the daily snivel
Apple babble at 3 am.
A couple of things regarding Apple have come into the news lately: first that Apple is suing "Nick de Plume," author of the website Think Secret, for spilling the beans on protected trade secrets via continuing leaks from employees and contractors bound by confidentiality agreements. Apple has so far been successful in its discovery motions, and while the story has a certain "David and Goliath" kind of charm that makes one want to, at first, side with the little guy, I think Apple is entirely in the right here and will likely succeed. Leaking trade secrets like the details to unreleased products is clearly an infringement of statutes intended to protect against such malfeasance, and trying to argue that you're a journalist and have free speech rights isn't helpful, because those protections don't extend to breaking the law. Nor should they. I feel precisely the same way about the arguments made by Robert Novak, Judith Miller and the New York Times when they try to defend themselves against having to reveal their sources in the government who attempted to illegally "out" Judith Plame in retaliation for her husband not going along with some of the worst lies about forged weapon of mass destruction claims about Iraq.
Daring Fireball has much more about the Apple's lawsuit and successful discovery motion.
The second item is that Apple has just pulled books published by Wiley & Sons, Inc. from the shelves of its chain of Apple Stores in an act of retaliation for its upcoming publication of an unauthorized biography of Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
Regarding this, I don't have much to say beyond, well, that's pure Steve Jobs. I think it's an incredible gesture of spite, but not one that surprises or outrages me, much as I disagree with it. That said, anyone writing the unauthorized biography of Steve Jobs must start chapter one with: "Steve Jobs is a singular control freak. He likes things done just his way and is infamous for this trait to the point that the verb Steved (as in 'to be Steved') has come into common usage and means that you were terminated with extreme prejudice because Steve Jobs didn't like the way you were doing things." If you write an unauthorized biography of Steve Jobs and don't put that in bold type right up front, you clearly haven't done your research. Unhelpful is the fact that the author of this book previously wrote a biography of Jobs in the 80s, which was decidedly unflattering. You can sort of sympathize with the big guy having a fit, though apparently the new book is comparatively gushy with praise, given how Mr. Jobs has revitalized Apple since returning to it in the late 1990s, when it was at risk of collapse.
Anyway, this story is rather a silly thing, and I hope the spat gets resolved soon. On the other hand, to those who would say this is in any way equivalent to the Microsoft decision to withdraw its support for legislation that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, or otherwise indicative of "big brother" tendencies at Apple, I say "suck it up."
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 Daring Fireball has much more about the Apple's lawsuit and successful discovery motion.
The second item is that Apple has just pulled books published by Wiley & Sons, Inc. from the shelves of its chain of Apple Stores in an act of retaliation for its upcoming publication of an unauthorized biography of Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
Regarding this, I don't have much to say beyond, well, that's pure Steve Jobs. I think it's an incredible gesture of spite, but not one that surprises or outrages me, much as I disagree with it. That said, anyone writing the unauthorized biography of Steve Jobs must start chapter one with: "Steve Jobs is a singular control freak. He likes things done just his way and is infamous for this trait to the point that the verb Steved (as in 'to be Steved') has come into common usage and means that you were terminated with extreme prejudice because Steve Jobs didn't like the way you were doing things." If you write an unauthorized biography of Steve Jobs and don't put that in bold type right up front, you clearly haven't done your research. Unhelpful is the fact that the author of this book previously wrote a biography of Jobs in the 80s, which was decidedly unflattering. You can sort of sympathize with the big guy having a fit, though apparently the new book is comparatively gushy with praise, given how Mr. Jobs has revitalized Apple since returning to it in the late 1990s, when it was at risk of collapse.
Anyway, this story is rather a silly thing, and I hope the spat gets resolved soon. On the other hand, to those who would say this is in any way equivalent to the Microsoft decision to withdraw its support for legislation that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, or otherwise indicative of "big brother" tendencies at Apple, I say "suck it up."
This is Wonderland
One of my favourite shows on television is This is Wonderland, which airs on Tuesdays at 9:00 pm on CBC. It's about a harried team of legal aid lawyers working in the lower criminal courts at the Old City Hall courthouse in Toronto. Having spent a great deal of time in the criminal courts here in Ottawa during my two years at the Legal Clinic, I have to say the show is hilariously realistic. A lot of the research is done simply by going to the courts and watching what goes on. The slick, acerbic Crowns, the grumpy judges and justices of the peace, and the frazzled defence lawyers are all what you can expect to see. I love the look on the lawyers' faces as they attempt to grapple with the troubles of their clients, most of whom are variously bipolar, paranoid, pitiful, intoxicated, irrational, poor, indignant, vexatious, petty, and sometimes even innocent. Without being too glib or cynical, it really is a portrayal of what the practice is really like. Not really sexy, but fascinating and heartbreaking and rife with ethical problems and the many and sundry pitfalls of starting out in the criminal justice system. And absurdly, tear-jerkingly funny.
Meanwhile, I'm writing my Last Essay Ever(!) this week, on the topic of a right to legal aid in order to prevent wrongful convictions. I start the Bar Admissions Course on Monday, which is just a whole new drawn out rigamarole of exams and assignments to keep me from having too much fun, but on the bright side it's the last leg in my journey to my own little piece of the criminal practice, because after Bar ads end in August, I get to start articling at a criminal law firm in September and wrangling with the issues brought out by clients of my own (and the many many lawyers I'll be helping out).
Monday, April 25, 2005 Meanwhile, I'm writing my Last Essay Ever(!) this week, on the topic of a right to legal aid in order to prevent wrongful convictions. I start the Bar Admissions Course on Monday, which is just a whole new drawn out rigamarole of exams and assignments to keep me from having too much fun, but on the bright side it's the last leg in my journey to my own little piece of the criminal practice, because after Bar ads end in August, I get to start articling at a criminal law firm in September and wrangling with the issues brought out by clients of my own (and the many many lawyers I'll be helping out).
Did somebody say free music?
For those of you who use iTunes (and for those of you who do not, now is a great time to install it and start -- all you need is a Mac or Windows 2000/XP), there is a great song posted this week on the iTunes Music Store that can be downloaded for free as Apple's song of the week. It's called "Sway" by The Perishers, and is really very catchy and swell. And free. Don't forget free.
It can be accessed from the front screen of the Music Store. Get it while it's hot.
It can be accessed from the front screen of the Music Store. Get it while it's hot.
Warning to Mr. Harper
Don't hitch your party's prospects too closely to George W. Bush's popular, values-based ideology. From the Washington Post:
Even the Americans, God bless 'em, are starting to get it after years of just taking it. The sort of big-business, social-conservative "values" that conventional wisdome says swept the election by that stunning two percentage port is now just giving way to a sobering cold rush of buyer's remorse. If I were a Conservative in Canada, I'd sit up and take notice. This stuff may play well in the sticks (OK, Alberta), but it gives me a warm fuzzy to think that people can and do smarten up when they realize how bankrupt and self-serving the far-right's ideology is.
