So, despite a long, convoluted dream last night wherein I was attending Parliament in order to participate in the vote on Bill C-50 (that's the budget bill that has those pesky immigration clauses stuck in there) and Bill C-50 was actually voted down, the Liberals in fact, in real life, did not show up in great number to vote and so C-50 is now on its way to the Senate.
What a weird dream. Stephen Harper was there.[1] Mostly, though, it was a motley assortment of people I didn't recognize. I was in Parliament for the first time myself, as I'd realized it was time I did my civic duty, got involved, and voted. But then it turned out that the official representative for my position was also there, so I was bumped from the voters' list. He was a youngish guy with salt-and-pepper hair. He was nice enough, and promised to show me all the ropes, but first, we had to go listen to a few speeches and then vote on the bill. To my horror, it was like everything was predetermined. The room was partitioned into two sections, and I found myself and my rep sitting in the section of the room for the people voting "Yes" to the bill! I didn't want to vote yes, and I couldn't believe my rep was voting yes either. Plus, the "no" side of the room was fairly isolated, out of view of the speakers' podium. This didn't feel fair.
Speeches went by in a blur, and the voting (in which I did not get to participate - boo - nor with which method I was happy) was over before I knew it. But the "no" vote squeaked out a victory! I was so happy. My rep looked kind of relieved too, and somehow I found out that he'd only been voting as per party lines.[2] Anyway, for now, in the room, the mood was electric, as the vote meant: There'd be a summer election after all! Exciting.
But alas - I woke up this morning and when I saw the local newspapers did not have a giant "ELECTION" headline blazoned across their covers, I knew for sure that it was just a dream and nothing more....
[1] *shudder*
[2] I fear to know what that might possibly indicate, deep down in my subconscious, about my political affiliations.
Showing posts with label newspeak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspeak. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Oh yeah, baby ...
So I was looking at the CBC website today and decided to check up on Feedback comments to the Childs story to see if CBC had bothered posting my reply and/or implementing any of my suggestions.
It took me forever to find that particular Feedback section of CBC’s website for some reason (I ended up having to do a search on the site for "Childs"), but I notice that the letter from Denise in B.C. that pissed me off so greatly has now been edited down to one paragraph from two, removing entirely the second paragraph that read, in part, "the young woman was old enough to realize that she was driving with an impaired person". Huzzah! I wonder if I should write CBC to thank them - as I told them it was nothing short of irresponsible for them to post something so blatantly inaccurate, and I generally admire the CBC so don't like to see it fall short of the bar.
There was nothing on my desire that they clarify that court decisions are, in fact, available to the public but, well, one outta two ain’t bad.
It took me forever to find that particular Feedback section of CBC’s website for some reason (I ended up having to do a search on the site for "Childs"), but I notice that the letter from Denise in B.C. that pissed me off so greatly has now been edited down to one paragraph from two, removing entirely the second paragraph that read, in part, "the young woman was old enough to realize that she was driving with an impaired person". Huzzah! I wonder if I should write CBC to thank them - as I told them it was nothing short of irresponsible for them to post something so blatantly inaccurate, and I generally admire the CBC so don't like to see it fall short of the bar.
There was nothing on my desire that they clarify that court decisions are, in fact, available to the public but, well, one outta two ain’t bad.
Friday, May 05, 2006
There, now, doesn't that feel better?
I just fired off a letter to the CBC complaining that they shouldn't act irresponsibly by publishing feedback letters on their website from people who obviously did not take the time to properly understand an issue before responding. Unfortunately, I did not have the presence of mind to save a copy of my missive before sending it off (and it was an online feedback form, so I don't have a copy of it anywhere).
When I complain about people not taking time to "properly understand", I'm not talking about someone who read about the issue but then just merely misunderstood. I'm talking about those who skim a headline, a paragraph or two at most, and then just assume they know what it's all about, and go on to make a comment that completely shows their ignorance of the facts by baldly stating something that is opposite to the truth. Context: The Supreme Court of Canada today handed down its decision in Childs v. Desormeaux. You may have heard of the case: Zoe Childs was 18 when on January 1, 1999, the car she was traveling in was hit by the car driven by Desmond Desormeaux. Childs was paralyzed from the waist down; her boyfriend was killed; the other two passengers were also seriously injured. Desormeaux was found to be two times the legal drinking limit when he was tested three hours after the accident. Fairly clear-cut: the Supreme Court decided the social hosts of the party that Desormeaux was at were not responsible for his actions - only commercial establishments still have a prima facie duty to ensure their patrons are not a danger to the general public when they leave. Therefore Childs could not claim damages from the hosts, just from Desormeaux himself. (You should all read the case - it's short and quite interesting, actually).
