Ironic Paradox

Long-Overdue-Update

2006-07-05T11:56:00.000-04:00

Well. It's only been several weeks.

Blame it on the LSUC bar admission process. It's been occupying most of my study/thought/work time over the past month or so.

But I'll be back soon - the barrister exam is tomorrow, and that'll be the end of the process. Then I start work on the 17th.

Since I'm sure regular readers are interested in knowing my thoughts on my Canucks, I can say this:

Thank goodness Bertuzzi is gone. I can once again cheer for my favourite team with a clear conscience.

Some other thoughts:

This is a nice gesture...but I don't really think it is the long-term solution, and it just makes everyone look bad. Appoint security, and get it done with. Oh, and these dudes should just come forward sooner rather than later.

Random Liberal cheap shot of the day: Here.

Random CPC cheap shot of the day: Steve, you've done a lot of decent things so far...but this is just a weird picture.

Once I get into a regular schedule (IE - a non-studying-for-7-hour-exam schedule), blogging will increase back to my usual 5-6 post a week rates. Stay tuned.

WC: Day 4

2006-06-12T08:45:00.000-04:00

Australia 2, Japan 2
USA 2, Czech Rep. 1
Italy 2, Ghana 0

Current Daily Record: 5-3

Technical Difficulties

2006-06-11T12:06:00.000-04:00

So...I tried to delete some of my useless sidebar stuff (such as "London Gas Prices") and outdated links, and somehow I managed to delete the entire sidebar of the blog, which threw off all the other settings. Over the next couple of days, I'll be reworking the sidebar to include the links, trackers, Blogging Tories blogroll, etc. - so hold tight until then.

World Cup: Day 3

2006-06-11T00:57:00.000-04:00

Netherlands 2, S-M 1
Iran 2, Mexico 0
Portugal 1, Angola 0

Current Daily Record: 3-2

WC: Day 2

2006-06-10T11:02:00.000-04:00

June 10th games:

England 2, Paraguay 1
Sweden 3, Trinidad/Tobago 0
Argentina 1, Cote D'Ivoire 1

Current Daily Record: 2-0

World Cup 2006 Predictions

2006-06-08T18:39:00.000-04:00

I've been trying to decide whether or not to do a game by game prediction, or simply the finalists.

So I'll do both.

Check back for daily predictions for every game.

Or look at how I think they'll play out right now:

Group Stage Winners:
Group A: Germany, Ecuador
Group B: England, Sweden
Group C: Netherlands, Argentina
Group D: Portugal, Iran
Group E: USA, Italy
Group F: Brazil, Croatia
Group G: Switzerland, France
Group H: Spain, Saudi Arabia

Round of 16:
Germany over Sweden
Netherlands over Iran
England over Ecuador
Portugal over Argentina
USA over Croatia
Switzerland over Saudi Arabia
Brazil over Italy
Spain over France

Quarterfinals:
Netherlands over Germany
USA over Switzerland
England over Portugal
Brazil over Spain

Semifinals:
Netherlands over USA
Brazil over England

Final:
Netherlands over Brazil

June 9th Games:
Germany 3, Croatia 2
Ecuador 2, Poland 1

Kyoto: Who Really Understands?

2006-05-29T15:14:00.000-04:00

...Not Canadians, apparently.

I do wonder though, if a similar poll was done regarding the people who talk more about Kyoto than anyone else - the media. Have any of them read the accord, or are they just parroting what gets thrown around?

And is the Liberal party support borne out of an honest belief that it will actually work, or simply an attempt to save face? Afterall, didn't Martin basically say that Canada would sign the accord with the full knowledge that we could never implement it?

Hrmm.

Horrifying

2006-05-25T22:20:00.000-04:00

Regardless of where you sit on the Iraq war, this is somewhere between awful and disgusting.

The most pertinent tidbit:

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

One of the most ridiculous examples of "two wrongs somehow make a right" logic that I've ever heard.

Humiliating.

Here and There and Everywhere

2006-05-12T00:34:00.000-04:00

A Few Thoughts:

1) Huh?

It smells like a joke. And the supporting comments all sound like exactly the same person.

Either that, or someone's really desparate.

2) Judging Judges

Maurice Vellacott goes down. Because he doesn't like comments like these from SCC CJ Bev McLach:

"The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. There is certainly no guarantee or presumption that a given list of constitutional principles is complete, even assuming the good faith intention of the drafters to provide such a catalogue ... Judges have the duty to insist that legislative and executive branches of government conform to certain established and fundamental norms, even in times of trouble.''

See...the funny thing was, I always thought that "rule of law" implied that the law was supreme, not some judges' interpretation of "principles" that are found goodness-knows-where....yeah. I've already ranted on this so much that I better not do it again, but I did like how that editorial ended with: "...At least it would be, if our politicians truly believed in another Charter right -- free speech."

Hmm...then there are those cartoons...

3) Michael Coren

If true in the way that that story articulates it...sigh. I like Michael Coren, not agreeing with everything he says, but I like the guy, but regardless: stuff like that doesn't exactly encourage my opinion of the CBC, let's just put it that way.

Underway in the Bar Admissi....I Mean Licensing Process

2006-05-09T15:02:00.000-04:00

Whenever you change the name of something (Bar Admission Course --> Licensing Process Course), it always causes problems. The instructor has really been struggling with that change for the last 2 days.

The course itself isn't bad, just a little slow. Not exactly riveting material, although it does appear very useful, and it's not difficult.

The reason for the 2 week gap between posts was due to the fact I just returned from a vacation in Williamsburg VA for 9 days. It was a great time to relax, visit the historical sites, play some golf, read a lot of books and watch a lot of TV.

I've been enjoying that the CPC has been steadily inching upwards in the polls over the last few weeks. The budget looks good, and I've been overall fairly impressed so far. They really have a lot of free reign, since it is clear that the Liberals have no interest in an election anytime soon.

And I promise updates will be more regular - now that I'm back, it's time to end the blog-rest and return with a vengeance.

Me, LL.B.

2006-04-24T11:27:00.000-04:00

And that's all for UWO law, folks.

My friends here like to joke that I have nothing to fall back on, due to my lackage of a B.A. Well, I've heard that joke for the last time!

WOOHOO!

2006 NHL Playoff Predictions: Round 1

2006-04-21T17:00:00.000-04:00

Eastern Conference
Ottawa in 5.
Carolina in 6.
New Jersey in 5.
Philadelphia in 7.

Western Conference
Detroit in 5.
Dallas in 4.
Anaheim in 6.
San Jose in 6.

Overheard In The Law Library

2006-04-20T10:09:00.000-04:00

I just overheard the most delightful exchange between 2 first year law students I had never met before.

The time is 10 am.

Law Guy 1: Hey, man - you're hardcore! Early bird!
Law Guy 2: Yeah, something like that.
Law Guy 1: (looks at LG2's books) You studying for criminal?
Law Guy 2: Yeah.
Law Guy 1: (with complete sincerity) Do you really need to study for that?
Law Guy 2: (with equal sincerity) Not really, no.

Just for the record, the library opens at 8:15 am. I don't consider 10 am to be "hardcore". Furthermore, the criminal exam is tomorrow. Now, we're either dealing with the brightest, most prepared law students on the planet; or else the guy DOES need to be studying for criminal. At the same time, if you're the brightest, most prepared law student on the planet and you are all prepared for the exam a day in advance, you would by nature still be studying the day before.

At least, that's my 2 cents.

Best Web Video Ever

2006-04-18T18:26:00.000-04:00

This has to be the coolest internet vid I've ever seen.

It is the bottom of the 10th inning of Game 7 of the 1986 World Series - in NES baseball. Complete with Vin Scully doing the play-by-play. Bill Bucknor's error...everything. The guy who made this has been on pretty much every sports website since.

Check it out.

MJAWL, Part II

2006-04-18T15:17:00.000-04:00

Here's some more. Note: I have decided not to restrict these lists to Top-5's anymore. The need for disclaimers on blogs really astounds me, but nevertheless:

Professors (Although Some Are Also Doctors):
5. Prof. B. Welling
Welling annoys a lot of people, but he's always been good. He makes you think, and makes you work, but you're always better for it. There's nothing quite like getting told your work is "duckspeak" or that your question "does not compute". He might make you feel stupid, but it's always constructive, and you don't make the same mistake twice. And the whole "corporation is a robot" gig is still priceless.

4. Prof. G. Demeyere
Beyond a doubt: the nicest professor in law school. Genuinely cares about students, and gives us DVD's and Timbits (yes, she's the Employment Law professor). And her class material is perfectly organized, and easy to follow.

3. Prof. G. Huscroft
Besides teaching my favourite class (and Admin - the class I liked, but everyone else hated), I happen to agree with almost everything he says about the structure of our political sphere. Sometimes I go further than him, but that's the beauty of political discourse.

2. Prof. A. Parachin
In addition to making a boring subject (for me) entertaining, Parachin has been by far the most supportive of our CLF group at UWO, which is (for anyone reading this), a surefire way to make it to the Top-5 Prof List. And the dude can dunk on a 10 foot net. That's just cool.

1. Prof. B. Hovius
My original small-group professor (who I think hated a bunch of us for a while because we weren't paying attention in class). Incredibly smart - often too much so for us poor 1L's, organized and just an excellent "teacher" - an underrated and often forgotten talent at UWOLAW. And a very, very underrated killer sense of humour, that is made all the funnier coming from him.

Books - Biggest Wastes (Don't Worry, This Isn't Exhaustive...)
5. Canadian Legislation on Intellectual Property
Simply because I never opened it. All the material for the exam was contained in the material provided, and it will likely sit on my shelf forever, thanks to wonderful websites like Canlii.

4. Law and Economics
I enjoyed the course fine, but unfortunately it's going to be utterly useless to me in my working life. If anyone wants to buy...I paid $120 for it, and I'll sell it to you for the low, low price of $119.99!

3. Getting to Yes
From the negotiation class mentioned yesterday. There's just the one problem. Using the tactics in the books simply don't get you to yes.

2. Income Tax Act, 2004
Not sure why people don't just use the online version. $90. Ouch.

1. Principles of Canadian Income Tax, 12th Edition
The only thing worse than the ITA...is of course the casebook with cases about the ITA.

Books - Best Values (Yes, They Do Exist...)
5. Corporate Law in Canada: The Governing Principles 3rd Edition, Welling
Unfortunately, this book wasn't out when I took the course, but I guarantee it's a good value. The only law school book I will likely go out and buy, and read - just for learning value. It's that good.

4. Cases and Materials on the Law of Torts, Brown
Best organized book in 1L. And that alone made it the best course in 1L - meaning it definitely deserves to be on this list.

3. McGill Guide
I'll actually use this again. And it was one of the very few books that you actually NEEDED in paper format - the rest were all easily done online.

2. Family Law, Hovius
This was the best-written book I've read in law school. A casebook that you actually learn the principles from, while still getting the synopses of the important cases. It's all there. Family law in 500 pages or less.

1. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition
Really, this is simply because it's a beautiful red hard cover book that sits menacingly on my desk, daring anyone to open it. The one book from law school that I think will look fabulous on my official lawyer book shelf. And it's a surprisingly interesting read.

My Journey at Western Law, Part 1

2006-04-17T19:17:00.000-04:00

This series will hereinafter be referred to as "MJAWL".

With my very last week ever at UWO winding up, I thought it might be good to drop some Top-5 lists. So that's what I'll be doing for this entire week. Feel free to leave *tasteful* suggestions as to other lists that I can make, and please remember that this blog is public. And yes, those of you who feel like this disclaimer is directed at you - it IS directed at you.

On to the first few Top-5's.

Best Summaries I Personally Created (IMHO)
The implication, of course, is that this list does not include summaries that I got from others, all of which were far better than the ones I created (Trusts and Constitutional Law are the first 2 that come to mind. If either of you who created those is reading this, thank you so much once again.)

5. Torts, 1L
One of the first ones I made, and surprisingly, looking back, one of the best. Probably had something to do with the fact that I was scared to death and made it extremely professional looking. Apparently, however, my first term one was better than my second term one, if my marks are any evidence.