Thanks to Daily Kos.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling:
Approve Disapprove
A. Social Security 31 64
B. Iraq 42 56
C. Economy 40 57
D. Terrorism 56 41
E. Energy Policy 35 54...
Which party better represents your personal values?
Democrats - 47%
Republicans - 38%
Even the Americans, God bless 'em, are starting to get it after years of just taking it. The sort of big-business, social-conservative "values" that conventional wisdome says swept the election by that stunning two percentage port is now just giving way to a sobering cold rush of buyer's remorse. If I were a Conservative in Canada, I'd sit up and take notice. This stuff may play well in the sticks (OK, Alberta), but it gives me a warm fuzzy to think that people can and do smarten up when they realize how bankrupt and self-serving the far-right's ideology is.
Thanks to Daily Kos.
Uh oh
Most people don't realize that there is a strong correlation between your band dressing in black and wearing top hats and the rushing approach of the end of the line. That's right, it's as though pseudo-goth pretensions propel you upwards and onwards right over the shark. It took Billy Corgan straight to the Zwan-dom, banished the Stone Temple Pilots to the Phantom Zone, and I don't like the unhealthy look Green Day is sporting these days, neither. Meanwhile, I see this promotion on iTunes today, and I clutch my chest and hope this isn't the beginning of the end for the White Stripes.
Only time will tell.
Ehx-cellent!
Looking delightfully evil here is Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Mr. Burns, aka The Emperor.
Long may he reign.
There. I said it, and now all you guilty lapsed Catholics can all stop thinking it.
Shake, shake, shake - Shake, shake, shake - Shake your booty!
Last night, my graduating law class went out for some festivities to celebrate the fact that most of us are finally finished exams and thus finished with law school forever (FOREVER, I say!). Although I still have a paper to hand in on the 29th, I'm all finished my exams, having triumphed over my prickly foe administrative law last Friday, and felt the need to celebrate and see my friends. As well, some of us will be leaving the city shortly, either to take the bar admissions course in Toronto or to start articling in another province (and one of my friends from my first year small group is interning at the Hague for the next year before coming back to clerk with a Supreme Court justice), so it was a good chance to see good people before they left for good.
We'd reserved a bar on Bank street (the Gap of Dunloe) and brought in some DJs to spin some tunes and liven up the dance floor. Cover was cheap, the drinks were not outrageously expensive (I wouldn't normally have thought to hang out at somewhere like this bar, whose typically quiet and sparese clientele demographic is clearly several standard deviations to the right of we boozehound braniacs, but at least it lacked the pretension of $7 beer), and I squeezed out the last few drops of precious credit left to me so that I could enjoy a round or two with my mates.
What really blew me away was that I was also proclaimed "the star of the dance floor," and continually praised on my so-called "moves" by at least five different people. I mean, I simply danced for a good two hours with my friends, and although I thought the secret was just to move around like an idiot in time to the music and be too liquored up to care, apparently this white boy does have some rhythm stowed away inside, mixed up with all that repression and shame.
I always think of myself dancing in terms of that old Saturday Night Live sketch with Jeff Goldblum, when he's being cajoled to dance by his girlfriend and he feels too self-conscious to do it. She tells him to just get up and move, because no one is going to care, but as he dances people keep mocking his motions and pointing and laughing, and although his girlfriend assures him he's reading into things, Chris Farley ultimately saunters over, apes the dance motions in a forced manner, and shouts, "Hey, everybody! I'm doing The Idiot!"
I always thought that was me. Huh.
But anyway, it was a lot of fun. I really enjoy being out on the dance floor, despite the fact that as the evening wore on a talented, bright and gorgeous friend who truly awed me as a fabulous dancer tried to get me to dance with her, and I was absolutely horrible trying to stay coordinated with a partner. She kept trying to get me to spin her and, after I kludged it up a few times, eventually she asked me if I minded if she were "the man" for our dancing. I didn't. But in time we worked out the spins and it was really quite elegant.
The only thing that got to me was watching people get progressively drunk and flirt with one another. Some people had brought their boyfriends or girlfriends, and others just got grabby with the drink. For the longest time, I've been quite content with the single life, but I felt unbelievably lonesome last night. One of the reasons was that I bumped into an acquaintance that I'd asked out once upon a time, who initially said yes and later said "Maybe some other time," and things have been a little chilly since. She and I had a few words, but then danced and made eyes at each other, and I kept thinking maybe I should flirt a little, or at least do more than smile like an idiot, and then all the wondering was for naught because she left late in the evening without a word. I suppose the lesson is that hesitation is a bad thing, but I got sick of watching one or two idiots grabbing and trying to dance with every girl in sight, and believe it's better to be a gentleman. Plus, every time I take the initiative (including asking people on a date), it just gets weird.
Not that it helped that I walked home for an hour in the rain, listening to my "Sad Rob" mix on my iPod. I felt very melodramatic.
Anyway, the moral is that I had a great time, many laughs, danced for hours, and sure, felt a bit wistful, but in the end it's all a very typical night for me and I'd be profoundly disturbed if anything had transpired at all differently.
Friday, April 22, 2005 We'd reserved a bar on Bank street (the Gap of Dunloe) and brought in some DJs to spin some tunes and liven up the dance floor. Cover was cheap, the drinks were not outrageously expensive (I wouldn't normally have thought to hang out at somewhere like this bar, whose typically quiet and sparese clientele demographic is clearly several standard deviations to the right of we boozehound braniacs, but at least it lacked the pretension of $7 beer), and I squeezed out the last few drops of precious credit left to me so that I could enjoy a round or two with my mates.
What really blew me away was that I was also proclaimed "the star of the dance floor," and continually praised on my so-called "moves" by at least five different people. I mean, I simply danced for a good two hours with my friends, and although I thought the secret was just to move around like an idiot in time to the music and be too liquored up to care, apparently this white boy does have some rhythm stowed away inside, mixed up with all that repression and shame.
I always think of myself dancing in terms of that old Saturday Night Live sketch with Jeff Goldblum, when he's being cajoled to dance by his girlfriend and he feels too self-conscious to do it. She tells him to just get up and move, because no one is going to care, but as he dances people keep mocking his motions and pointing and laughing, and although his girlfriend assures him he's reading into things, Chris Farley ultimately saunters over, apes the dance motions in a forced manner, and shouts, "Hey, everybody! I'm doing The Idiot!"
I always thought that was me. Huh.
But anyway, it was a lot of fun. I really enjoy being out on the dance floor, despite the fact that as the evening wore on a talented, bright and gorgeous friend who truly awed me as a fabulous dancer tried to get me to dance with her, and I was absolutely horrible trying to stay coordinated with a partner. She kept trying to get me to spin her and, after I kludged it up a few times, eventually she asked me if I minded if she were "the man" for our dancing. I didn't. But in time we worked out the spins and it was really quite elegant.