So someone on the CBC feedback site posts that the High Court (which last time I checked was an Ontario-level court, not the Supreme Court of Canada, but let's not quibble) has ruled correctly, since people should be held responsible for their own actions (I'm with her still at this point), and "the young woman was old enough to realize that she was driving with an impaired person". Full stop. See, this is what I'm complaining about. People who can't read far enough into a news story - I'm not even asking she read the Court's decision - to realize that the "young woman" was in a completely different car from the "impaired person"! Maybe because I'm also a lawyer, I'm always fairly careful to make sure I understand an issue before offering an opinion, at least when there's a chance that opinion will be shared with anyone besides my boyfriend and my mother!!!
Second beef: Someone else - the very next comment, in fact - complained that he was "shocked" the hosts were not held liable and thought it would be a good idea to have decisions published so that the general public could have access to them and read them. While he is certainly entitled to have his own opinion on the merits of the decision (though it has always seemed fairly clear, to me at least, that a social host liability in most cases could not be substantiated, at least not with regard to the current state of the law of liability - but I digress), his comment compelled me to point out to CBC's editorial staff that it really was incumbent upon them to have posted their own feedback at this point (like magazines often do to clarify a point raised by their readers in Letters to the Editor), since they felt obliged to publish this comment in the first place, that not only are Supreme Court judgments available in many different locations on the Internet (including at CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, and at the Supreme Court's website), the link to the full-text of the decision was actually available in at least two different spots on CBC's own webpage (though I don't believe from the feedback page itself)!
Oi vay. I just have no patience for this kind of nonsense.
Thanks for listening to me vent. I feel somewhat better already.*
* Now, see? Aren't you glad I spend most posts talking about new shoes I've bought or cute/weird things Rion has recently done, and inundating you with Japanese words and expressions? This is also one of a few good reasons why I don't normally talk about work - libraries or law in any form.
When I complain about people not taking time to "properly understand", I'm not talking about someone who read about the issue but then just merely misunderstood. I'm talking about those who skim a headline, a paragraph or two at most, and then just assume they know what it's all about, and go on to make a comment that completely shows their ignorance of the facts by baldly stating something that is opposite to the truth. Context: The Supreme Court of Canada today handed down its decision in Childs v. Desormeaux. You may have heard of the case: Zoe Childs was 18 when on January 1, 1999, the car she was traveling in was hit by the car driven by Desmond Desormeaux. Childs was paralyzed from the waist down; her boyfriend was killed; the other two passengers were also seriously injured. Desormeaux was found to be two times the legal drinking limit when he was tested three hours after the accident. Fairly clear-cut: the Supreme Court decided the social hosts of the party that Desormeaux was at were not responsible for his actions - only commercial establishments still have a prima facie duty to ensure their patrons are not a danger to the general public when they leave. Therefore Childs could not claim damages from the hosts, just from Desormeaux himself. (You should all read the case - it's short and quite interesting, actually).
So someone on the CBC feedback site posts that the High Court (which last time I checked was an Ontario-level court, not the Supreme Court of Canada, but let's not quibble) has ruled correctly, since people should be held responsible for their own actions (I'm with her still at this point), and "the young woman was old enough to realize that she was driving with an impaired person". Full stop. See, this is what I'm complaining about. People who can't read far enough into a news story - I'm not even asking she read the Court's decision - to realize that the "young woman" was in a completely different car from the "impaired person"! Maybe because I'm also a lawyer, I'm always fairly careful to make sure I understand an issue before offering an opinion, at least when there's a chance that opinion will be shared with anyone besides my boyfriend and my mother!!!
Second beef: Someone else - the very next comment, in fact - complained that he was "shocked" the hosts were not held liable and thought it would be a good idea to have decisions published so that the general public could have access to them and read them. While he is certainly entitled to have his own opinion on the merits of the decision (though it has always seemed fairly clear, to me at least, that a social host liability in most cases could not be substantiated, at least not with regard to the current state of the law of liability - but I digress), his comment compelled me to point out to CBC's editorial staff that it really was incumbent upon them to have posted their own feedback at this point (like magazines often do to clarify a point raised by their readers in Letters to the Editor), since they felt obliged to publish this comment in the first place, that not only are Supreme Court judgments available in many different locations on the Internet (including at CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, and at the Supreme Court's website), the link to the full-text of the decision was actually available in at least two different spots on CBC's own webpage (though I don't believe from the feedback page itself)!