4. Contracts, 1L
This was largely due to the fact that I had something fall into my lap that summarized every single case in the book. It made doing my summary very easy.

3. Family, 3L
Family is going to come up several times on these lists, I am sure. I think the reason I liked my family summary so much was because I felt I really understood the material backwards and forwards, and really enjoyed it. The book was amazingly written, the professor was phenomenal, and the summary was just a logical extension of that.

2. Law & Economics, 2L
This was my 2L January term course, and the summary was so good because we had all kinds of time to do it (Jan Term is generally either pretty slack, or pretty intense, and both years I lucked out with slack courses). Unfortunately, the summary didn't help with the mark, although I blame that on the professor, of course.

1. Admin, 2L
I think I might have been the only student who actually liked Admin Law. Furthermore, since I had zero people I knew in the class, I was attending every lecture and really stayed on top of the material. As such? Voila! Good summary.

Least Favourite Courses (And That's Putting It Mildly)
These classes were not fun. Although, thanks to the wonders of MSN Games and various news websites, that did not mean that fun was not had in them.

3. Criminal Law, 1L
If any class is going to be at 8:30 in the morning so the prof can go out and golf starting at 11 am, it better be really good and the prof better be amazing. This class was neither. The cold-calling didn't help.

2. Civil Procedure, 3L
This was an excellent course, and the material was presented in a very clear and straightforward manner. But a 3 hour class in my last term of school on a Friday afternoon, that is all technical and mindless boilerplate copying? Please spare me. (Side note: I DO like litigation, and am looking forward to practicing lots and lots of civil procedure. Learning it though? Ugggh.).

1. Income Tax, 2L
True story: I played a full game of Madden 2003 during one tax class. Thanks to the magic of "ALT-TAB", I still took notes in the tax lecture, and finished with more notes than my friend who was sitting next to me reading SI.com for the whole lecture. That pretty much sums up tax for me.***

My Favourite Courses (UWO Law Only)
These were the 5 classes that I enjoyed almost every day, regardless of whether or not the internet was down. If you have a chance at any point in your life, take classes 1, 2, and 3 on this list. Even if you're not in law. Trust me.

5. Intellectual Property, 2L
An interesting topic, with an interesting prof, taught in an interesting way. Straightforward, and just a lot of fun. The fact it was on Mondays and Wednesdays from 6-8 pm was also nice (Jays games live webcasts on MLB.com started at 7 pm every night, and then the playoffs after that!).

4. Negotiation and Mediation, 2L
A very useful course, even though I think I took all the wrong things away from it. The prof wanted us to get to the position that "interest-based, conciliatory, gentle-approach" negotiating was the best way to go. After I got absolutely mercilessly slaughtered by a fellow CLF member the first week while trying to use this method, I quickly refined my skills so that would never happen again. By the end of the course, I learned how to use hardball negotiating to its full advantage, while still appearing nice. The poor prof would have a heart attack if he ever read this...

3. Family Law, 3L
All things considered, I think this was the best course in law school. In terms of balancing everything - from workload, to retention of material, to teaching style, to method of evaluation, etc. I would very, very highly recommend this course, even if you are not interested in family law. It is a true winner.

2. Employment Law, 3L
I really enjoyed the subject matter of this course, and it was very clearly taught by an excellent prof. And what other class do you win DVD's in for correctly answering questions? Answer: None. But in Employment Law, I won OfficeSpace: The Special Edition with Flair! and we had Timbits almost every day, courtesy of the prof.

1. Advanced Constitutional Law, 3L
In what other class can you say truly outlandish things (things I can't even repeat, due to classroom confidentiality), and get your marks raised for it? Again - answer: none. Always entertaining, and one of the few law school classes where the focus is on critical thinking, evaluating various ideas, and creating a mindset through which to view the world; rather than simply cramming ideas down your brain.

That's all for today. Stay tuned!

***UPDATE: I won the Madden 2003 game. My Miami Dolphins (who else) defeated the Baltimore Ravens at home, 31-0.

Last Day Of Law School Classes

2006-04-13T11:16:00.000-04:00

Today is the last day of law school classes.

Mine was cancelled, so it was actually yesterday for me, and one of yesterday's was cancelled, and I left the other one early because my computer power cord got cut in the desk.

So really, this post should have been written on Monday, when I had my last full class.

But anyways.

Dez does a nice job of wrapping up the last day for him. It was a little weird to realize that his first day of school ever (Sept 5, 1984) was one month to the day before my birth. I'm not sure what exactly that means, but it's pretty weird/cool/strange.

Like Dez, I really only have positive memories of school - I think all the bad ones generally blur out. Getting nicknamed "Spice Girl" in Grade 9 by the one-and-only bully in our homeschooling group was pretty embarrassing, but that was only because I schooled him at basketball (the one and only time you will ever see "me" "schooled" "basketball" in the same sentence). But on the scale of traumatizing memories, that's gotta rank pretty low.

One thing is for sure. It will be nice to receive the degree on June 12th. As everyone here at LS always reminds me: I still don't have anything to fall back on.

Well, as of June 12th, boyz and girlz, that'll change.

Thanks all. It's been a heckuva ride.

Electoral Lockdown

2006-04-12T01:36:00.000-04:00

So Manitoba now decides to ban floor-crossing by MP's.

I don't like this idea.

I never supported it when certain Tories called for it after the Belinda defection, and I didn't support it when certain Liberals called for it after the Emerson defection.

The only thing that this is going to do is strengthen the grip of party discipline in Canada, and increase the importance of political parties (which I think most people agree is a bad thing).

MP's and MPP's should be allowed to properly support their constituents, and if that means that crossing the floor is in the best interests of their constituents, they should have that right. If, at the following election, the electorate decides to turf the MP/P then, that is their prerogative.

A certain fellow named Winston Churchill crossed the floor and back again several times, and it never really hurt him. Would it have made sense for him to run in a byelection every single time? I highly doubt it.

Or what if a person leaves the governing party because they believe that that party broke a promise (see David Kilgour). Should that person have to face a byelection? Something about that doesn't seem to make much sense. We are only really concerned when a person leaves an opposition party and joins the governing party. Which seems to me to be a bit of a two-faced and wrong approach to take to the issue.

Pammy On The Seal Hunt...Yes, Again...

2006-04-07T12:47:00.000-04:00

I should have known.

Pamela Anderson is urging Harper to take up that US businesswoman's offer that I was talking about yesterday.

But you really have to read what she says to fully understand why she should just stick to doing...well, whatever it is Pamela Anderson does when she's not rambling about the seal hunt:

Anderson, who has accused Harper of being "in the back pocket of special interest groups rather than the leader of the people," says the offer is an example of growing support for the anti-sealing campaign.

The "back pocket of special interest groups?" What? Canadians on the whole strongly support the seal hunt. Maybe if Pam actually, you know, lived in Canada or, you know, read a newspaper or something...

"People of all walks of life are coming out of the woodwork all around the world to stop this senseless slaughter," Anderson told eTalk. "Canadian taxpayers should be outraged...since it would save the millions of tax dollars that currently support (the) hunt."

Oh wow - now Canadian taxpayers should be outraged?? Over the seal hunt? Of all the things we should be outraged about as CDN taxpayers, I think that "monies donated to the seal hunt" should probably be low on the list. At least it is actually helping Maritimers, rather than simply giving lots of nice dinners to already rich people.

Making Sense of the Bad Math

2006-04-07T11:03:00.000-04:00

In a tongue in cheek response to this post, Abe...

...I direct you to this story. (h/t Nealenews)

If they're going to be spending $5.49 for dinners, instead of $939 (5.49, according to my handy-dandy windows calculator works out to 0.58% of $939), we might be able to make up those lost GST monies pretty darn quickly.

:P

Sorry. I couldn't resist. :)

Seal Hunt

2006-04-06T19:31:00.000-04:00

I have never been in support for the seal hunt as strongly as I am after reading this.

Isn't it sad that she's all gung-ho to spend $16 million on saving seals?

Maybe this world would be a little bit better off if we committed that $16 million to, oh, I don't know - feeding children in Africa.

I think seals are cute just as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous.

A hearty thumbs up to the governments of Newfoundland and Canada for not backing down in the face of ridiculous, hypocritical, outlandish pressure from uninformed celebrities.

Bible Thumping

2006-04-04T12:31:00.000-04:00

I have (quite rightly, I suppose) been labelled a Bible Thumper on several occasions. I'm sure it happens more behind my back, that's fine. I've never been one for slamming religion down anyone's throat, and quite disappointed with those that do.

But this news story disappointed me.

I'll pull out clips:

"I thought schools were neutral zones," said the 36-year-old graduate student and mother of a Grade 1 pupil. "I thought schools were secular, and organized religions didn't have a place in public schools."

Basically, this mother is concerned with the practice of the Gideons giving Bibles to students. Back in the day, the Gideons would come into the schools and distribute Bibles to every Grade 5 student. I assumed, based on this mother's objection, that this is what was still happening. I can understand concerns with that (understand, not necessarily agree, but understand).

The Richmond board's policy is to place a notice in school newsletters, and Grade 5 pupils may take a form home for their parents to sign if they want a Gideon Bible. The children return the form to the school, which relays the request to the Gideons, who bring the Bibles to the schools.

The Gideons no longer automatically bring Bibles to schools across the country every year, but wait for requests.

Whoa, okay then. Maybe not.

So the school puts a notice in the school newsletter. Based on this, the grade 5 pupil has to go request a form, get their parents to sign it, and then return it to the school.

Regardless of the ridiculous assertion that a school is a "neutral zone" (whatever the heck that means), this hardly means that religion is taking over our "secular" schools (another poorly chosen word. Just as a thought - does secular include the whole sexualization of society as discussed in yesterday's post?). Unfortunately, they continue to poll the public in the article, which just makes things more confusing:

B.C. Civil Liberties president Jason Gratl said he was surprised to learn that Bibles are still being distributed.

"It carries no threat of undermining the secularism of our school system, but it's a practice that ought to be quietly ended," he said yesterday.

Huh? So this dude admits that there is no threat...but says it should be ended. At least he realizes that it's not a big deal - I guess half-right is better than all-wrong.

Executive director Paul Mercer of Gideons International in Canada said that throughout Canada, 250,000 to 300,000 Bibles a year are requested by students. Years ago, schools and the Gideons decided Grade 5 was the appropriate age to receive the Bible, he said.

"It's been done since the mid-1940s, and the offer is made. Some can say no and some can say, 'we want one,' " Mr. Mercer said. "We just simply believe that everybody should have the opportunity of owning a Bible."

And really, when worded this way: what IS the big deal?

Surprise of the Century...

2006-04-03T16:23:00.000-04:00

.....no kidding.

Do we really need studies done to tell us this?

2006 MLB Preview and Predictions

2006-04-01T13:52:00.000-05:00

Maybe this will get me onto the Yahoo searches again - we'll see. Being the first hit when you did a yahoo search for "NHL Predictions" was pretty darn cool.

Anyways, without further ado. Parentheses indicate number of wins, brackets indicate league ranking, and asterisk represents wild card winner.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
AL East
New York (93) [3]
Toronto * (92) [4]
Boston (82) [8]
Tampa Bay (74) [10]
Baltimore (64) [14]

Any of the top 3 teams here could easily win the division. I don't think Boston is as good as in previous years. NY has health risks, the Jays have inexperience, Tampa Bay could be a lot better than people realize, and Baltimore is really, really bad. A whole year like their 2nd half last season wouldn't surprise me, and that should be cause for concern.

AL Central
Chicago (96) [1]
Cleveland (88) [5]
Minnesota (80) [9]
Detroit (74) [11]
Kansas City (68) [13]

Chicago went out and got better, even though I hate Posednik and his hype. Cleveland lost some pitching, which concerns me. I don't totally understand their moves this summer - trading Crisp will likely prove to be a mistake. Minnesota's offence looks bad, really bad. Detroit could make a bit of a move up. KC should be able to avoid losing 100, barely.