The only thing that got to me was watching people get progressively drunk and flirt with one another. Some people had brought their boyfriends or girlfriends, and others just got grabby with the drink. For the longest time, I've been quite content with the single life, but I felt unbelievably lonesome last night. One of the reasons was that I bumped into an acquaintance that I'd asked out once upon a time, who initially said yes and later said "Maybe some other time," and things have been a little chilly since. She and I had a few words, but then danced and made eyes at each other, and I kept thinking maybe I should flirt a little, or at least do more than smile like an idiot, and then all the wondering was for naught because she left late in the evening without a word. I suppose the lesson is that hesitation is a bad thing, but I got sick of watching one or two idiots grabbing and trying to dance with every girl in sight, and believe it's better to be a gentleman. Plus, every time I take the initiative (including asking people on a date), it just gets weird.
Not that it helped that I walked home for an hour in the rain, listening to my "Sad Rob" mix on my iPod. I felt very melodramatic.
Anyway, the moral is that I had a great time, many laughs, danced for hours, and sure, felt a bit wistful, but in the end it's all a very typical night for me and I'd be profoundly disturbed if anything had transpired at all differently.
God Money I'll Do Anything For You
Writing from the comfort of my Apple iBook, I just had to point out the fact that the Microsoft Corporation is rightly taking a lot of heat for the fact that it has bowed out of support for a human rights bill in its home State of Washington that would grant gays and lesbians protection discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Apparently its decision was based on boycott pressure received from a local church. Given Microsoft's history of supporting rights for gays and lesbians and its proud proclamations of this in its public statements, I think this is a callow and shameful reversal, and a true display of hypocrisy. Corporations' sole responsibility may be to the bottom line, but they shouldn't crassly promote a buyer-friendly image of concern for human rights only to crumple in the face of pressure from the radical clerics of the Christian right.
Think about that the next time you're getting ready to buy a new computer.
From the New York Times:
AmericaBLOG has more on how you can take action, and also has some more information and updates here.
Thursday, April 21, 2005 Think about that the next time you're getting ready to buy a new computer.
From the New York Times:
Microsoft Comes Under Fire for Reversal on Gay Rights Bill
By SARAH KERSHAW
Published: April 22, 2005
SEATTLE, April 21 - The Microsoft Corporation, at the forefront of corporate gay rights for decades, is coming under fire from gay rights groups, politicians and its own employees for withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Many of the critics accused the company of bowing to pressure from a prominent evangelical church in Redmond, Wash., located a few blocks from Microsoft's sprawling headquarters.
The bill, or similar versions of it, has been introduced repeatedly over three decades; it failed by one vote Thursday in the State Senate. Gay rights advocates denounced Microsoft, which had supported the bill for the last two years, for abandoning their cause. Blogs and online chat rooms were buzzing on Thursday with accusations that the company, which has offered benefits to same-sex partners for years, had given in to the Christian right.
"I think people should feel betrayed," said Tina Podlodowski, a former Microsoft senior manager and former Seattle city councilwoman who now runs an advocacy group for AIDS patients. "To me, Microsoft has been one of the big supporters of gay and lesbian civil rights issues, and they did it when it wasn't an issue of political expediency, when it was the right thing to do."
Microsoft officials denied any connection between their decision not to endorse the bill and the church's opposition, although they acknowledged meeting twice with the church minister, Ken Hutcherson.
Dr. Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies opposing same-sex marriage here and in Washington, D.C., said he threatened in those meetings to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products.
After that, "they backed off," the pastor said Thursday in a telephone interview. "I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about," he said.
...
But State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and a sponsor of the bill, said that in a conversation last month with Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, Mr. Smith made it clear to him that the company was under pressure from the church and the pastor and that he was also concerned about the reaction to company support of the bill among its Christian employees, the lawmaker said.
...
AmericaBLOG has more on how you can take action, and also has some more information and updates here.
The Rage, Oh How it Burns
Sit right back and I'll tell you a tale of a little trip I took today to the Canada Revenue Agency's website.
I took a trip there because I was quite anxious to check the status of my tax return. This is a return on I filed electronically on March 13, and one that indicated I was owed a refund. The good folks at the CRA promptly sent me a pre-assessment notice indicating that I had to send them a copy of my T2202A slip and my 2004 rent receipts, which I sent out the very next day owing to how eager I was to receive that refund.
Many, many weeks later, I'm still waiting around to see what came of the whole thing. This is in large part to the fact that a refund would come in handy right about now. As we all know, April is the blackest month for a student, when the student loans and lines of credit and the paltry savings from last summer have been stretched as far as they can go, the pennies have all been rolled, and the instant noodles are quickly running out. It's the time of year when the old bottle of half-finished wine that you keep around for cooking starts looking mighty good for drinking; when you get friendly phone calls from Rogers and MBNA asking you to call them back, and oh wouldn't it be nice if you wrote more often and sent a cheque and, look, they even include a self-addressed envelope to make it easy.
So, I went to the CRA website to check the status of my account. Now, to prevent identity fraud and protect the privacy of users, there are a number of safeguards built into the website, which is only fair. You have to register for an "epass" with a user name and password on an encrypted page. And to do that, you have to provide your social insurance number (OK), your date of birth (uh huh), your postal code (no problem), and the figure you entered at line 150 from your 2003 or 2004 tax return forms (hmm). Of course, you can't do any of that if you're running Safari as your web browser, which they tell you with regret, and then when you launch Internet Explorer for Macintosh and get halfway into the website, it tells you there's an error and nags you to enable cookies, and since they were enabled all along, you give up and fire up the old desktop PC.
Finally I had a browser that worked with the CRA website -- IE 6. So, I duly entered my SIN, my date of birth, my postal code, and the figure from line 150 on my 2004 return, and submitted it. I sat and waited for the system to churn that information, and once it did, it returned with a screen telling me that the authentication had failed. It also told me that I only had five attempts before it locked the account out completely. I tried again, thinking I must have mistyped something. It failed again. I tried it from a different computer upstairs. It failed again. Then I went downstairs and read the website thoroughly, and realized that the information from line 150 had to correspond to an assessed return, dontcha know, so maybe the problem is that my return still wasn't assessed but was sitting in a file somewhere with the 15 million other returns that piled in this tax season.
So I tried to find my 2003 return because I could also use that information.
I found it, but I had to reinstall my 2003 tax software to view the information. After half an hour of turning my room upside down, I found the install disks. Then I couldn't open the file from last year because the software insisted on being updated first. So I downloaded the 9 megabyte file over my dialup connection, fired up the software, and copied down the line number. Aha. Finally we were getting somehwere.
I returned to the website, feeling that victory must be close at hand. This was my fourth try out of five possible attempts before the account was locked. I again entered my SIN, my date of birth, my postal code, and my line 150 statement from my 2003 return.
Accepted! Now we're cooking with gas!