Oi vay. I just have no patience for this kind of nonsense.
Thanks for listening to me vent. I feel somewhat better already.*
* Now, see? Aren't you glad I spend most posts talking about new shoes I've bought or cute/weird things Rion has recently done, and inundating you with Japanese words and expressions? This is also one of a few good reasons why I don't normally talk about work - libraries or law in any form.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Livin' in the (no longer) Wild, Wild West...
In today's Aren't There Better Uses of Taxpayer's Money category*, apparently Texas has begun arresting drinkers for being drunk, before the afore-mentioned drinkers have even had the chance to leave the bar and become a public nuisance or other form of danger to the public safety. Apparently this is really what was meant by the Bush administration when they talked about "pre-emptive strikes".**
I don't really care how drunk these guys were (or weren't), I just think this is dumb.
*Also cross-listed in today's The U.S. Never Ceases To Amaze Me and Goin' To H*LL In A Handbasket categories.
**For more commentary, see metafilter.
I don't really care how drunk these guys were (or weren't), I just think this is dumb.
*Also cross-listed in today's The U.S. Never Ceases To Amaze Me and Goin' To H*LL In A Handbasket categories.
**For more commentary, see metafilter.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
And the winner is...
As Rebecca would say, with her usual mix of eloquence and brevity, "Meh."*
When I was a kid, my grandmaman gave my brothers and I two great books. (I'm sure she gave us more than just two, but these two really stick out for me.) The first was It's Raining, Said John Twaining. A series of rhymes about a man trying to get out of the rain (at least, that's the fancy way of describing the book). Mainly, the rhyme sticks in my head for the third line, which introduced the notion to me of there being people in this world called "Wilmot" (though the Wilmot I later met spelled his last name "Willemott", if I remember correctly):
"It's raining," said John Twaining.
"Keep me dry," said John Rye.
"No, I will not," said John Wilmot.
"Stand over there," said John Square.
I don't remember the rest.
Anyway, the point of this post is the second book, "Could Be Worse!" by James Stevenson. A book about Grandpa who is never fazed by anything. When I decided I should post about the federal election, I'm afraid that the only thing that popped into my head was, "Could be worse!" But as bad as it looks, it could be worse: there could be a majority Tory government, for starters.
Not going to say much more on the topic; can't really add anything useful that the pundits haven't already said. I am interested in seeing how this minority government works out, and I hope that the other parties are able to keep a necessarily short leash on the Conservatives. Whatever else, it sure won't be dull.
* Actually, to be fair, she had much more than just that to say.
When I was a kid, my grandmaman gave my brothers and I two great books. (I'm sure she gave us more than just two, but these two really stick out for me.) The first was It's Raining, Said John Twaining. A series of rhymes about a man trying to get out of the rain (at least, that's the fancy way of describing the book). Mainly, the rhyme sticks in my head for the third line, which introduced the notion to me of there being people in this world called "Wilmot" (though the Wilmot I later met spelled his last name "Willemott", if I remember correctly):
"It's raining," said John Twaining.
"Keep me dry," said John Rye.
"No, I will not," said John Wilmot.
"Stand over there," said John Square.
I don't remember the rest.
Anyway, the point of this post is the second book, "Could Be Worse!" by James Stevenson. A book about Grandpa who is never fazed by anything. When I decided I should post about the federal election, I'm afraid that the only thing that popped into my head was, "Could be worse!" But as bad as it looks, it could be worse: there could be a majority Tory government, for starters.
Not going to say much more on the topic; can't really add anything useful that the pundits haven't already said. I am interested in seeing how this minority government works out, and I hope that the other parties are able to keep a necessarily short leash on the Conservatives. Whatever else, it sure won't be dull.
* Actually, to be fair, she had much more than just that to say.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
How are you voting?