AL West
Oakland (94) [2]
Anaheim (87) [6]
Texas (83) [7]
Seattle (72) [12]

Oakland has a lot of starting pitching, but I'm not sold on their bats. Anaheim needs some bats as well - and they desperately need Guerrero to stay healthy. Texas improved again, but they need more SP (what else is new). Seattle's still got a long way to go, more pitching required.

NATIONAL LEAGUE
NL East
Atlanta (92) [2]
New York * (91) [3]
Philadelphia (90) [4]
Washington (73) [12]
Florida (70) [15]

This, not the AL East, should be the tighest 3-way race in the league - Atlanta should have just enough pitching, as usual to hold off the rest. New York sacrificed pitching for hitting. Philadelphia will be close again, but losing Wagner hurts. Washington overacheived last year, and Florida is not as bad as everyone thinks.

NL Central
St. Louis (94) [1]
Milwaukee (88) [6]
Houston (86) [7]
Chicago (81) [9]
Pittsburgh (74) [11]
Cincinnati (71) [14]

St. Louis is the class of the league again, but they look like they've taken a small step back. Milwaukee, though unable to expect the same production from the pitching as last year, should improve enough to make it interesting. Houston desparately needs Clemens back, but even so, they can't expect another 2nd half miracle. Chicago looks ripe for a downturn. Pittsburgh is slowly improving, but they're still a ways out. Cincinnati will be lucky to hit 70 wins.

NL West
Los Angeles (89) [5]
San Diego (82) [8]
San Francisco (77) [10]
Arizona (72) [13]
Colorado (66) [16]

The real LA team is the class of a weak division - improvements all around. San Diego should be involved in lots of low scoring games at home, but will get beat up on the road. San Fran's fate is in Barry's hands, and I'm not liking those chances right now. Arizona's infield defense is improved...and that's about all. Colorado will be battling with Baltimore for the 29th overall spot in the league all year long.

PLAYOFFS
AMERICAN LEAGUE
Blue Jays over White Sox
Yankees over Athletics

Blue Jays over Yankees

NATIONAL LEAGUE
Cardinals over Mets
Braves over Dodgers

Braves over Cardinals

WORLD SERIES
Blue Jays over Braves

Free Speech and Cartoons

2006-03-30T11:31:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-03-29T15:00:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-28T10:44:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-21T11:47:00.000-05:00

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/Articling
From 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 = Associate
When 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)

2006-03-18T19:22:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-03-17T11:50:00.000-05:00

"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

2006-03-15T11:04:00.000-05:00

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 Results
There 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

2006-03-13T12:51:00.000-05:00

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'

2006-03-13T12:05:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-08T13:51:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-07T08:22:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-06T14:12:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-03-03T09:25:00.000-05:00

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

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.
Secrecy	(3) A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment.
Purpose of taking	(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.
Wild living creature	(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

2006-03-01T10:59:00.000-05:00

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.

Justice Rothstein

2006-02-28T13:00:00.000-05:00

I really haven't been nearly as up on this as I'd like to, but a few thoughts.

I'm not supremely impressed with the appointment process, I think it could have been done much better. More accountability, rather than just a simple "check-off" hearing.

At the same time, I was impressed that Rothstein said "Judges apply law, not make law." Give him an A+ for that, it's been sorely lacking on the SCC for some time now (and yes, Bev McLachL, I'm looking at you).

It does surprise me that Harper decided to go with one of the nominees on the Liberal list - I almost expected him to go with a John Roberts/Samuel Alito style judge (namely, a young, conservative judge because this might be Harper's only appointment). Kinda strange.

Response

2006-02-28T02:49:00.000-05:00

Well, complaints have been heard.

I've been hearing a overall grumbling that recently, the Ironic Paradox has, in the eloquent words of a friend - "sucked badly recently".

I figured I better update it soon, and since I've been wasting a tonne of time over at Facebook recently, I thought I better update this page (because it's linked to on my facebook profile).

So there, Dez, it's done.

There will be a more substantial post on Justice Rothstein later on today.

Top 5 Canadian Moments at Turin (Torino) Olympics

2006-02-21T14:27:00.000-05:00

...thus far.

5) Duff Gibson/Jeff Pain, Skeleton
A 39-year old wins a much deserved gold medal and we assert our skeleton dominance by winning 3 of a possible 6 medals.

4) Jennifer Heil, Moguls
Everyone says she's our first gold medal hope on the first day, and she comes through under pressure. Too bad Jeremy Wotherspoon wasn't watching.

3) Women's Hockey
We rock.

2) Sara Renner, X-Country Skiing
I still think one of the best moments of the games was when the Norwegian coach handed Sara a pole after her's broke, leading to a silver medal for Canada. And the Norwegian team finished 4th. Classy move.

1) Cindy Klassen, Speed Skating
Unlike another Canadian speedskater who always fails expectations at the Olympics (see Wotherspoon, Jeremy), Klassen exceeds expectations every chance she can. Already at 3 medals (with shots at 2 more), she will undoubtably be the Canadian flag bearer at the closing ceremonies.

Top 5 Canadian Disappointments At Torino (Turin Olympics)

2006-02-21T14:21:00.000-05:00

...thus far.

5) Beckie Scott, X-Country Skiing
In her first event, which she was the defending gold medallist, she finished 6th. Oops.

4) Curling Teams
Both teams had to scrape their way into the playoffs. Both could still win gold, but neither have looked good. In any event, neither should be having this much trouble.

3) Men's Hockey
Even with at 3-2 record through the round robin, they have not looked good. Now they get either Russia or Sweden - in the quarterfinals. That's supposed to be a potential gold medal game, not quarterfinals.

2) Jeremy Wotherspoon, Speed Skating
A very disappointing 11th in the 1000m, this after he was supposed to use the 1000m for redemption in the...

1) Jeremy Wotherspoon, Speed Skating
...500m, where he completely and utterly choked - finished 9th in far and away his best event. And he wasn't even the best Canadian.

Where I've Been

2006-02-21T00:51:00.000-05:00

I've traveled in Canada to:

create your own personalized map of Canada

And in the USA to:

create your own personalized map of the USA

I'm not even going to post a "countries visited" one, because that would be too depressing.

A Quick Point About Law School Classes & Professors

2006-02-15T10:31:00.000-05:00

I do not like showing up 2.5 hours early for class because of the bus schedule.

But it's even worse when you show up and they've cancelled class.

Emailing you 1 minute after you've walked out the door.

It's one of the most incredibly frustrating things.

I need a car.

Or, maybe, I need to walk more.

One or the other.

Quick Hits, Volume 2

2006-02-12T15:45:00.000-05:00

I've been abandoning blogging recently - I think it must be that post-election detox continuing.

Further items of interest today:

Winter Olympics
It's nice to have them again. At the time of this posting, we're at 2 medals (Heil in the moguls, and Klassen in speedskating).

Women's Olympic hockey team has outscored 2 opponents 28-0. That's...uh...embarassing.

Wedding Reception
At a friend's wedding last night in K-W. A good time. But most amusing was the next part of last night - the drive home.

The Aforementioned Drive
So I'm driving down the 402 at 1:15 this morning, going just under 120 kph, and I pass a cop parked on the side of the road. So I slow down to 100. The cop starts tailing me.

Me, not wanting to fluctuate speed too much, try to set the cruise control (which is on the steering wheel). I swerve around a bit, apparently hitting the white line on the shoulder.

Well.

Cop's lights go on instantly, and over I pull.

I stop, cop stops, cop comes up to the window.

A stereotypical angry, annoyed, frustrated...etc. cop.

I've never been pulled over before, so I'm a bit nervous. I haven't drank anything all night, there's no alcohol in the car, and yes, I was driving a bit fast, but she didn't pull me over instantly, so I thought I was probably okay.

And here's the transcript (Cop = C, M = Me, T = Friend):

C: Where you coming from tonight? (No "hi", just "where are you coming from?")

M: Kitchener-W.

C: Where?

M: Uh...Kitchener...W. Kitchener-Waterloo.

Editor's Note: I was trying to say Kitchener-Waterloo, but was nervous, so I kinda mixed "K-W" with "Kitchener-Waterloo"

C: Okay. Anything to drink tonight?

M: No, nothing.

C: Where are you headed?

M: I'm going to Coldstream to drop my friend off, then I'm going home. To London. Uh....Ambleside Drive.

Editor's Note: I was stuttering, trying to remember where I was going. As this conversation went on, I got more, not less nervous, which just added to the problem.

C: What were you doing in Kitchener?

M: I was at a wedding reception.

Editor's Note: I realize immediately this is NOT going to help my case.

C: And you WEREN'T drinking?

M: No, I don't drink. I don't drink.

C: Hmmm. You were swerving on the road there. You hit the white line.

M: I know, I was trying to set the...uh...cruise control. It's on the steering wheel.

Editor's Note: She's not buying any of this. The fact I couldn't locate the cruise control button on the steering wheel instantly didn't help, I'm sure.

C: License and Registration.

This is where the real problems start. I'm wearing a suit, and my wallet is in my back pocket. I still have my seatbelt on. If you want a good example of my situation, you go into a car and try to get your wallet out of your back pocket in dress pants with a seatbelt on.

I fumbled around for a good 20 seconds trying to get the stupid thing out.

Then, I went through 3 different things trying to find my license and registration. I finally found it...and...

M: (as I hand it to her) Here you go...oh...oops...

As I fumble it and drop it on the floor of the car.

C: Thanks. Is there any alcohol in the car?

M: No.

C: What's under the coats in the backseat? Lift them up.

I comply.

C: Thanks. I'll be right back.

M: (To T) That didn't go well, did it?

T: Nope, not at all.

About 5 minutes later, she returns. I've left the window open, and we're freezing.

C: 2 Things. One, you need to slow down, you were going way too fast. Two, you were swerving all over the road, and that tells me that you're trying to hide something in the backseat that you don't want me to see.

M: Uh...okay.

C: Have a nice night.

Wow.

Paris Hilton on shortlist to play Mother Theresa in film

Paris Hilton.

Playing Mother Theresa.

In an movie theatre.

Paris Hilton. Mother Theresa.

I am not making this up.

Unfortunately.

Quick Hits

2006-02-07T15:43:00.000-05:00

Well, due to reader request:

Harper Cabinet Quick Thoughts:

Veteran Cabinet overall, which is good.
Ablonczy not getting a spot was a shocker.
Only 4 Alberta MP's is also equally shocking (maybe even more so).
I'm lukewarm on the reasons for Fortier's appointment to the Senate (does anyone know why he didn't run?)
I'm equally lukewarm on the reasons for Emerson's defection. It just seems sketchy, and they didn't need that. Belinda? Not exactly, but the similarity is disturbing.

Overall, it's a good Cabinet, with those 2 strange selections notwithstanding (good thing that Paul Martin didn't get elected - I'd have to stop using that "notwithstanding" word).

I'm inclined to give Harper the benefit of the doubt for the time being - he's a heckuva lot smarter than me, although I will say I'm concerned, and I don't like the optics. But rather than rush to judgment immediately, I'll give him some time to see exactly what it is he is planning.

JP Riccardi's OffSeason

I realize that this is kinda sad, but I was more interested in the Molina signing by the Jays yesterday than I was in the Cabinet. Perhaps I'm electioned-out.

But on the topic of the Jays, the Jays have added: Burnett, Ryan, Overbay, Glaus and Molina at the cost of Hudson, Koskie, Batista, Bush, Gross and Jackson. That is an unbelievable offseason of upgrades. I have to post this, because I'm a baseball nerd:

Projected Batting Lineup (most days):
SS Adams
LF Catalonotto
CF Wells
3B Glaus
1B Overbay
DH Hillenbrand
C Molina
RF Rios
2B Hill

Bench:
INF/OF Hinske
OF Johnson
C Zaun
INF McDonald

That's a very stout bench as well (2 players from the everyday roster last year, a stellar defensive replacement, and a sparkplug).