Then I had to create a username for myself -- no problem, I thought. This I have done many times before, and it was created with ease. Then I had to create a hint in case I forgot my password. OK, so it had something to do with school. OK, then I had to make another hint, something to do with an influential person. OK, and then I had to make another hint, something to do with an important date in my life. "Phew! All this verification is hard work," I thought.
Then I had to create a password. Happiness, optimism -- nay, a childlike wonder -- filled me. Surely now I would be finished and be able to find out when my badly needed refund was coming to me. I was brought to a confirmation screen and I entered my username and password.
The website then told me that the final stage in the activation of my new epass was the entry of the confirmation code they were sending me.
By mail.
Which would take 5 business days, and in the absence of which none of the steps I'd just taken were of any help or made any different at all.
It's times like these you want to say "Arrrgh!" and not sound like a cartoon character but rather the soul tormented to the very limit of sanity that you truly are.
Oh the rage, and oh how it burns inside me.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 I took a trip there because I was quite anxious to check the status of my tax return. This is a return on I filed electronically on March 13, and one that indicated I was owed a refund. The good folks at the CRA promptly sent me a pre-assessment notice indicating that I had to send them a copy of my T2202A slip and my 2004 rent receipts, which I sent out the very next day owing to how eager I was to receive that refund.
Many, many weeks later, I'm still waiting around to see what came of the whole thing. This is in large part to the fact that a refund would come in handy right about now. As we all know, April is the blackest month for a student, when the student loans and lines of credit and the paltry savings from last summer have been stretched as far as they can go, the pennies have all been rolled, and the instant noodles are quickly running out. It's the time of year when the old bottle of half-finished wine that you keep around for cooking starts looking mighty good for drinking; when you get friendly phone calls from Rogers and MBNA asking you to call them back, and oh wouldn't it be nice if you wrote more often and sent a cheque and, look, they even include a self-addressed envelope to make it easy.
So, I went to the CRA website to check the status of my account. Now, to prevent identity fraud and protect the privacy of users, there are a number of safeguards built into the website, which is only fair. You have to register for an "epass" with a user name and password on an encrypted page. And to do that, you have to provide your social insurance number (OK), your date of birth (uh huh), your postal code (no problem), and the figure you entered at line 150 from your 2003 or 2004 tax return forms (hmm). Of course, you can't do any of that if you're running Safari as your web browser, which they tell you with regret, and then when you launch Internet Explorer for Macintosh and get halfway into the website, it tells you there's an error and nags you to enable cookies, and since they were enabled all along, you give up and fire up the old desktop PC.
Finally I had a browser that worked with the CRA website -- IE 6. So, I duly entered my SIN, my date of birth, my postal code, and the figure from line 150 on my 2004 return, and submitted it. I sat and waited for the system to churn that information, and once it did, it returned with a screen telling me that the authentication had failed. It also told me that I only had five attempts before it locked the account out completely. I tried again, thinking I must have mistyped something. It failed again. I tried it from a different computer upstairs. It failed again. Then I went downstairs and read the website thoroughly, and realized that the information from line 150 had to correspond to an assessed return, dontcha know, so maybe the problem is that my return still wasn't assessed but was sitting in a file somewhere with the 15 million other returns that piled in this tax season.
So I tried to find my 2003 return because I could also use that information.
I found it, but I had to reinstall my 2003 tax software to view the information. After half an hour of turning my room upside down, I found the install disks. Then I couldn't open the file from last year because the software insisted on being updated first. So I downloaded the 9 megabyte file over my dialup connection, fired up the software, and copied down the line number. Aha. Finally we were getting somehwere.
I returned to the website, feeling that victory must be close at hand. This was my fourth try out of five possible attempts before the account was locked. I again entered my SIN, my date of birth, my postal code, and my line 150 statement from my 2003 return.
Accepted! Now we're cooking with gas!
Then I had to create a username for myself -- no problem, I thought. This I have done many times before, and it was created with ease. Then I had to create a hint in case I forgot my password. OK, so it had something to do with school. OK, then I had to make another hint, something to do with an influential person. OK, and then I had to make another hint, something to do with an important date in my life. "Phew! All this verification is hard work," I thought.
Then I had to create a password. Happiness, optimism -- nay, a childlike wonder -- filled me. Surely now I would be finished and be able to find out when my badly needed refund was coming to me. I was brought to a confirmation screen and I entered my username and password.
The website then told me that the final stage in the activation of my new epass was the entry of the confirmation code they were sending me.
By mail.
Which would take 5 business days, and in the absence of which none of the steps I'd just taken were of any help or made any different at all.
It's times like these you want to say "Arrrgh!" and not sound like a cartoon character but rather the soul tormented to the very limit of sanity that you truly are.
Oh the rage, and oh how it burns inside me.
The decline of the American Empire
Did you know that Ann Coulter, the radical, hate-filled Moe the Bartender of the extreme right, made the cover of TIME Magazine this week? Digby has more, making what I think is an essential point. Those armchair warriors who adore people like Coulter, who cheer and dance on the graves of people like Marla Ruzicka (an aid worker who was killed this week while trying to help civilian victims of the war in Iraq), are actually cheering on the insurgents who killed her and are the professed enemies of the United States. This poorly thought out cheerleading completely erodes away the kind of moral high-ground required to make the ridiculous claim (as Coulter frequently endorses) that liberals are in any way guilty of treason. Physician, heal thyself.
Monday, April 18, 2005
...
Ann Coulter is not, as Howie Kurtz asserts today, the equivalent of Michael Moore. Michael Moore is is not advocating the murder of conservatives. He just isn't. For instance, he doesn't say that Eric Rudolph should be killed so that other conservatives will learn that they can be killed too. He doesn't say that he wishes that Tim McVeigh had blown up the Washington Times Bldg. He doesn't say that conservatives routinely commit the capital offense of treason. He certainly doesn't put up pictures of the fucking snoopy dance because one of his political opponents was killed. He doesn't, in other words, issue calls for violence and repression against his political enemies. That is what Ann Coulter does, in the most coarse, vulgar, reprehensible way possible.
...
While Ann Coulter makes the cover of Time for writing that liberals have a "preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason," her followers actually side with Iraqi insurgents against an American charity worker. At freeperland and elsewhere they laughed and clapped and enjoyed the fruits of the enemy's labor. This is because if you listen to Ann and Rush and Sean and Savage and all the rest of these people you know that there is no greater enemy on the planet than the American liberal. That's what Ann Coulter and her ilk are selling and that is what Time magazine celebrated with their cover girl this week.
I'm not going to argue with my fellow Democrats any more about how Janet Jackson's nipple and Desperate Housewives' double ententres are coarsening American media culture. This is not because American media culture isn't being coarsened. But T&A is clearly not the problem. It's the sick, depraved fucks who are selling liberal death fantasies to the public and being aided by idiots in the mainstream press who are so in the (ever heating) tank that they have lost all sense of perspective.
...