Our federal election is quickly approaching and if you're still trying to cut through all the fluff and figure out what each party stands for, the Globe & Mail has compiled a chart comparing all of them (and for once, the Green Party is actually included):
2006 Party Platforms
It's worth taking 15 minutes to read this over. Some interesting things in there. Make sure you bring all your skepticism, cynicism and criticalness with you, however; things often sound better on paper than they are in real life.*
If this still doesn't help you, let a short quiz decide your vote for you! The Politics Watch Vote Selector Quiz asks you 18 questions and then based on your answers (Strongly support, etc.), will generate your preferences for each party's platform. I'm not ashamed of my results (and no one who knows me even slightly will be surprised to hear these):
1. New Democratic Party of Canada (100%)
2. Liberal Party of Canada (100%)
3. Bloc Quebecois (77%)
4. Conservative Party of Canada (33%)
Every time I do one of these quizzes, the Conservatives come up with an amount surpassing 0% and I don't understand why! The real surprise for me, though, was that the Bloc Quebecois didn't dominate the results (which is more usual since other than Quebec separatism, I think they have a well-balanced, socially-conscious platform) - here I think it's because the second-to-last question is a very loaded one which (a) shouldn't be part of the quiz, and (b) isn't one to which I could ever agree. ("Do you support a plan for Quebec to send its own hockey team, separate from Team Canada, to international competitions?" Um, no.) I bet they added that because after people finished the quiz from the 2004 elections, they were all shocked to see that their preferences lay with the Bloc.**
* "Spend money on physical activity, including amateur sport"? Sure, that sounds like a great idea! But wait, how are you doing this? Are you providing real monetary support to programs targetting inactivity and obesity, or is this just a thinly-veiled tax credit that will largely benefit the middle- and upper-classes?
**The other problem*** with this quiz is that it links your final results, not to the party as a whole, as I have listed them here, but to the individual leaders. As most people who know me will know, I have an affinity for the NDP but cannot stand Jack Layton. Same for the Liberals but minus the doddering old fool who heads them up (plus many of the current members of Cabinet, I might add). If I had to vote for the leader of the party directly, rather than the party and its policies, my vote would probably go either Green or independent every time.
***The other, other problem with this quiz, of course, is that it does not include the Green party as a voting option.
2006 Party Platforms
It's worth taking 15 minutes to read this over. Some interesting things in there. Make sure you bring all your skepticism, cynicism and criticalness with you, however; things often sound better on paper than they are in real life.*
If this still doesn't help you, let a short quiz decide your vote for you! The Politics Watch Vote Selector Quiz asks you 18 questions and then based on your answers (Strongly support, etc.), will generate your preferences for each party's platform. I'm not ashamed of my results (and no one who knows me even slightly will be surprised to hear these):
1. New Democratic Party of Canada (100%)
2. Liberal Party of Canada (100%)
3. Bloc Quebecois (77%)
4. Conservative Party of Canada (33%)
Every time I do one of these quizzes, the Conservatives come up with an amount surpassing 0% and I don't understand why! The real surprise for me, though, was that the Bloc Quebecois didn't dominate the results (which is more usual since other than Quebec separatism, I think they have a well-balanced, socially-conscious platform) - here I think it's because the second-to-last question is a very loaded one which (a) shouldn't be part of the quiz, and (b) isn't one to which I could ever agree. ("Do you support a plan for Quebec to send its own hockey team, separate from Team Canada, to international competitions?" Um, no.) I bet they added that because after people finished the quiz from the 2004 elections, they were all shocked to see that their preferences lay with the Bloc.**
* "Spend money on physical activity, including amateur sport"? Sure, that sounds like a great idea! But wait, how are you doing this? Are you providing real monetary support to programs targetting inactivity and obesity, or is this just a thinly-veiled tax credit that will largely benefit the middle- and upper-classes?
**The other problem*** with this quiz is that it links your final results, not to the party as a whole, as I have listed them here, but to the individual leaders. As most people who know me will know, I have an affinity for the NDP but cannot stand Jack Layton. Same for the Liberals but minus the doddering old fool who heads them up (plus many of the current members of Cabinet, I might add). If I had to vote for the leader of the party directly, rather than the party and its policies, my vote would probably go either Green or independent every time.
***The other, other problem with this quiz, of course, is that it does not include the Green party as a voting option.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Hodge-podge*
Spent Canada Day weekend in Toronto. I know, I know - I live in Ottawa and should have stayed here. But many things colluded to make me leave (including the thought of multiple evenings during which I could have martinis at Insomnia - a fine way to celebrate Canada Day if you ask me). Much shopping. Clothes and books. BBQ at my cousins' place waaay north (East Gwillimbury, which is past Newmarket - egads!).