Furthermore, on a position by position basis:
SP - Upgraded
RP - Upgraded
C - Upgraded
1B - Upgraded
2B - Downgraded
SS - Not Changed
3B - Upgraded
LF - Upgraded (due to increased depth)
CF - Not Changed
RF - Upgraded (due to increased depth)
DH - Not Changed

Of course, 2B could be an upgrade if Hill outhits Hudson (a good possibility), and the ripple effects of all the other upgrades could mean further upgrades from CF, LF, RF, SS.

It's going to be an interesting summer.

The Final Stretch

2006-02-05T14:39:00.000-05:00

Well, the end of law school looms ever nearer.

All that stands between me and graduation is Employment, Insurance and Civil Procedure (probably the 3 courses that I will use the most in my articling year, which makes the fact I am taking them last rather ironic).

The fact I've only been here for 3 years absolutely astounds me. It feels like much longer, and yet much shorter at the same time. One of those funny things.

They all tell me that life speeds up as it goes along, and they seem to be right.

Super Bowl Pick

2006-02-04T18:54:00.000-05:00

I've picked against them for 3 straight weeks. And been wrong every time.

So this time, I think they're going win. Hopefully that doesn't jinx them.

And I will be cheering for them.

Pittsburgh Steelers 27, Seattle Seahawks 24

Go Steelers Go!

Live From Ottawa!

2006-01-30T22:49:00.000-05:00

Jevant is in Ottawa until Thursday for a reading week trip of museums, Parliament and other exciting things.

20 Thoughts About Election Night

2006-01-24T22:54:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on election night:

What I Liked:

1) Conservative Government
Apparently, the majority of Canadians agreed that it was time for change - especially due to the voter turnout increase, and the fact that both the CPC and NDP went up significantly in popular support.

2) 10 CPC Seats in Quebec
Not to mention the very strong popular vote. They are the new face of federalism in Quebec.

3) Harper's Victory Speech
Wow. Absolutely fantastic speech. Even friends I know that don't like Harper were impressed by the speech. He nailed it. And I really liked the many PDA's with Laureen and his kids on stage. It was just...neat.

4) Martin Stepping Down
As much as I think that Martin staying on would help the CPC long term (Machiavelli, how I love thee), he needed to go for the good of Canada. And fortunately, he did. This is good for Canada - which, ultimately, it must be all about.

5) True Democracy
Hopefully, this is a sign that we are truly moving back to governments that have accountability and actually change power every once in a while.

6) Bloc'd Out
Severe drop in popular vote. I love Canada, and separatism don't do nobody no good.

7) Apparent Willingness To Cooperate
It is said every time, but I believe that there just might be real co-operation and actual governing this time 'round. We can only hope.

8) CPC-NDP Joint Initiatives
I really like how the CPC can work without the Bloc or the Liberals (hopefully), if they can convince the Independent Shock Jock to work with them. I really think that if they can come up with some good alternatives and maybe even some new ideas we haven't heard yet.

9) Some Went Down
Notably, Svend Robinson and Anne McLellan. Svend, because we don't really need ring theives in the House, and Anne, because I'll never have to hear "WE have NO-THING to HIDE!" ever again. The House immediately went quieter without "Screech".

10) Hope Instead Of Fear
For once, the positive campaign actually won convincingly. The last CPC ad (seen here) was great, and it was really nice to see the happy people, the positive people win.

What I Didn't Like:

1) NDP Reaction To Layton Congratulating Harper
Terrible. Layton (rightly) tried to silence them immediately, but it was a very loud "boo" from large sections of the crowd. That's embarrassing.

2) Extensive News Coverage
I realize that they have to make it dramatic, and they tried to, but seriously - it was BORING for way too long. After it was decided, they needed to get the leaders up there faster. Harper wasn't even speaking until almost 1:30 am EST.

3) Seat Totals
Obviously, nobody will be surprised to hear that I was hoping for more CPC and less Liberals. But I also was disappointed that the Bloc still managed to get 51 seats, the NDP were far too low, and the Greens were shut out. Something needs to be done about that.

4) Seat Placement
I'm not sure why big urban voters don't go CPC, but they don't seem to realize what happens when they don't. Montreal/Toronto/Vancouver all shut out. Interesting to see what happens next time, now that there will be no Cabinet ministers from any of those places.

5) London North-Centre and London West
Sniff. Gretzky was close. I still don't understand what Sue Barnes has done for London (as I've never once seen her name in the paper or anything except around election time), but for some reason, she keeps going back. If anyone has any light on this, please let me know.

6) Rick Mercer
I don't know why, but I just don't like the guy. He does some funny stuff, but he's just a touch too partisan.

7) Poll Reporting With 1 Poll
At one point, it was like "Leading or Elected: LPC 40, CPC 12." Then, we start seeing these ridings, and they have, literally, 5 votes counted. There should be a rule that at least 5% of polls must have been reported, or something like that. It's just annoying.

8) Decrease In Exciting Blogging
I've had a great time reading Coyne, Kinsella and Wells for "less-partisan" punditry, ALW and the rest of Blogging Tories for CPC bent, and Cherniak for his LPC bent (if only for his hilarious "Comical Ali" routine - nothing will beat "RCMP Investigation Into Goodale possibly the last step for a Liberal Majority" post). I know they'll all be around after the election, but it's always extra-fun when everyone is going nuts.

9) 35% of Canadians Eligible Not Voting
Enough said.

10) My Prediction Was Wrong
Seen here. Overestimated the CPC by 11, underestimated the LPC by 8, BQ by 1, NDP by 1 and Andre Arthur by 1.

It's been a fun ride.

Election Prediction

2006-01-23T15:42:00.000-05:00

I figured I better jump on the bandwagon:

135 Seats

95 Seats

50 Seats

28 Seats

Vote!

2006-01-23T12:33:00.000-05:00

Please vote today. Review the issues carefully, make a decision, and get out to the polling station. There's no right to complain, unless you vote.

I'll see you all after the election.

NFL Picks: Conference Championships

2006-01-21T13:20:00.000-05:00

Pittsburgh @ Denver (-3)
I've been mulling over whom to pick in this game all week. Pittsburgh has really impressed me. Denver didn't, but Denver looked really good almost the entire season, so I don't want to slag them too much for one game. And they WERE playing New England. I'm not sure why, but I think I'll give the Broncos the benefit of the doubt.

Denver Broncos (straight up/against spread)

Carolina @ Seattle (-4)
In theory, this should be Seattle. Healthier, better all year, and at home. But I can't shake the feeling that nobody can stop Steve Smith right now, and Jake Delhomme always looks good in the playoffs, and Carolina has just enough confidence to go all the way.

Carolina Panthers (straight up/against spread)

Maude & The Council of Canadians

2006-01-20T10:57:00.000-05:00

I just discovered this little gem while perusing Maude Barlow's blog on Maclean's for the election.

Which I would highly advise AGAINST reading, because it's simply baseless and false allegations.

But anyways, I decided to take a brief jaunt over to the Council of Canadians website, which Maude is the head of.

This is all, of course, equivalent of a Red Sox fan entering Yankee stadium - tread carefully, and don't believe anything you see.

But anyways, I found part of their "Voter's Guide".

HEADLINE: CANADA IS AT RISK

It's time for a fisk. Here we go.

Maude in italics, Jevant in bold.

Canada is at risk! Don't let your anger with the Liberals result in a Bush-style conservative government in Canada. If Stephen Harper and the Conservatives win the federal election, Canada will move decisively into the U.S. orbit.

Canada is at risk? From Bush-style governments? If you read the Conservative platform, you could make a pretty good argument that it is left of many DEMOCRATS in the USA. This is, by far, the most centrist Conservative platform in years. How can Maude possibly say that we'll move decisively into the US orbit? Aren't we already there whether we like it or not, due to the fact we are, you know, their next-door neighbour? Except, right now, all we do is TRY to tick the US off with our petty anti-American crap.

A Conservative government, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, will dismantle Canadian institutions and programs in favour of provincial rights. Women's and minority rights will be endangered.

I watched Harper on the National last night, and he specifically said there would be no "downloading" of powers to the provinces. Just WORKING with them, rather than dictating their own rights and responsibilites to them. And I haven't seen a single "Canadian institution or program" the CPC says they will dismantle - unless you're talking about the gun registry or the GST.

Canadians are rightfully angry with the Liberal Party, which has also allowed health care privatization and steps toward integration with the U.S.

Actually, Maude, we're most angry about the fact they have stolen millions of Canadians' dollars for their own purposes.

In the minority parliament, the balance of power was held by New Democrats and progressive members from all parties who together achieved some progressive gains for Canadians. The minority parliament was proof that even in these difficult and dangerous times, government can work for people.

As far as I can tell, the only thing this government actually got done was passing the same-sex marriage law. In 18 months, regardless of your opinions on same-sex marriage, that's a fairly small amount of "work".

Canadians need another minority government. We therefore urge our members and supporters to help stop the Stephen Harper agenda. But we also urge you to make sure that we elect progressive candidates who will stand up for public medicare and universal child care, and oppose corporate Canada's plan for deep integration with the U.S. More than ever, we will need these courageous voices in our parliament to hold a balance of power.

Now we are opposing "corporate Canada's plan"? Huh? Let's go ahead and destroy the beings running our economy. Drive them all out, and we can all be poor and miserable equally. (That might be a bit harsh, but you get my drift).

This is a crucial time for Canada. Read our Voter's Guide. And vote for the Canada we want.

I laughed out loud. "Vote for the Canada we want." Maude, newsflash. We, as all Canadians do NOT all share your views. "We" don't necessarily want your biased, impartial smear agenda. No. Thank. You.

Liberal Sleaze, Explained

2006-01-20T10:19:00.000-05:00

Well, this just takes the cake.

This hit the independent media (and by that, I meant Nealenews and Bourque) a few days ago, but only was really reported in the MSM recently - CBC and National Post.

This of course is the story of the Conservative MP who was smeared with sexual assault allegations. Fortunately, we now have the means to track phone calls, and the call came from a Liberal candidate's office.

That sound you heard was Paul Martin saying "Oh crap, not again."

But wait, Paul - everything's fine, says the Liberal candidate. What happened was someone sneaked into our campaign offices and made the call! A mischief-maker decided to smear our opponent using one of our phones.

I happen to think that if you're smart, you don't allow random people to make calls from your office.

And the Liberal candidate should never have made up this argument about the mischief-maker. It just sounds sketchy. A far better option would be to have said "I'm terribly sorry, we didn't authorize it, I will immediately fire whomever made this call."

At least that might have been believed.

Now, he sounds like he's just dodging the question, and passing the buck onto some unknown mischief-maker - which isn't even a plausible explanation anyways.

2 Things That Surprise Me

2006-01-18T13:29:00.000-05:00

1) Buzz Hargrove Supports Separatists Over Conservatives
This is just sad.

2) Paul Martin Blasts Layton for not attacking Harper
Is this what he has sunk to?

"Hey Jack. Quit attacking me, start attacking Harper."

The nonsense of this statement is just overwhelming.

The Wheels on the Bus...

2006-01-16T22:54:00.000-05:00

...go round and round.

The surging Conservative support in Quebec is really quite shocking. It's turned into the chic pick, and federalists are moving in droves. Even those of you who aren't voting Conservative, I hope you do agree that a vote for a federalist party is superior to a separatist party.

I've really been fascinated to see that the Liberal attack ads have not (if you can believe polls, which it's tough to do) been really all that effective. It's interesting that some pundits believe that the military ad cancelled any potential benefit they might have gained from the attack ads.

NFL Rewind

2006-01-16T08:33:00.000-05:00

Yes, there will be political posts up later today.

But NFL weekend:

Straight Up: 3-1 (SEA, DEN, CAR) - Overall: 6-2
Against the Spread: 4-0 (SEA, DEN, PIT, CAR) - Overall: 7-1

NRG: A New Band Rises

2006-01-14T16:41:00.000-05:00

The Men Of NRG

This is the beginning of a new band - NRG. They have their own blog (for fan feedback and general updates) over at http://nrgband.blogspot.com. I highly recommend checking them out. More details will be posted soon, including bios, songs and preliminary tour dates. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The picture posted is slightly blurry because it is designed for 1024x780 screen resolution - in other words, perfect for desktop wallpaper.