Worth Noting
The Daily Snivel celebrates its eighth anniversary this week, which I don't mind saying puts it as one of the oldest (though also one of the least well known) continuous on-line journals around, pre-dating the advent of blogs by several years. It all goes back to some simple complaining here in April 1997, coded and archived by hand (versus the newfangled blogging software that eventually came along and which I resisted quite stubbornly until I realized how handy it was), and ever since then it's been a lot of that winning formula: boy meets girl, boy is infatuated with girl, boy loses girl, boy rants about conservatives and eventually meets another girl.
Thanks for eight great years.
Sunday, April 17, 2005 Thanks for eight great years.
Pie Our Squares
The classic gag of a pie in the face has become a popular resort of those disaffected pranksters who want to humble and ridicule the powerful and puffed-up as they make some grandiose public appearance before what they hope are eager throngs of an adoring public. There have been many examples over the years and in many different parts of the world, including France, Belgium (where Bill Gates met a creamy fate), Canada, and recently the United States. Canada, and Quebec in particular, has seen quite a few episodes targeted at politicians in recent years, including Pierre Pettigrew, BC Premier Bill Vander Zalm, and Tory Leader Joe Clark, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, Quebec Premiers Bernard Landry, Jean Charest, and Jacques Parizeau, and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. There is even an organized group in Quebec, Les entartistes (many of whom are former members of Canada's defunct but immortally silly Rhinoceros Party), who organize many of the pie-throwings. The preferred strategy is to have a confederate shake the target's hand while moving in and proceeding to rub (not throw) a cream pie into the face of the target, whose hand and attention are engaged.
There is certainly an argument to be made, and one that I think many people would agree with, that a pie in the face is a relatively harmless protest that does no harm to anything except shirt collars and egos. Normally the bemused public figure simply clears some of the dripping goop off his or her face and laughs the incident off while the pranksters are hauled away by burly men who spend an awful lot of time working out at the gymnasium in strenuous preparation for just such an occasion. And after awhile the charges are dropped or the sentence is lenient and people get on with their lives, including a return to celebrating the true meaning of pie, which is to be baked, delicious, and eaten.
The pie can also seem like a great way to make a statement. On top of groups who just want to mockingly take the self-important down a peg or two and make them feel foolish, there are those who increasingly feel that their protests against the policies and excesses of the powerful fall on deaf ears, and to them a well-placed pie can create a flurry of media interest and public discussion of the event.
In the end, however, the pie-ing is largely dismissed for what it is -- a childish prank. Not exactly harmful, but counterproductive, puerile, violent, and a waste of pie.
In a formally legal sense, it is also criminal. In Canada, for example, assault is defined by section 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which states that assault is the intentional application of force without consent (see also sections 265(1)(b) and 265(1)(c) for additional definitions that are not applicable in this context). This is to say that intentionally touching another person without his or her consent is an assault. Now, you have to query whether anyone who ever intentionally touches another person without permission is charged with assault, should be charged, and so on, because in fact we look to context a lot in considering whether it is in the interests of justice to prosecute, or even whether it is that offensive. That said, the civil tort of battery ("assault" in tort law actually refers to the apprehension of the physical contact) requires no proof of damage to attract liability. If you batter someone in the tortious sense, again just an unwanted touch, you stand liable for nominal damages because the conduct is actionable per se given society's interest in protecting of an individual's physical integrity.
So, given the legal implications, even the ridiculous behaviour of rubbing a pie in someone's face goes against what we are normally prepared to consider tolerable behaviour. People are charged, and (assuming the charges are not dropped, for example in an act of prosecutorial discretion) sometimes convicted of assault. Speaking as someone who is not yet a defence lawyer but has two years of experience in the courts through my work as a law student at the legal clinic, I would make arguments against that behaviour truly being criminal, and in the end probably be stuck making some good sentencing submissions and hope that my client can get a discharge or some sort and thus avoid a permanent criminal record. Better still, I'd start off trying to find some more appropriate way of dealing with the charge such as a diversion program that allows the accused to take responsibility, perform some community service, write a letter of apology, and/or make a charitable donation in an act of contrition such that society can be satisfied and the charge can be withdrawn in the interest of not clogging the courts with such matters when there are murder trials backlogged for months and years. But you have to admit, not every police officer, prosecutor, or victim, is going to laugh the matter off, and all of a sudden what started off as a prank wrapped up in your freedom of expression seems an awful lot less attractive once you're required to get up inconveniently early in the morning and shimmy into an uncomfortable, ill-fitting suit because you have to go to court.
There's also the fact that it gives the pie-d person a soapbox on which to thoroughly denounce the actions of the pranksters as a wanton assault on their right to speak and have their opinions and a sign of the thoroughly bankrupt position of the opposition. This is in fact just what happened when someone pie-d Ann Coulter, and when someone else put a pie in the face of David Horowitz. Now, let it be said that Ann Coulter is one of the vilest humans on the face of the earth. Her opinions are nothing short of hateful. She is the Moe the Bartender of pundits -- violent, hate-filled, ugly, and bigoted. Ann Coulter's quotes include such gems as:
-- on Muslims, September 13, 2001.
-- on liberals, January 2002.
-- on terrorism.
So, in October 2004 Ann Coulter was presented with a pie in the face while giving a talk at the University of Arizona. And while I'm in agreement that it's a silly, stupid prank and certainly not a vicious assault, it both runs afoul of the law and the spirit of honest debate. Now, Ann Coulter is not one to engage in honest debate. She is on the record as stating that there can be no useful dialogue between liberals and conservatives, and engages in some of the worst distortions of truth and fact in her jingoistic rhetoric. But all that can be taken from an incident on this is that she is allowed to feel like a victim, and feel like a victim she has. Here's what she said in a New York Observer interview:
The charges against the pie-throwers were ultimately dismissed, signaling to me that the state felt it was a prank and likely that the courts could better spend time on more substantively serious offences (and that the pair, who were then roughly handled by some burly conservatives in attendance, had suffered enough). But one thing conservatives love to do is feel victimized by the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, and such tactics only give them something real, if harmless, to point to as evidence.
David Horowitz, one-time radical 60s leftist now radical right-winger, was also pied while giving a talk, and he took much the same route, claiming to be a victim of an attack on his free speech and that the episode demonstrated all too well how hostile and shallow the left must be if it couldn't tolerate his [nutty] opinions. Horowitz, in fact, has been championing an "Academic Bill of Rights" which will allow students to sue their professors for being "biased" (that is, insufficiently conservative), and has twisted his incident into proving just how badly this bill of rights is needed, because universities are seemingly cramped with hostile radicals who resort to violence when challenged. Sadly No! has more, and had it just right when it said:
I have to say I must also denounce such actions as pie-throwing as juvenile and counterproductive. Not only does it attract possible legal consequences, but it is unworthy of us. If there is any merit to your beliefs and arguments, they will prevail in an honest argument. Throwing pies suggests you have nothing worthy to say at all, but are simply having a public tantrum.