First day at new job. Reference librarian at the law faculty of one of our finer higher education establishments.
Made yummy chicken thighs, potatoes and green peppers for dinner tonight. Randal put his plate down on the coffee table and went to get his eyeglasses from the next room. I am sitting in the living room as well with my plate in front of me. Suddenly, before you could say "Jumpin' Jack Flash", the DOG had jumped up and stolen an entire piece of chicken. Swallowed in a second. This is his First Encounter with Actual People Food, and we are not impressed. However, it hasn't wreaked havoc on his digestive system yet so that's good. (I have also been in another room from the dog for the past hour or so, so I may stand to be corrected yet.) Keep in mind he is a tiny dog (mini Jack Russell) and it was a large piece of chicken.
And I don't like or trust George Bush. 'Nuff said.
Now I am tired, so I am going to bed.
* With apologies to Rebecca for having stolen one of her titles.
First day at new job. Reference librarian at the law faculty of one of our finer higher education establishments.
Made yummy chicken thighs, potatoes and green peppers for dinner tonight. Randal put his plate down on the coffee table and went to get his eyeglasses from the next room. I am sitting in the living room as well with my plate in front of me. Suddenly, before you could say "Jumpin' Jack Flash", the DOG had jumped up and stolen an entire piece of chicken. Swallowed in a second. This is his First Encounter with Actual People Food, and we are not impressed. However, it hasn't wreaked havoc on his digestive system yet so that's good. (I have also been in another room from the dog for the past hour or so, so I may stand to be corrected yet.) Keep in mind he is a tiny dog (mini Jack Russell) and it was a large piece of chicken.
And I don't like or trust George Bush. 'Nuff said.
Now I am tired, so I am going to bed.
* With apologies to Rebecca for having stolen one of her titles.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Monday, January 31, 2005
Oops, she did it again...
Well, now that Rebecca has referenced me again and again, I must be more diligent. Yes, I know she swore it wasn't an attempt to convince me to post more often, but what can you do - she knows my nature, I know my nature, and there's just no escaping my guilt.
I've been trying to figure out how to post pictures. Looks like I can do one at a time. But when I have 420+ of my trip to Asia and at least 25 of my dog, I'd like to have a webspace where I can stick these up. I'm working on it. That is, I have a nice draft version of a bare-bones website that I am working on, and someday I will get my ass into gear and call Rogers to see what sort of webspace they will provide me with. Or something.
Called in sick today. Spent the morning sleeping. Then I ate a bit and wandered down to the local walk-in clinic. Not because I was sick; I needed to go anyhow to get a prescription renewed and so it seemed like a useful thing to do. Walked out with a prescription in hand...AND a family doctor. Finally! Been having trouble hooking up with a doc in Ottawa - have called a couple of places to no avail. But the doctor I saw at the walk-in said she wasn't officially taking new patients but that she'd take me. And I convinced her to take Randal too (who has been looking for a doctor even longer...I don't know what the deal is with the doc-shortage around here). Plus, to make my unproductive sick day even more productive, the dog trainer returned my phone call and it looks like my little pup Rion is going to be whipped into shape. Things are going well...
Must run - there is a documentary on Romeo Dallaire that I want to see on CBC right now. Later!
I've been trying to figure out how to post pictures. Looks like I can do one at a time. But when I have 420+ of my trip to Asia and at least 25 of my dog, I'd like to have a webspace where I can stick these up. I'm working on it. That is, I have a nice draft version of a bare-bones website that I am working on, and someday I will get my ass into gear and call Rogers to see what sort of webspace they will provide me with. Or something.
Called in sick today. Spent the morning sleeping. Then I ate a bit and wandered down to the local walk-in clinic. Not because I was sick; I needed to go anyhow to get a prescription renewed and so it seemed like a useful thing to do. Walked out with a prescription in hand...AND a family doctor. Finally! Been having trouble hooking up with a doc in Ottawa - have called a couple of places to no avail. But the doctor I saw at the walk-in said she wasn't officially taking new patients but that she'd take me. And I convinced her to take Randal too (who has been looking for a doctor even longer...I don't know what the deal is with the doc-shortage around here). Plus, to make my unproductive sick day even more productive, the dog trainer returned my phone call and it looks like my little pup Rion is going to be whipped into shape. Things are going well...
Must run - there is a documentary on Romeo Dallaire that I want to see on CBC right now. Later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)