NFL Picks: Divisional Playoffs

2006-01-13T15:34:00.000-05:00

Without further ado:

Washington @ Seattle (-9.5)
This one shouldn't really be close. As good at the Washington defence is, Seattle should blow them out. At home, rested and with the league MVP? Should be good for a 2 TD win.

Seattle Seahawks.

New England @ Denver (-3)
I think I said somewhere I would never pick against New England until they lost, but I think I'm suffering from PMS (Paul Martin Syndrome), and going back on that word. As good as Brady is, the Broncos know that this is the most vulnerable they've been. As long as the Broncos run the ball (and they will), they should be fine.

Denver Broncos.

Pittsburgh @ Indianapolis (-9.5)
Pittsburgh did get "lucky" - in that Palmer was injured last week, but they still played well. Good enough to beat the Colts? Not likely. I somehow doubt the Colts will win the Super Bowl, but I don't see that defeat happening here. The only question will be whether it will be by more or less than 10 points.

Indianapolis Colts.

Carolina @ Chicago (-3)
Rex Grossman has to be the most overrated 50% passer with 7 career starts in the history of the NFL. His numbers are barely better than Orton's. And John Fox knows how to get the most out of his defence. Should be low scoring. If the Panthers can manage to score early, the Bears will have to start throwing, and once that happens, well, good luck Grossman.

Carolina Panthers.

Straight Up (Current: 3-1): SEA, DEN, IND, CAR
Against Spread (Current: 3-1): SEA, DEN, PIT, CAR

Salsa, Salsa

2006-01-13T02:32:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, Joel Evan went salsa dancing.

Salsa dancing.

Joel Evan.

In London, Ontario.

A Canadian city.

I am not making this up.

==========

Well, now that my contribution has been made to the most oft-repeated joke of the day, I DID go salsa dancing for a good friend's birthday on Wednesday.

No, seriously. Me and my size 13 oxford shoes that weigh about 8 lbs. Oops.

Need I mention I have never gone salsa dancing before? Yeeeah, didn't think so. I figure you all probably could have guessed that.

Then, right off the bat, the instructor says "OK. The first rule is, is that guys lead." I knew that wasn't going anywhere good. I "led". Let's just say that I don't even think I knew what I was leading.

But it was a really fun time, and I really enjoyed myself. Once you have some semblence of an idea as to what you are doing, it's a blast. Just avoid the 8 lb clodhopper shoes.

EDITOR'S NOTE: There was a longer version of this post typed out, but Mozilla crashed. And, unfortunately, the session saver does not remember text in these blogger input windows.

French Debate Thoughts

2006-01-10T22:46:00.000-05:00

I am unfortunately not bilingual, but I loved this little writeup on the French debate, courtesy of CBC.

Martin and Harper clashed over the government's attitude toward the U.S. government. Martin accused of Harper of going to the U.S to insult Canada for not joining the Iraq war. Martin said he went to the U.S. and defended Canadian interests.

But Harper shot back.

"Mr. Martin, it is not the prime minister's role to insult Americans on TV; it is the prime minister's role to defend Canada's interests, and you failed," Harper said.

*crash the cymbals.

That was a good line.

400 Posts

2006-01-10T20:57:00.000-05:00

I just randomly noticed that this is my 400th post when signing into blogger.

Some interesting notes:

First ever use of the word "Ironic" (a favourite of mine) came on April 27, 2004. It has, of course, found it's way into the current title of the blog.

First ever use of the word "Paradox" (another favourite of mine) came on March 29, 2005. As the post title indicates, that was a Tuesday.

First picture posted on October 7, 2004. Nice shot of the Vancouver courthouse.

Lowest number of posts for a month was 1, in December 2004. I'm amazed I still have readers based on that month.

And the most comments I ever received on one thread (as far as I can tell), was The Election Heard 'Round The World on November 3, 2004, with the grand total of 41.

Post-Debate Thoughts

2006-01-09T23:06:00.000-05:00

"If canceling the notwithstanding clause is the best they can do, they're in a lot of trouble." - Chantal Hebert.

She said it.

And didn't Martin want to use the notwithstanding clause a few weeks ago to protect churches? Hmmmm.

HMMMM.

Harper looked very prime ministerial. Very relaxed.

Layton and Duceppe both looked like they were off their game. Not sure why, just not the best performance.

But I can't get over the notwithstanding clause nonsense.

Yes, Paul. Let's have a bunch of unelected judges have complete control over major constitutional law decisions with absolutely no way for the federal government to check their powers.

Yeah, that's democracy. "Right".

NFL WildCard Roundup

2006-01-08T23:25:00.000-05:00

So, I go 3-1 both straight up and against the spread (WAS, NE, CAR yes, CIN no).

Digital, you're 1-3.

:D

UPDATE: Dude has encouraged me to post as a side note that the fact that Carson Palmer was out of the entire game was a significant factor in the Bengals loss. The game might have (and likely would have), turned out much differently.

Sports Updates

2006-01-07T12:44:00.000-05:00

In great news:

- Canucks finally beat the Flames.

- Jevant = 2-0 on WC Weekend. Digital is 0-2.

And THAT'S your midweekend update.

NFL Picks: WildCard Weekend

2006-01-06T12:55:00.000-05:00

Time for NFL Playoff Picks.

I'm going throw a direct challenge to Digital over at All-In-Together-Now. It's time to put some predictions up BEFORE the games are over. I've had it with all your criticism of my picks for the last 2.5 years. It's times to man up and put them up there.

*Jevant flexes.

Ahem.

Washington @ Tampa Bay (-2.5)
The Redskins are hot right now. Tampa has been up and down. Washington is running out veterans at QB and HB (Brunell, Portis), while Tampa is relying on younger players (Simms, Williams). Sounds like a recipe for a Washington win.

Washington Redskins.

Jacksonville @ New England (-7.5)
The Jaguars must be the most underappreciated 12 win team ever. New England is just getting healthy, and they're at home, and they have Brady. I just can't see the Jaguars winning this game.

New England Patriots.

Carolina @ New York (-3)
I like the Panthers as a team, and cheer for them. But the Giants have been very good this year, and Barber has been phenomenal. Carolina has been so up and down, while the Giants have been surprisingly consistent. Delhomme has been there before, Manning hasn't. Defense over offense.

Carolina Panthers.

Pittsburgh (-3) @ Cincinnati
If I'm the Bengals, I'm ticked off. Underdogs at home to a team that you finished higher to in the division. The Steelers will run, but they can't run effectively if they are not ahead. The Bengals win the coin flip, receive, and score a TD on the opening drive. Once they are ahead, they'll be tough. And I just can't pick two number 6 seeds to knock off number 3's.

Cincinnati Bengals.

Straight Up: WAS, NE, CAR, CIN
Against Spread: WAS, NE, CAR, CIN

Add your own picks in the comments section!

Crime, Punishment, and Rehabilitation

2006-01-05T15:11:00.000-05:00

The latest in a series of many blog posts on crime has been spurred by this story.

=====

Rapist's Prison Sentence Triggers Outrage
Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005
There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

"Punishment is a valid purpose," Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued to Judge Edward Cashman.

"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does. The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider," Andreson added.

But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation. But under Department of Corrections classification, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense so he does not qualify for in-prison treatment.So the judge sentenced him to just 60 days in prison and then Hulett must complete sex treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.

Judge Cashman also also revealed that he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench 25 years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment.

"I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value;it doesn't make anything better;it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger,"Cashman explained to the people in the court.

The sentence outraged the victim's family who asked not to be identified.

"I don't like it," the victim's mother,in tears, told Channel 3. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house," she added.

Hulett -- who had been out on bail-- was taken away to start his sentence immediately.

=====
It is these sorts of stories that lead me to believe that mandatory sentences are a must. This judge appears to have ignored the possibility of deterrence that sentencing brings. How is it possible to rape a young child and then receive only 60 days incarceration?

I agree that rehabilitation is important. For some crimes. For others, we need a "one-strike, you're out" policy. 1st degree murder and rape should be mandatory life sentences - real life sentences, not the Mickey-Mouse "life" sentences we use in Canada (where you can often get out after serving a 1/3 of your time, if you're "good").

What most concerns me is this person was deemed "not likely to reoffend". It seems as if this is the starting point. Is this the default opinion? How do they know? Why would we bother to take the risk? Simply because some psychologist/social scientist says that the person is "unlikely to reoffend" - therefore, let's put them back on the streets?

This guy didn't offend once - he offended repeatedly for 3 years. He IS a repeat offender. I could maybe argue someone is "unlikely to reoffend" if they commit a crime once, while drunk at the age of 19. But this man is well beyond that. He is a repeat offender. He has already committed the crime over and over and over again.

Mandatory life. No parole.

It's time to get back to justice.

Top 10 Annoying Celebrities of 2005

2006-01-04T11:58:00.001-05:00

Yes, another Top-10. This list is far from exhaustive, and please feel free to point out any I might have forgotten, or failed to include.

10. Evander Holyfield
Buddy. You're 43. You were quite the fighter in your day. Unfortunately, your career will be forever overshadowed by the Mike Tyson ear-biting. But, regardless of this: you are done. It's time to retire, and maybe then you will be remembered for your 2 heavyweight championships, rather than your pathetic refusal to retire.

9. Kevin Federline/Britney Spears
Okay, okay. Quick - what to do when your star is fading fast? Answer: find a backup dancer who looks like he walked off the set of Trailer Park Boys, marry quickly, conceive and keep the tabloids printing. Deny repeated tabloid reports of marital problems, and assure all is well. Then, when the time is right...

8. Nick Lachey/Jessica Simpson
...confirm the results of your split, and be seen with another celebrity to ensure that your star doesn't completely disappear. It's very clear that all these people need pre-nups: for example, when they married, Nick was the bigger star. Now that Jessica is, she might be on the hook for spousal support. Uh-oh.

7. Lindsay Lohan
I actually feel sorry for her - going from being "not yet a girl, not yet a woman", to being "a woman", to being "a girl", to being "not yet a girl, not yet a woman". It's dizzying.

6. Tom Cruise
"Hi, my name is Tom Cruise. I'm in my 40's, and VERY MUCH IN LOVE WITH KATIE HOLMES. CRAZY ABOUT HER. I ALSO LIKE ALIENS AND MOVIES ABOUT ALIENS. OPRAH CAME FROM AN ALIEN. SO DID STEPHEN SPIELBERG. ACTUALLY, WE ALL DID. LET ME JUMP ON THE COUCH NOW! COUCH-JUMPING...YAAAY!!"

5. Terrell Owens
Yeah, I know. I defended him earlier this year. But now he's just annoying. Fortunately, the sports media has FINALLY let this story go, and we can move on. Of course, it'll start up again in February, when Owens announces his signing with some poor team. Atlanta Falcons, anymore?

4. Bill Clinton
Can anyone tell me what he has done in the last 5+ years? Why does he still have celebrity status? Somehow, he gets more press than his wife, who is a US Senator, considering a presidential run. Priorities might be just a bit out of whack.

3. Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie
Nope, they're still not officially a couple.

Seriously, guys. Really, seriously, seriously, serious. Not a couple.

No coupling here.

2. Anderson CooperWhy is he so famous? Apparently, all a news reporter needs to do to hit stardom is cry on national TV? I can't believe that we haven't seen more crying since. Overhyped, and boring. I just don't get this.

1. Jon Stewart
As far as I can tell, we find THAT face (the face Stewart is making in that picture), to be the funniest look of all time, (forever and ever and ever, amen). Stewart goes through the news, finds funny news stories, and then reports them. He then gives THAT face, and everyone says "ok, time to laugh". Yaaaaaaawn.

UPDATE: Jon Stewart has apparently been picked to host the Oscars. One more reason not to watch stupid award shows.