And speaking of pie, my good friend Mélanie baked a fantastic sugar glazed fieldberry pie today, and it is unbelievably scrumptious. I've rarely had such good pie. In fact, I'm going to eat some right now... Remember now - pie is for eating, not throwing. That way, everyone wins.
UPDATE:
Via World O'Crap, we discover that Ann Coulter is once again also a liar. The charges against the protesters who pie-d her were dismissed because she couldn't be bothered to show up for their trial to give evidence, her claims to victimhood and calling for vigilante justice notwithstanding.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 There is certainly an argument to be made, and one that I think many people would agree with, that a pie in the face is a relatively harmless protest that does no harm to anything except shirt collars and egos. Normally the bemused public figure simply clears some of the dripping goop off his or her face and laughs the incident off while the pranksters are hauled away by burly men who spend an awful lot of time working out at the gymnasium in strenuous preparation for just such an occasion. And after awhile the charges are dropped or the sentence is lenient and people get on with their lives, including a return to celebrating the true meaning of pie, which is to be baked, delicious, and eaten.
The pie can also seem like a great way to make a statement. On top of groups who just want to mockingly take the self-important down a peg or two and make them feel foolish, there are those who increasingly feel that their protests against the policies and excesses of the powerful fall on deaf ears, and to them a well-placed pie can create a flurry of media interest and public discussion of the event.
In the end, however, the pie-ing is largely dismissed for what it is -- a childish prank. Not exactly harmful, but counterproductive, puerile, violent, and a waste of pie.
In a formally legal sense, it is also criminal. In Canada, for example, assault is defined by section 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which states that assault is the intentional application of force without consent (see also sections 265(1)(b) and 265(1)(c) for additional definitions that are not applicable in this context). This is to say that intentionally touching another person without his or her consent is an assault. Now, you have to query whether anyone who ever intentionally touches another person without permission is charged with assault, should be charged, and so on, because in fact we look to context a lot in considering whether it is in the interests of justice to prosecute, or even whether it is that offensive. That said, the civil tort of battery ("assault" in tort law actually refers to the apprehension of the physical contact) requires no proof of damage to attract liability. If you batter someone in the tortious sense, again just an unwanted touch, you stand liable for nominal damages because the conduct is actionable per se given society's interest in protecting of an individual's physical integrity.
So, given the legal implications, even the ridiculous behaviour of rubbing a pie in someone's face goes against what we are normally prepared to consider tolerable behaviour. People are charged, and (assuming the charges are not dropped, for example in an act of prosecutorial discretion) sometimes convicted of assault. Speaking as someone who is not yet a defence lawyer but has two years of experience in the courts through my work as a law student at the legal clinic, I would make arguments against that behaviour truly being criminal, and in the end probably be stuck making some good sentencing submissions and hope that my client can get a discharge or some sort and thus avoid a permanent criminal record. Better still, I'd start off trying to find some more appropriate way of dealing with the charge such as a diversion program that allows the accused to take responsibility, perform some community service, write a letter of apology, and/or make a charitable donation in an act of contrition such that society can be satisfied and the charge can be withdrawn in the interest of not clogging the courts with such matters when there are murder trials backlogged for months and years. But you have to admit, not every police officer, prosecutor, or victim, is going to laugh the matter off, and all of a sudden what started off as a prank wrapped up in your freedom of expression seems an awful lot less attractive once you're required to get up inconveniently early in the morning and shimmy into an uncomfortable, ill-fitting suit because you have to go to court.
There's also the fact that it gives the pie-d person a soapbox on which to thoroughly denounce the actions of the pranksters as a wanton assault on their right to speak and have their opinions and a sign of the thoroughly bankrupt position of the opposition. This is in fact just what happened when someone pie-d Ann Coulter, and when someone else put a pie in the face of David Horowitz. Now, let it be said that Ann Coulter is one of the vilest humans on the face of the earth. Her opinions are nothing short of hateful. She is the Moe the Bartender of pundits -- violent, hate-filled, ugly, and bigoted. Ann Coulter's quotes include such gems as:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
-- on Muslims, September 13, 2001.
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
-- on liberals, January 2002.
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
-- on terrorism.
So, in October 2004 Ann Coulter was presented with a pie in the face while giving a talk at the University of Arizona. And while I'm in agreement that it's a silly, stupid prank and certainly not a vicious assault, it both runs afoul of the law and the spirit of honest debate. Now, Ann Coulter is not one to engage in honest debate. She is on the record as stating that there can be no useful dialogue between liberals and conservatives, and engages in some of the worst distortions of truth and fact in her jingoistic rhetoric. But all that can be taken from an incident on this is that she is allowed to feel like a victim, and feel like a victim she has. Here's what she said in a New York Observer interview:
I was physically attacked this year. I hear MoveOn.org has a bounty for anyone who throws a pie in my face. Neither of those guys hit me. I think one is still in prison. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. One guy with a broken shoulder and one with a broken nose. And that was when I was traveling totally unprotected. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead."
The charges against the pie-throwers were ultimately dismissed, signaling to me that the state felt it was a prank and likely that the courts could better spend time on more substantively serious offences (and that the pair, who were then roughly handled by some burly conservatives in attendance, had suffered enough). But one thing conservatives love to do is feel victimized by the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, and such tactics only give them something real, if harmless, to point to as evidence.
David Horowitz, one-time radical 60s leftist now radical right-winger, was also pied while giving a talk, and he took much the same route, claiming to be a victim of an attack on his free speech and that the episode demonstrated all too well how hostile and shallow the left must be if it couldn't tolerate his [nutty] opinions. Horowitz, in fact, has been championing an "Academic Bill of Rights" which will allow students to sue their professors for being "biased" (that is, insufficiently conservative), and has twisted his incident into proving just how badly this bill of rights is needed, because universities are seemingly cramped with hostile radicals who resort to violence when challenged. Sadly No! has more, and had it just right when it said:
1.) The best way to handle people like Horowitz is logically attacking their arguments in Q & A sessions. Hurling a pie is a sign that you aren't thinking so much as reacting- a sure way to lose an argument.
2.) It lets Horowitz whine about how "oppressed" he is, and inspires his moron readers to give him more money.
3.) Everyone has a right to speak without getting pied.
I have to say I must also denounce such actions as pie-throwing as juvenile and counterproductive. Not only does it attract possible legal consequences, but it is unworthy of us. If there is any merit to your beliefs and arguments, they will prevail in an honest argument. Throwing pies suggests you have nothing worthy to say at all, but are simply having a public tantrum.
And speaking of pie, my good friend Mélanie baked a fantastic sugar glazed fieldberry pie today, and it is unbelievably scrumptious. I've rarely had such good pie. In fact, I'm going to eat some right now... Remember now - pie is for eating, not throwing. That way, everyone wins.
UPDATE:
Via World O'Crap, we discover that Ann Coulter is once again also a liar. The charges against the protesters who pie-d her were dismissed because she couldn't be bothered to show up for their trial to give evidence, her claims to victimhood and calling for vigilante justice notwithstanding.
