judge in a courtroom.
5. Keanu Reeves, "Neo", The Matrix
Why? Because if a judge was comparing you to Neo, it probably isn't because of the fact you are particularly adept at saving the world, more likely because you are particularly adept at looking like a moron with a classic "deer in the headlights", "I-have-no-idea-what's-going-on-here" face.
4. Mark Hamill, "Luke Skywalker", Star Wars
Like Neo, your galaxy-saving prowess probably wouldn't be mentioned. Rather, the judge would probably be comparing your defense to the classic whine: "But I wanted to go into Toshi Station to pick up some power converterssssssssss!" Not good.
3. Jar Jar Binks, "Jar Jar", Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
I hated to use multiple characters from the same movie, but after consulting with a friend, I decided it was okay. I can't think of a single character that has been more reviled to a cherished movie franchise than Binks.
2. Tom Cruise, "Any Role", Any Movie
Ah, how times have changed. 10 years ago, if a judge compared you to Tom Cruise, it probably would have meant that the judge wanted to pick you up after the courtroom session was over. Now, all that the judge means is that s/he thinks you are absolutely nuts, and probably need to be committed to a mental institution.
1. Jim Varney, "Ernest P. Worrell", Ernest ...
I like Ernest. He's cool. But if a judge compares you to him, I guarantee it's not because the judge thinks you are cool - rather, I'm sure the judge thinks you are quite the idiot/moron/buffoon/etc.
Honourable Mentions? Disagreements? List suggestions for further ideas in the comments.
The Ironic Paradox thanks LJ for the link, and RD for advice on number 3.
Cabbing It To School
Well, I woke up late today.
Since I have missed a few Employment law classes already this year, and I won an OfficeSpace DVD for my participation in the last class, I felt I should attend.
But, of course, the busses quit running at 9 am, and there was no car in the garage this morning (a frequent, but always unfortunate occurrence).
So, in light of the fact I woke up late, I had to cab it.
It was a 5 minutes cab ride in absolute silence. Cost me 11 bucks.
In other words, the same as if I had paid for parking.
Something about this is completely messed up.
Huh?
Since I've been asked to make more law school related funny posts, I'll try yet again.
Likely, however, it will be about law school, but not funny.
Anyways - in the spirit of
Digital I will comment on a funny email sent out by the law school administration today.
I believe I misplaced my Apple iPod shuffle digital music player (see
attached photo) somewhere at the law school today. I was wondering if
anyone may have found it and dropped it off at the administration
office's lost and found. If not, could you please send out an email
asking my fellow law students that if they have found an Apple iPod
shuffle, could they please turn it into the administration office. I
really appreciate your help. Thank for your time.
This was an email sent by a student to the administrative staff asking for help.
A couple of thoughts (well, just one really):
1) Good luck. With the plethora of signs that are surrounding the law school telling people not to leave their laptops out of their sight, due to problems of theft, it would strike me as far more likely that this poor student is the victim of a crime that could be prosecuted under the
Criminal Code s.322:
Theft
| 322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it; (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security; (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted. |
Time when theft completed | (2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable. |
| (3) A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment. |
| (4) For the purposes of this Act, the question whether anything that is converted is taken for the purpose of conversion, or whether it is, at the time it is converted, in the lawful possession of the person who converts it is not material. |
| (5) For the purposes of this section, a person who has a wild living creature in captivity shall be deemed to have a special property or interest in it while it is in captivity and after it has escaped from captivity. R.S., c. C-34, s. 283. |
I hope this poor student lucks out. But I somehow doubt it.
Amazing Race 9
As a long-suffering teenager without cable, I now of course have a child's-like admiration for all things "television".
The most recent incarnation of this infatuation was introduced last night - it's called the Amazing Race 9.
This is one of those shows that it's easy to get hooked on, at least for me. They've included all the stereotypical groups: grandparents, hippies, hot girls, married couples, nerds, ken-barbie, annoying middle-aged sisters...etc. Initially, I liked the nerds and the hippies.
The thing about shows like this is that once you get into them, you're hooked. Without cable, this could be a challenge. That is why I love my friends equally, but my friends with cable and a willingness to invite me over more equally than equal.
I found this graphic floating around a number of websites recently, and apart from the fact I thought it was a cool pic (the flag is just neat), I figured that I could weigh in on this issue.