Nursing Home Visit

2006-01-03T18:40:00.000-05:00

I visited my Oma today at her nursing home after a doctor's appointment.

It was difficult.

I've been there many times before, but for some reason, it struck me particularly hard today. Her entire life consists of sitting in a chair in a small room about the size of a standard university rez room. Goes to the dining room 3 times a day to eat, and maybe once a day will go to some 1/2 hour long activity somewhere else in the building.

Approximately 22 of 24 hours a day for her are spent in that room.

Over the last week, I was stuck in bed due to illness. Basically, I was in my room for approximately 22 of 24 hours for an entire week.

And I was going nuts. Even though I had Season 5 of Seinfeld, and Season 1 of 24 to watch (yes, I watched all of both of those), I was going loony with not doing anything.

And she's been at that nursing home for one and a half years.

Put things in a little bit of perspective for me.

Movies of 2005

2006-01-02T12:01:00.000-05:00

Whereas last year I could make a full top-10 list due to my extensive theatre-going, this year was a little more toned down. Of the 577 movies released in 2005, I have seen 20 of them. In order, then, broken into categories:

MOVIES THEY SHOULD HAVE PAID ME TO WATCH:

20: Stealth - By far, the worst movie on this list (and when you factor in number 19, that's a pretty embarrassing distinction). It probably shouldn't be on the list, but since I only saw 20, they're all going on here. Jamie Foxx probably got killed so early because he realized it sucked, and decided it was well past the time to go.

19: Two For The Money - It only started appearing on advertisements about 3 days before it came out, and I suppose I should have considered this a warning sign. McConaughey/Pacino/Russo was not enough to save this mess. Although, it did provide memories - watching 2 friends sneak 20 hot chicken wings from Loblaws into the theatre was a thing of beauty.

18: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - Perhaps I'm being too harsh. I really liked this movie on first viewing. So I took the little bro (ZMT) to watch it a second time, and he came out of there saying "why did you take me to such a stupid movie?". And all I was left to say was "I'm so sorry, I don't know why I found that funny the first time." ZMT: "Yeah, I don't know why you did either." Me: "Yeah, I know." Nothing like being humbled by the acute analysis of the little bro.

MOVIES THAT CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED:

17: The Longest Yard - It was just...weird. Not bad, not good. Burt Reynolds was funny.

MOVIES I SORTA-LIKED BUT IN HINDSIGHT WOULDN'T PAY FOR:

16: Constantine - I really liked this on first viewing, but it might have been because it was in Montreal in a really cool theatre on St. Catherine Street with 4 levels and rumble lazy-boy seats. I rented it on DVD, but didn't finish it. So, truly, enjoyed once, but wouldn't watch again.

15: Kingdom of Heaven - It pains me to put a Ridley Scott movie this low, but it was bo-ring. When you walk out of the theatre, and you can honestly say that the "best" part of the movie was Orlando Bloom's suprisingly strong acting...well...let's just say there's not much worse of a way to be damned by faint praise.

14: Murderball - It looked like it had potential to be good, but really? It was just plain boring. There were funny parts, and it was sweet to see Canada beat the USA at something other than hockey, but it really wasn't that interesting. How dare I knock an Oscar pick? Why do I care?

MOVIES PERFECT FOR MID-EXAM DESTRESSING:

13: Sahara - I watch a lot of these types of movies during the year. This movie was very similar to National Treasure, except (logically), in the Sahara. McConaughey/Cage, Zahn/Bartha, and Cruz/Kruger. Look it up. Funny and actiony goodness.

12: Transporter 2 - I haven't seen the first one, but you don't really need to. Jason Statham is just plain cool. And this movie has some of the coolest pure hand-to-hand fight scenes out there. And the villian is uber-creepy/gross. I'm not sure if they were trying to make her look hot-scary, because she just looked plain scary. Might have been the most unrealistic movie that tried to be realistic, but it was enjoyable.

11: Fantastic Four - This movie was better than everyone gives it credit for. Great wise-cracking all around, and there were some very cool scenes. I doubt it will franchise ala Batman, X-Men, or Spiderman, but it was pretty good.

10: Mr. and Mrs. Smith - The most ironic thing about this movie was the strong "pro-marriage" aspect, ironic, considering this movie led to the destruction of a real-life marriage. Come on, Brad and Angelina. Let's just admit you're a couple already. (Note: I refuse to use acronyms like "Brangelina" or "TomKat". They are just so annoying). But the movie was pretty fun, even if rather scripted. Vince Vaughn is always a laugh.

9: The Island - The best of the exam de-stressers. I'm a sucker for one-world-government style political thrillers (see Equilibrium, 1984, Animal Farm), and this one was pretty darn good. Watching Ewan McGregor play an American imitating a Scotsman was pretty funny. And it was overall a good movie. Worth watching again for sure.

MOVIES THAT JUST BARELY MISSED "MUST BUY" STATUS:

8: King Kong - It might have been the unreasonably high expectations that knocked this down farther than I was hoping for, or (more likely), the length. It was just too long. A very good movie, but it could have (and should have) been about 45 minutes shorter. Peter Jackson needs to realize that if the plot isn't moving as fast as LOTR, it shouldn't be the length of LOTR. Overrated only because expectations were sky-high.

7: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - As Kong was hurt by its length, this movie was hurt by being just a little (just a little) too goofy. Johnny Depp was excellent in the lead role. It was fun, and very well done. But they just pushed a little too far, and the ending was weak. But still an excellent movie, and very much worth watching.

6: Serenity - I had limited interest in seeing this movie when it came out, and I still couldn't tell you the names of any of the actors in it (or the character's names, for that matter). And for the first hour or so, I had no idea what was going on. But the last hour was great - pulled it all together nicely. A very, very good story. I have no idea why the TV show was dropped. This should be the next "Star Wars" sci-fi series.

MOVIES THAT MUST BE OWNED (AKA "THE TOP 5"):

5: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - And here we go with the top 5. This was the first Star Wars prequel that was actually a good movie - not just a good movie for Star Wars geeks. Solid acting, fast-moving plot and a genuinely good story. Ewan McGregor carries the good guys, Ian McDermid runs the evil show, and the rest of the characters cooperate nicely.

4: The Interpreter - I really liked this movie (probably because of my interest in international law and the UN, etc.). Good acting by the two leads. A good tight drama with enough intrigue/tension to keep you on the edge of your seat.

3: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - This movie was really good. Everyone will say it was just trying to be LOTR, but it wasn't. Far brighter and happier. Stayed close to the book. Started a little slow, although it did build anticipation for getting into Narnia (which I thought ultimately was more effective). The kids were pretty decent actors/actresses (especially Lucy and Peter), and most of their scenes were either helped along by the Witch or the Beavers.

2: Four Brothers - Best revenge flick ever. Great acting by all 4 leads, with good character development and identification. Perhaps buoyed by low expectations. One of the few movies where I enjoyed a car chase scene. Fantastic soundtrack the whole way through, and was a great view into downtown Detroit.

1: Batman Begins - The best comic-book movie of all time, and one of the few (Spiderman 1/2 are the others) to actually transcend the comic-book genre and become a truly good movie. Helped along by fantastic actors throughout the cast. Tight, fast-moving, entertaining and yet able to catch all the right emotional buttons. Easily number 1 on the year, and definitely top 5 all time. Full marks.

THE IRONIC PARADOX OSCAR PICKS:
Best Actor: Christian Bale, Batman Begins/Johnny Depp, Charlie & The Chocolate Factory
Best Actress: Nicole Kidman, The Interpreter
Best Supporting Actor: Ewan McGregor, Star Wars Episode III/Adrien Brody, King Kong
Best Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton, Chronicles of Narnia
Best Soundtrack: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Four Brothers
Best Director: Christopher Nolan, Batman Begins
Most Underrated Actor: Orlando Bloom, Kingdom of Heaven

Blogging Begins

2006-01-02T00:47:00.000-05:00

Blogging will resume in earnest. 2nd term. It has begun.

For some bizarre reason, pictures are not working in blogger right now. There really are a lot of kinks to be worked out of this system.

Top Ten Lists of 2005 (blogs, movies, etc.) to follow this week.

Happy New Year!

2006-01-01T00:02:00.000-05:00

To 2006!

OK (ok!); BLUE JAYS (blue jays!); LET'S, PLAY, BALL!!

2005-12-29T23:11:00.000-05:00

There's a lot of people who have knocked the Blue Jays recent trades/additions in the name of "I love Orlando Hudson" or "I hate giving up prospects" or "$55 million dollars (or $47 million dollars) is ridiculous for a pitcher".

Well, here's some facts of life.

Fact of life #1: In the sports world, if you want to win you have to spend money.

Fact of life #2: In the MLB sports world, if you are a Toronto Blue Jays GM, and you want to lure free agents to Toronto, you have to either a) overpay, or b) extend the number of years on the deal, or c) both. Most often (c).

This is where the 2 pitchers signings come in.

BJ Ryan, $47 million dollars/5 years

It's a lot of money. But necessary. And a significant upgrade over Batista. A power throwing lefty closer who solidifies the entire bullpen. Arguably the best closer on the market, or, if not, the best long-term contract signed by a reliever this summer.

And, he's 29, turning 30.

AJ Burnett, $55 million/5 years

Again, a lot of money. But for the premier free agent pitcher on the market (regardless of how decidedly weak that market is), it's a bargain. No-hitter. Declining ERA over the last 4 years. 200 IP's on multiple occasions. Great number 2 option behind Halladay. Keeps the ball on the ground, or throws it right past them (100 mph fastball).

And he's 29.

Now, some more facts.

Fact of life #3: Trades require giving up prospects, often good ones.

Fact of life #4: Trades require value for value.

And this is where the 2 trade acquisitions come in.

Lyle Overbay, 1B

A legitimate .300/20-25 HR/80-100 RBI threat. Great defensive 1B (which will help Adams/Hill with their transition). Good OBP. At the cost of a OF who would never see light in the Jays OF, a SP who wasn't in the team's plans anymore, and a prospect SP - of which there were a surplus in the Jays system.

Upgrade in both offensive and defensive aspects of 1B for the Jays.

And he's only 28.

Troy Glaus, 3B

A legitimate .260/35-40 HR/100+ RBI threat. The real power bat the Jays haven't had since Carlos Delgado. Makes the rest of the lineup all the better, providing protection for everyone. Moving back to the AL cannot hurt. It did cost them a good 2B (Hudson), but the Jays have Hill, who will likely equal, or just as likely, surpass Hudson's offensive output.

And he's only 29.

The Jays dramatically improved their lineup, rotation and bullpen through these moves. They have a better 1B, 3B, SP, and CP as a result of this, at the loss of a slightly weaker defensive position at 2B. All 4 players added are under the age of 30, which means they're at the height of their production. That's a heckuva offseason.

Go Jays Go!

Merry Christmas!

2005-12-24T23:48:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas to one and all!

And yes, I promise, there will be more blogging after the break. I've been avoiding my computer at all costs recently - part of the detoxifying process.

Update - Debate Thoughts/Barbie Mutilation

2005-12-19T15:31:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a while, and I apologize. Your complaints about lack of posting have been heard. I guess I should be thankful that there HAVE been complaints about lack of posting, so I am. To my readers, thank you.

I was planning to live-blog the election debate, but ended up getting a London Knights ticket an hour before the debate was supposed to begin, and thus I ended up going to that instead. I did tape the debate, however. Impression? Decidedly boring. There were a few good shots from Duceppe, a few good ones by Martin, a few good ones by Harper, and a few good ones by Layton.

Impressions?

Martin: Overall, a good performance. Devoid of much substance (what else is new), but he survived. And he did do a good job with hammering Duceppe on Quebec.

Harper: Overall, a very happy performance. He smiled about 10 times more than the other leaders combined (which I liked), and he looked fairly respectable. The first question was stacked against him, but he got better as he went along, and lucked out by getting the last closing statement (which he nailed).