Rob forages for a Happy Ending
My Last Law School Exam Ever is on Friday, in that venerable old subject of administrative law. This is the body of law that upholds procedural fairness and transparency from administrative bodies like commissions, tribunals, boards, and so on, which receive their authority as delegates of a sovereign legislature like the federal Parliament or a provincial legislature. Essentially, such bodies make everyday decisions that can affect people's professional lives, immigration, trade, and so on, and they are held to a standard requiring various levels of notice (telling you that they're going to be deciding something about you), disclosure (what evidence they're using), giving an opportunity to respond (in person or writing), and providing some written reasons for the decision made. If there is some flaw or bias in the process, the courts have a review power and may correct the defect by ordering the decision-making body to do something, to stop doing something, or to look at their decision with the missing procedural protection in place. It's actually quite an important and interesting area of law, because while governments don't have the time or resources to make day-to-day decisions that can ruin your life, administrative bodies do (because governments give them that power), and you better believe that you want that decision-making body to be independent, fair, and open to your side of the story.
Anyway, I'm working on a summary for that class right now (more accurately, I'm procrastinating work on that summary right now), so I wanted to advise you that I'll probably be off in admin land until I finish the exam Friday afternoon.
Saturday, April 09, 2005 Anyway, I'm working on a summary for that class right now (more accurately, I'm procrastinating work on that summary right now), so I wanted to advise you that I'll probably be off in admin land until I finish the exam Friday afternoon.
If you can't beat 'em, kill em.
Oh, for fuck's sake. The Wingnuts who want to install a theocracy in the United States have decided that an independent judiciary is a threat to their plans for Dominion, apparently forgetting everything they learned in grade school about the constitution, about separation of powers, and checks and balances:
I'm in essay and exam mode for the next few days. I have a paper due on Monday and an exam on Friday. But this just outraged me beyond words. You may disagree with the decisions made by judges, but their place is to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and to uphold the constitution to strike down illegal laws and prevent political whims from running over the rule of law.
Friday, April 08, 2005 Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly. [emphasis added]
A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."
The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.
The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.
Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.
I'm in essay and exam mode for the next few days. I have a paper due on Monday and an exam on Friday. But this just outraged me beyond words. You may disagree with the decisions made by judges, but their place is to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and to uphold the constitution to strike down illegal laws and prevent political whims from running over the rule of law.
Rob is Blown Away
I just received an e-mail from the Director of the Legal Clinic informing me that after counting the votes cast by all 40 law students working at the Clinic this school year, I won the Greenspon Brown Award. I maintain that my good friend Karla was a much worthier candidate, and I intend to remind her of this today, but it's still a very gratifying accomplishment and I am touched that I am so well thought of by the people around me. When the nominations were announced earlier this week at our General Meeting, the Director read out some of the comments left by other students in their nomination forms. Let me tell you that I was blushing and hiding my face as these were read out. The comments glowed with praise and sung wondrous tales of my big heart, helpful nature, and tendency to not leave the Clinic until the wee hours.
Truth be told, I am quite veklempt. Very happy, and very humbled.
Truth be told, I am quite veklempt. Very happy, and very humbled.
First the bad news, then the good news.
My dear friend Natalie has been in and out of the hospital for the past couple of days, and I hope you will join me in wishing her well and a speedy recovery. She's been discharged now, with a big prescription of antibiotics and some painkillers, but it was really worrisome for awhile there, especially because it took so long for all the tests and specialists to figure out what was actually wrong. All they could tell was that she was in extreme pain and needed morphine and, when that no longer worked, demerol. Last night, I was asked to go to her house to cat-sit at her home since she hadn't been home since going to the hospital the night before, and I spent a good six hours petting and taking care of two very nervous and lonesome beasties.
Get well soon, Nat.
The good news, though it's scant compared to my relief to hear that Natalie was home, responding to her antibiotics, and feeling better, is that I had my final driving lesson today, and passed my simulated road test. This means I am now qualified to book my road test, eight months after getting my G1 permit, confident that I have become comfortable with the mechanics and handling of a car, and the rules of the road. It was a very satisfying accomplishment, almost as much as actually passing the Official Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Road Test itself. That said, I think when I have a couple of extra dollars, I'm going to book some more lessons, just because I'm going to be a little busy this month with exams and papers, and I don't want to get too rusty in my driving skills before I take the test in May or June. It's very hard to practice since I don't have access to a car, and this way I'll stay comfortable and get even more confident.
All the same -- hooray!
Thursday, April 07, 2005 Get well soon, Nat.
The good news, though it's scant compared to my relief to hear that Natalie was home, responding to her antibiotics, and feeling better, is that I had my final driving lesson today, and passed my simulated road test. This means I am now qualified to book my road test, eight months after getting my G1 permit, confident that I have become comfortable with the mechanics and handling of a car, and the rules of the road. It was a very satisfying accomplishment, almost as much as actually passing the Official Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Road Test itself. That said, I think when I have a couple of extra dollars, I'm going to book some more lessons, just because I'm going to be a little busy this month with exams and papers, and I don't want to get too rusty in my driving skills before I take the test in May or June. It's very hard to practice since I don't have access to a car, and this way I'll stay comfortable and get even more confident.
All the same -- hooray!
Among other things
I was nominated this week for the Greenspon Brown award, which has been an ongoing award here at the University of Ottawa Community Legal Clinic for many years after it was donated by the law firm of Karam, Greenspon and Associates (now Greenspon, Brown and Associates) in recognition of Clinic students who have made a significant contribution to the files and members of the Clinic. The special thing about the award is that you have to be nominated by at least two fellow students, with reasons, and only the students at the Clinic can vote on the ultimate recipient. Along with myself, two of my very good friends were also nominated, which I admit has put me in a bind.
I admit I would love my little name to live on, engraved on the plaques than hang on our conference room wall, especially since I so admire and respect (and nominated) the student who won last year, who is currently articling here as my supervisor. It also comes with a modest bursary, which again would be quite delightful.
On the other hand, I was talking with one of the other nominees, and he and I agreed that the third nominee was really one of the unsung heroes of the Clinic. She's a swell person who has worked hard on the Steering Committee, supervised her division with grace and skill, and while very well liked and appreciated by everyone, nevertheless hasn't gotten the big prizes, such as I did when I won the Clarey B. Sproule Memorial Bursary, or my also-nominated colleague did when he got hired here to help out with research for the criminal division this summer.
So, we both agreed it was time to vote for our good friend, which we did, yesterday. Everyone's wishing me luck, and again I'm torn, but in the end I'd be very happy if my good friend won instead ... though, OK, perhaps I'd be just as happy if we tied and were awarded it together.
What an award whore am I.