Layton: I'm sorry, but I laugh whenever he talks. He's just so goofy. And he mentioned Ed Broadbent 7 times. I have no idea what"Ed Broadbent's plan is", but Layton seems to like him. And his solution for all problems were "send more NDP MP's to the House". Those 2 lines were the debate for him. Although I did think he did an overall good job, it just seems as if he's been marginalized.

Duceppe: No mistakes, hammered away at the Liberals. He always looks good in these debates, because nobody ever attacks him.

So that's the quick debate (part 1) wrap.

In more interesting news, apparently kids like to mutilate their Barbies, like no other doll.

How Dare They

2005-12-11T20:09:00.000-05:00

Scott Reid has insulted every single Canadian.

As reported by both CBC and CTV, Scott Reid has stated that:

"Don't give people $25 a day to blow on beer and popcorn.", in reference to the CPC's plan for childcare.

I wish I wasn't in the middle of exams so I could properly and extensively rant.

This is, in one or or less, despicable. How dare the Liberals suggest that Canadian parents would take money designated for childcare and use it on themselves.

The implication, of course, is that if we don't have the Liberals' state-funded, state-controlled system of child care, parents cannot be trusted to look after their own children.

The arrogance of this statement is overwhelming. And disgusting.

I realize that Scott Reid has apologized and said they were "dumb" comments, but the patronizing attitude that was displayed is obviously his true opinion.

And, apparently, the opinion of others in the Liberal party.

Still, there is nothing in the Conservative proposal that would force parents to spend the money on child care, a spokesperson told CBC News Online on Sunday.

Of course not. Because the Conservative Party of Canada trusts that Canadian parents are interested in the good of their Canadian children, and would assume that Canadian parents would be applying the money towards their children's best interests.

But, apparently, the Liberals have so low a view of the Canadian people that they can't even be expected to care for their children anymore.

Furthermore, their plan ignores the 47% of Canadian parents who choose to stay home with their kids, and the vast majority (77%) who wish for "any option other than public daycare" for their children.

I won't dispute that the CPC's plan isn't perfect - it's not. A greater focus (much greater) should be towards low-income families, and I would suggest that the plan be adopted to reflect this. However, this does not change the fundamental principles of the parties' respective plans.

The Conservative Party of Canada trusts the Canadian parent to look after their own children.

The Liberal Party of Canada doesn't.

I'll Have The Canadian Supreme, Gonthier J. Edition

2005-12-09T12:42:00.000-05:00

I found this internet quiz courtesy of The New Step.

Which Canadian Supreme Court Justice Are You?

Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Doherty Gonthier

Apparently, I'm Gonthier.

This is kinda strange, because I took this quiz last night when I wasn't able to blog I ended up being Bastarache.

And I expected to be something more along the lines of Major.

So the test might be somewhat flawed.

But fun, nonetheless. At least I'm not L'Heureux-Dube.

Despair, Followed By Sweet, Sweet Understanding

2005-12-05T17:03:00.000-05:00

Someone apparently found my website by googling:

pure nerd geek dork

Oh yeah, that's me, 3rd down on the list.

If it wasn't for this post, I'd be really depressed right now.

*sigh of relief.

Child Care Done Right

2005-12-05T08:50:00.000-05:00

This is the best, and only, way for the government to administer child care.

It is ridiculous that parents who choose to stay at home with their children, or choose to enroll their children in a daycare that is not sanctioned by the state would be both a) forced to contribute to the national daycare scheme, and b) be kept from receiving any monies from the government to help with the costs of daycare.

The Liberals "national daycare program" is a joke, and coupled with their refusal to provide funds to stay-at-home parents or to parents who decide not to utilize the national daycare scheme, leads their position to further shame.

The Conservatives plan to give money directly to the parents to utilize as they wish for their own child's care is far superior. Parents, not the government, know what is best for their children. Thankfully, one of the parties seems to realize that.

Dolphins Win!

2005-12-04T19:45:00.000-05:00

Ronnie Brown (#23) on the way to a 4th quarter TD.

I'm a huge Miami Dolphins fan. Huge comeback 24-23 win today over the hated Buffalo Bills. Just had to put this pic up. Wish I could have been there.

Searching For A Clear Response

2005-12-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

55% of Canadians (polled) say that Stephen Harper is "too extreme" to be prime minister.

Can someone who would agree with this sentiment please explain to me why?

I think that should be a mandatory question on all these polls. Because I've rarely heard a reasonable response to this question. I'm honestly curious - trying to foster a reasonable, calm debate, so please respond in the same manner.

I realize it is entirely possible that polls are skewed, or simply wrong. That might be the most likely response. But I honestly am curious.

The "How Long Do We Give Them" Rule

2005-12-02T20:16:00.000-05:00

Since I'm sure some of my faithful blog readers are getting tired with the spat of election blogging that has been going on around here at the Ironic Paradox, I've decided to change things up a little bit.

Also, I've been reading these 5 blogs recently, which have been keeping me very much amused as I struggle through the last weeks of this term. Really, what's the purpose of blogs if they're aren't funny occasionally. These 5 have taken that to a new exciting and wonderful level and are funny ALL the time. Let's see if my linking to them gets some more traffic.

Afterall, like all bloggers, I'm addicted to blog traffic.

But anyways. The point of this post is really just to inspire comments, so if you're reading this, you better be commenting. I don't have any comment verification, or comment checking, or any of that. So you can post as anonymously or as spammishly as you want.

The question:

How long do you give a fellow friend to continually:

a) Talk about their new significant other (SO)

b) Hang out exclusively with their new SO

...before you are allowed to:

c) complain/ignore them when they talk about their SO?

d) complain about how they've been ignoring hanging out with their "other" friends?

There it is.

And, no, this isn't inspired by my personal contact/friendships with anyone.

Well, not really anyways.

Well, maybe it is. But you can imagine if it wasn't.

First Fisk Of The Election

2005-12-02T16:17:00.000-05:00

Well, I was poking around, and came across this CTV.ca story that demands a fisk:

"Martin Says Harper "Being Silent" on Key Issues

Canadian Press

TORONTO — Prime Minister Paul Martin says the Jan. 23 election is a fundamental clash of vision and values between his Liberals and Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Probably true. Can't really dispute this. Hopefully he won't devolve into a "anyone who votes anything other than Liberal will be destroying the country".

Martin says only he or Harper will emerge as prime minister after the election, suggesting New Democrat supporters who strongly who oppose the Conservatives should vote Liberal to ensure there's no change in government.

I'm curious to know what New Democrats think about this. Although I think he's probably right (in that I would be shocked if Layton won the election), this seems just like more fearmongering by Martin to grab some weak NDP support (which worked brilliantly in the last election campaign).

Speaking to the Canadian Auto Workers, Martin accused Harper of "being silent'' on key issues such as the economy, the environment and child care.

Apparently Martin missed the GST announcement yesterday. Because we all know that taxes have nothing to do with the economy...oh wait. And "the environment and child care"? What, exactly, have we heard from the Liberals on this?

This is a good pandemic evaluation of the the election campaign thus far. So far, we've heard that:

The CPC will cut the GST
The CPC will allow a free vote on SSM, and after Parliament has an actual free vote on it, will leave the issue alone and respect the decision
The CPC will set up an independent office, separate from Parliament to deal with government corruption
The CPC will cut waiting times at hospitals, without implementing a parallel private health care system

and...

The LPC disagrees with the GST cut (regardless of the fact they claimed they would do the same for the past 12 years), instead, saying their tax cut plan is better
The LPC will clean up government (trying the old "democratic deficit" trick again)
The LPC is the only party that can hold the country together - see Quebec (yeah, I'm looking at Quebec, and I see the highest BQ support ever, thanks to the sponsorship scandal)
The LPC is the only party that truly espouses Canadian values (and if you disagree with them, you are not Canadian)
The LPC loves Canada, and the CPC doesn't

Where, in there, do we see Martin saying anything about the economy, environment, or child care?

He said "maybe he (Harper) is silent because he doesn't want to let you know his intentions regarding private health care.''

Uh...see above (point 4 under the CPC)? And, quick - who does Paul Martin use for his health care? Oh yeah, that's right. Private doctors out of the States.

Martin again dismissed the Conservatives' promise to cut the GST, saying Canadians would be far better off with the Liberals' plan to cut income taxes.

But: "I think the [GST] is an incredibly stupid, inept tax .... I will send the tax back to the drawing board."-- Paul Martin

He also suggested only the Liberals could convince Quebec to stay in Canada and lead the federal cause in the next referendum campaign, and said he was proud to campaign on the record of his 17-month-old minority government.

What record? Highest level of BQ support ever?

And most of all - where is any sort of announcement of anything that he will actually do to improve the country? Apparently, the country is perfect under the Liberals, and they'll do nothing to change it, because they, and only they, are true Canadians.

You'll have to excuse me for a moment...

Kim? We Don't Care

2005-12-01T23:19:00.000-05:00

Kim Campbell says that Harper won't win.

I guess she IS an expert on how to lose a federal election...

Elections News And Punditry

2005-12-01T10:08:00.000-05:00

Everyone says that this election is going to be the "dirtiest election in history", but I think I've heard that about every single federal election we have been through, so I'm not convinced. I've heard some postives already though:

The leaders debates will a) be better, and b) be more extensive.

I really like the idea that they are doing 4 - it can hardly hurt. And the only reason it's a good thing (because Canadian federal election leader debates are normally brutal), is because of the fact that they are implementing a closed mike system. Every single leader/party has been guilty of simply yelling over the other parties in an attempt to make their voice heard. It's pathetic. Glad to know they are finally switching over to a much more civil, orderly and useful system (based, ironically, on the US presidental debate model. Who says the Americans don't have something right?)

Greens, clean.

The Green Party apparently has decided they are going to run a clean campaign (which makes sense in more ways than one). Negative attack ads have their place (if they are accurate), but it's an excellent move on the Greens' part - they need to get news somehow, and be known for something.

2 good bits of general news in one election day? Not bad at all.

Alas, more happened yesterday.

Just so everyone realizes that I can be genuinely critical of the CPC, they executed one of the stupidest moves of the election so far by getting their "OMNI's" mixed up. They then compounded the problem by failing to simply admit their mistake. If you make a mistake, simply admit it, apologize, and move on. This wasn't a critical news slip, but they've been quickly making it worse by trying to recover. Sometimes the best way to deal with a problem is simply to tackle it head on - which leads into the next topic:

I should have posted this yesterday, so I could be backed up today, but I didn't get around to it. Harper's decision to quickly and bluntly state his party's same-sex marriage stance right off the bat was an excellent move. Again, I should have posted this yesterday, so this story would have been backing me up, but basically he's attempted to put it behind him. Good for him. There's no hidden agenda, and he's willing to let it go if it fails a free vote in the House. Of note is that he says that he will let his Cabinet ministers vote with their conscience - even if that means the motion failing. *ahem - I'm looking at you, Paul Martin. This is another interesting related story.

Tories to reduce the GST. This shouldn't come as a surprise - it's been talked about for a while. One thing is for sure though. I'd like to see Paul Martin try to steal that campaign plank. I'm sure he will try. Harper better have a kill-stroke to that. Martin says his tax plan is more comprehensive, but I thought it was Martin not 8 months ago saying that any tax cuts were completely irresponsible?

Links: most are h/t Nealenews

Belinda, Polls, Media Coverage, "Loving Canada"

2005-11-30T09:40:00.000-05:00

And the first real election blog begins. *cracks knuckles

News clippings, then my thoughts:

1) Belinda has invited her volunteers from the last election to help her win Newmarket-Aurora this time around.

Gutsy, Belinda, Gutsy. It's actually rather impressive that she's willing to subject herself to the type of abuse that she's clearly going to get from former supporters, many of whom I know personally, and many of whom feel they were stabbed in the back when Belinda crossed the floor in May.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this - Belinda is more than permitted to request help from whomever she wants. I do wonder, however, if she might regret this. As outlined in that article, I'm sure there are a lot of her volunteers who still feel that she "sold out every single person who volunteered for her".

Will she win re-election? Possibly, but I bet that this will only encourage those who felt betrayed to simply fight harder to bring her down.

2) Paul Martin's lead among support from immigrants and visible minorities might be starting to dwindle.

This is both surprising and extremely interesting news. Martin has historically been able to count on those votes. If he can't, it will be interesting to see exactly where they go. Also interesting is the Globe's speculation that this is because of the sponsorship scandal, and the corruption of the Liberal government that the CPC, BQ and NDP have been pushing at every opportunity.

3) We've heard about the Conservatives "hidden agenda" for the last 12 years, and recently, we learn that more Canadians are worried about a Liberal "hidden agenda". But now, maybe, we have another "hidden agenda" - the media's.

I'm really trying to restrict my media bashing as much as possible. Right to free speech, free expression, etc.

But regardless of your partisan views, this really is incredible:

Martin's questions were lob balls -- on things like whether he would use negative campaign ads, to which he basically replied "yes", once you cut through all the bafflegab.

Most tellingly, Martin wasn't even asked about the Gomery report and Liberal corruption.

In fact, he was already walking away from reporters before one of them finally asked whether he thought he deserved a majority government in light of Judge John Gomery's findings. Martin simply ignored the question.

Okay, so this is the first "barrage". Pretty easy questions.

Then, we get Harper's first questions:

Harper, by contrast, just a few questions into the campaign, was asked something that would have brought joy to any Liberal spin doctor's heart. He was asked, "Do you love the country?"

That is unbelievable.

I do realize that journalists have their own opinions, and they are clearly allowed to have them. I'm not suggesting that they have to ask each leader the same questions, far from it.

Let me just make this clear though:

Martin: "Will you use attack ads?" (Analogy: "Will you put up signs during the election?")

Harper: "Do you love Canada?" (Analogy: "Do you support kicking little puppies?")

4) Unbelievably, Martin has latched onto this question, and is attacking Harper over it.

It is absurd that a) the media would ever ask the leader of a federalist party whether they actually loved Canada, and b) that a Prime Minister would stoop to the level of implying that this same leader was unpatriotic.

Regardless, Harper did deal with this in perfect fashion:

Later, Harper shot back: "Today the Liberals suggested that I do not love this country. They suggested that people who don't vote Liberal don't love this country. Now that is what we're going to expect. It's mean and it saddens me."

He said he did not doubt the Liberals love Canada, "but the problem is they love power too much."

Harper refuses to stoop to Martin's level - he assumes and knows that Martin does love Canada. Of course all the federalist party leaders love Canada. Harper's comments = positive. Martin's comments = negative.

Isn't it sad that Martin can add nothing more to the debate than "This morning I am told that Stephen Harper had a little difficulty saying this, so let me say it: I love Canada."

Martin's desperate. He's scared. And he should be, if this is the best he can do.

All links: h/t Nealenews

A La Derecha: Martin's Hidden Agenda

2005-11-29T10:58:00.000-05:00

A La Derecha: Martin's Hidden Agenda

This is excellent.

BQ Campaign Song

2005-11-29T10:54:00.000-05:00

The new BQ Campaign Song is pretty funny. I have no idea what they are saying at all - but it's pretty catchy.

It must have something to do with Gomery, but whatever it's about, it's a cool song.

h/t Federal Election News and Rumours

Running Out Of Days

2005-11-29T10:46:00.000-05:00

I really wish that I had infinite time to blog and read news.

So we're into an election - a long one: 56 days. Speculation will come later.

I love the BJ Ryan signing by the Blue Jays (as reported on Saturday, confirmed on Monday). Even though it cost a lot of money, it was necessary, and apparently Giles and Burnett are possibly on the way. If we get those 2 guys, and trade some spare parts (see Hinske, maybe Hudson and an OF) we should be able to pick up another mid-level starter or relief help. They're looking very good.

My Advanced Constitutional Paper on the Chaoulli decision and the right to health care in Canada is nearing completion. Citations are always a joy - or something like that.

I actually got a good sleep last night - for the first time in forever. I was able to fall asleep before 2 am, which was nice. I'm always an insomniac around exams - just can't shut the brain off. Seasons 3/4 of Seinfeld helps with relaxation.

BJ Ryan Signing

2005-11-26T17:41:00.000-05:00

That's B.J. Ryan - new closer for the Toronto Blue Jays.

47 million dollars over 5 years is the reported deal - which is a gross overpayment.

But maybe a necessary one. The Jays do need a solid closer, and a 6-6 lefthanded fireballer is pretty much as good as they come.

In order to get starting pitchers (Burnett) to sign with you, you have to assure them their wins. And Ryan is a huge step in that direction.

Overpayment, yes. But potential payoff is huge. Looks good for now. Now go sign Burnett.

Go Jays Go.

Grey Cup Pick

2005-11-24T11:51:00.000-05:00

Well, I almost got the "Printers leading B.C. to a comeback win" part correct, but thanks to a horrible non-call, CBC lost my Grey Cup viewership this year. Too busy to watch Edmonton play Montreal (of course, if it was B.C. playing Montreal, I wouldn't be nearly as busy).

Without further ado, then:

Montreal Alouettes 33, Edmonton Eskimos 26

LL.B. v. J.D.

2005-11-23T19:51:00.000-05:00

There's been a significant amount of discussion over the past little while regarding changing the name of the degree we give at Western Law.

Currently, UWO Law gives the LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws). This is the same as Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. This reflects our Commonwealth roots.

There is question regarding changing the letters to J.D. (Juris Doctorate). This is the designation in the USA, and other countries around the world.

Many argue that the difference is purely semantical, which, is in part true. The type of degree will not change at all. It will still be an undergraduate degree. This is regulated by the province.

However, there are already technical differences that make our LL.B. different from every other LL.B. in the world - including the Commonwealth ones. The Canadian LL.B. is a second-entry degree; different from all the other LL.B.'s in the world that can be first-entry post-secondary degrees. In fact, Canadian law students who receive the LL.B. are the only second-entry degree holders that fail to have the "doctorate" designation in the letters behind their name (with the exception of the University of Toronto - who switched from the LL.B. to the J.D. several years ago).

J.D. better reflects the fact that the degree is second-entry. When Canada switched to the second-entry model of legal education (back in the 1950's), they made a break from the Commonwealth, and adopted the American style of legal education. The J.D. is also the official designation of NAFTA.

This change from LL.B. to J.D. is not revolutionary, it is 50 years overdue. Western Law should begin awarding a J.D. to better reflect the fact that the Canadian law school experience is a second-entry program. Although the distinction is largely semantical, we should not be scared to implement a change when the change is logical, overdue, and a clearer and better description of the process required to gain a legal education in Canada.

Quote

2005-11-23T08:56:00.000-05:00

It's reasons like this that I realize people tend to avoid politicians:

Asked why his government gave an untendered contract to Liberal operative David Herle to help write last week's mini-budget, Martin said: "...(Canadians) want to know the Leader of the Opposition's position on health care. They want to know what the Leader of the Opposition's position is on the strength of the Canadian federation ... they want to know what his agenda is and why he keeps it hidden."

Completely ignores the question. It's one thing to say that he's not going to answer that, but it's another to simply change the topic completely and throw mud on the questioner.

Sleazy and sad.

PETA = CRAZA

2005-11-22T16:02:00.000-05:00

First off, I like animals. That puppy in this post is very cute.

Secondly, I read this today:

"We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would surprise many people." - Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University

Very rarely do I categorically disagree with university professors, especially those from Oxford. But this time I will. Therefore, I shall produce another quote:

"The brain of a goldfish is so small, and memory so bad, that the fish's memory will last only as long as it takes to swim from one side of a 2.5 foot tank to the other. This ensures the fish can have a long and happy life in the aquarium, because it will never get bored of the tank."

They seem just a little contradictory, no?

But anyways - what set me off? This site, and with the kids magazine that has this picture:

Wow.

I mean - come on. This is a kids magazine, and you'd think that all fisherpeople are bloody murderers based on this picture. Blood and guts flying everywhere.

Way over the top.

h/t Nealenews

Best Political Pic Ever

2005-11-21T19:33:00.000-05:00

See, some conservatives do good things in their spare time. Ups to Justin for this fantastic little pic.

CD Review

2005-11-19T19:20:00.000-05:00

Wherever You Are - Third Day

I'm always a sucker for a new CD, and generally tend to listen to them repeatedly, soon wearing them out so they are no longer exciting.

This one, however, seems like a keeper.

Tunnel is a good starting track. Very "top-40ish" - sort of generic, but it's upbeat and easy to remember. Eagles (written by Brad Avery, instead of the majority of the rest of the CD (Mac Powell)) takes it down a notch. Cry Out To Jesus slows it down some more - a real waltzy tune.

I Can Feel It speeds things back up again. Great guitar work, and good drums. Keep On Shinin' seems out of place in the CD - one of the few songs on the CD that is difficult to sing along to. It's also overly repetitive, probably the worst song on the album. Communion is a nice ballad, almost as if they decided each song needs a good acoustic or a capella song. It works.

Carry My Cross may be the single best Christian/Worship song I've ever heard. Great vocals, excellent buildup to a powerful conclusion. How Do You Know reminded me too much of I Can Feel It, and the latter is a better song. Mountain of God was a little boring. Slower and too syrupy.

Love Heals Your Heart is about as sappy as it sounds. The Sun Is Shining, although musically very different from Keep On Shinin' - you just can't use the same word like "shining" twice in one CD's track titles. Rise Up is a great conclusion to the CD, pulling in elements from the entire CD - good vocals, solid drums and a great underlying guitar.

4/5 Stars.

CFL: Conference Finals

2005-11-18T14:19:00.000-05:00

Unlike last week (1-1), I have much less free time right now. So we're going with the short and sweet approach:

Montreal @ Toronto:
I haven't really been sold on either of these teams all year. And now Toronto has lost John Avery. Montreal's defence has been bad, but I think that they're just (barely) good enough to hold Toronto's "less than stellar" offence in check. Should be low scoring.

Pick: Montreal Alouettes

Edmonton @ B.C.
Edmonton has been so up and down this year. Week to week, you never know what you are going to get. BC was almost unbeatable for the first half of the season, and then was almost unwinnable in the 2nd half. Everyone seems to be counting them out now. Look for the Lions to win when Buono changes QB's midway through the 3rd quarter, and Printers leads a comeback.

Pick: B.C. Lions

No Elections, Period

2005-11-17T21:26:00.000-05:00

This has to be the worst possible argument I have ever heard.

I'd like to look Paul Martin in the eye and ask him when he would like to have an election - and I'd like an honest answer. Probably, deep in his heart, he wishes for never. That would probably be his first choice of action.

But it really is incredible. I realize that everyone is talking about this, but I just had to.

There's always a religious holiday at some point.

And truly, if Martin was oh-so-worried about an election over Christmas, he would take the opposition's deal to postpone a campaign until after the holidays. Even though there is nothing that they can do to force the government to reconvene Parliament, have a non-confidence vote, and make the government fall on January 9th, if Paul Martin was truly interested in avoiding an election campaign over Christmas, he would agree to this deal.

Addicted to E-Mail

2005-11-16T23:55:00.000-05:00

I've realized I'm becoming "one of those people" who love email.

You know what I mean. When you're bored for about 3 seconds and you happen to be near a computer, you instinctively quickly open your e-mail - "just in case".

Never mind the fact that if someone really desparately needed to get in touch with you they could either a) call you on your cell phone that you keep firmly attached to your body, or b) message you on MSN Messenger that you always keep online (although you usually keep it to the "away" or "busy" settings). I might have a new email! Better check!

Truth be told, this is why I would never, ever want one of those "Blackberry" devices. Because then I would get a handy little beep from my pocket whenever I got a new email.

Not disputing that this might be handy, at times (and the fact that it has access from pretty much anywhere in the world is pretty super-fantastic cool), but it would, I believe, increase (rather than decrease) my reliance on this wonderful thing we have created. And that's the last thing I need.

Wait, gotta go check...