***
As another aside, let me say that there will be a ruling from the judge at the head of the Gomery Inquiry into the Liberal Party sponsorship scandal today about whether or not the publication ban will be lifted, which will probably result in some furious discussion about whether this government is going down or not. You might have noticed that I spend a lot of time talking about US politics, but less about Canadian. I think, on the whole, that the wingnutty culture in the US is just so freaking scary that it captivates my horrified attention and outrage. Canada has pockets of the same, but the US is really a chilling example of what could come, and I'm anxious to see those fires put out.
Still, I think it is time to take more of an interest in local issues as well, which is certainly in the works and I'll be able to talk about (and read more about) if the publication ban is lifted. I'm no fan of the Liberal Party, but we as Canadians have put ourselves in a silly quandary by concluding that there are only two options -- the Liberals or the Conservatives -- and preferring sleazy and corrupt to freaky and scary. I personally think it's time to put a progressive party in power that can balance some amount of fiscal prudence with genuine progressive and constitutionally justifiable stances on issues that Canadians care about.
As it stands right now, given the waste, corruption, ideology, and non-denial-denials, neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservatives can honestly lay a claim to either priority.
I admit I would love my little name to live on, engraved on the plaques than hang on our conference room wall, especially since I so admire and respect (and nominated) the student who won last year, who is currently articling here as my supervisor. It also comes with a modest bursary, which again would be quite delightful.
On the other hand, I was talking with one of the other nominees, and he and I agreed that the third nominee was really one of the unsung heroes of the Clinic. She's a swell person who has worked hard on the Steering Committee, supervised her division with grace and skill, and while very well liked and appreciated by everyone, nevertheless hasn't gotten the big prizes, such as I did when I won the Clarey B. Sproule Memorial Bursary, or my also-nominated colleague did when he got hired here to help out with research for the criminal division this summer.
So, we both agreed it was time to vote for our good friend, which we did, yesterday. Everyone's wishing me luck, and again I'm torn, but in the end I'd be very happy if my good friend won instead ... though, OK, perhaps I'd be just as happy if we tied and were awarded it together.
What an award whore am I.
***
As another aside, let me say that there will be a ruling from the judge at the head of the Gomery Inquiry into the Liberal Party sponsorship scandal today about whether or not the publication ban will be lifted, which will probably result in some furious discussion about whether this government is going down or not. You might have noticed that I spend a lot of time talking about US politics, but less about Canadian. I think, on the whole, that the wingnutty culture in the US is just so freaking scary that it captivates my horrified attention and outrage. Canada has pockets of the same, but the US is really a chilling example of what could come, and I'm anxious to see those fires put out.
Still, I think it is time to take more of an interest in local issues as well, which is certainly in the works and I'll be able to talk about (and read more about) if the publication ban is lifted. I'm no fan of the Liberal Party, but we as Canadians have put ourselves in a silly quandary by concluding that there are only two options -- the Liberals or the Conservatives -- and preferring sleazy and corrupt to freaky and scary. I personally think it's time to put a progressive party in power that can balance some amount of fiscal prudence with genuine progressive and constitutionally justifiable stances on issues that Canadians care about.
As it stands right now, given the waste, corruption, ideology, and non-denial-denials, neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservatives can honestly lay a claim to either priority.
Back, you ghouls!
During the height of the sad fiasco involving Terri Schiavo, her husband, and her parents, a memo was circulated amongst Republican lawmakers with talking points intended to be used to play up the issue as a way for Republicans to score points, excite their base, and put the Democrats on the defensive. In other words, use this family's suffering for crass political opportunism (was there ever any doubt)?
Of course, the right-wing blogs were quick to claim the memo was a forgery and a "dirty trick." Chief among those creating a ruckus were the lugubriously fluffed wankers at Powerline [no link to thee from me], aka Time Magazine's foolishly chosen "blog of the year" (for their overly hyped and ultimately discredited sleuthing which they nevertheless took credit for when it was revealed that the Texas Air National Guard "Killian Memos" were most likely forgeries -- these being the documents that brought an end to Dan Rather's career).
So shrill was the cry that no such "crudely written" memo could really have been written and circulated by Republicans that Howie Kurtz of the Washington Post jumped on the story and also declared that it must not be authentic. Of course, while one should always be critical and skeptical of documents that seem too-good-to-be-true (or, if they make your preferred line of thought look bad, horribly embarrassing), the fact is that Republicans did cynically exploit this issue to appease the pro-life fringes, and just as cynically backed off when polls indicated that the majority of Americans believed that their interventionw as politically motivated and constitutionally unjustifiable.
Anyway, the legal counsel to Republican Florida Senator Mel Martinez, just admitted today that he wrote the memo which Martinez then passed along. As they say: when the shoe fits, wear it:
Blogs get things wrong all the time, which is why I continually maintain that the triumphalism and hype about how the "blogosphere" will kill mainstream media dead is so much bosh and flimshaw. What is redeeming is when you take ownership of your mistakes and admit to them. I read a lot of blogs (see the column of links to the right), generally quite lefty, and I'm not ashamed to say I find the intellectual honesty of those writers and commenters to be on the whole much more rigorous than the likes of Free Republic, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, and of course the wildly insane Adam Yoshida [again, no links for thee from me]. Will the mea culpas and retractions from these esteemed, frequently-called-upon-for-panels-on-blogging-ethics types start rolling in? I wouldn't hold my breath.
Saturday, April 02, 2005 ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."
Of course, the right-wing blogs were quick to claim the memo was a forgery and a "dirty trick." Chief among those creating a ruckus were the lugubriously fluffed wankers at Powerline [no link to thee from me], aka Time Magazine's foolishly chosen "blog of the year" (for their overly hyped and ultimately discredited sleuthing which they nevertheless took credit for when it was revealed that the Texas Air National Guard "Killian Memos" were most likely forgeries -- these being the documents that brought an end to Dan Rather's career).
So shrill was the cry that no such "crudely written" memo could really have been written and circulated by Republicans that Howie Kurtz of the Washington Post jumped on the story and also declared that it must not be authentic. Of course, while one should always be critical and skeptical of documents that seem too-good-to-be-true (or, if they make your preferred line of thought look bad, horribly embarrassing), the fact is that Republicans did cynically exploit this issue to appease the pro-life fringes, and just as cynically backed off when polls indicated that the majority of Americans believed that their interventionw as politically motivated and constitutionally unjustifiable.
Anyway, the legal counsel to Republican Florida Senator Mel Martinez, just admitted today that he wrote the memo which Martinez then passed along. As they say: when the shoe fits, wear it:
The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night. Brian Darling, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.
Martinez said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."
Blogs get things wrong all the time, which is why I continually maintain that the triumphalism and hype about how the "blogosphere" will kill mainstream media dead is so much bosh and flimshaw. What is redeeming is when you take ownership of your mistakes and admit to them. I read a lot of blogs (see the column of links to the right), generally quite lefty, and I'm not ashamed to say I find the intellectual honesty of those writers and commenters to be on the whole much more rigorous than the likes of Free Republic, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, and of course the wildly insane Adam Yoshida [again, no links for thee from me]. Will the mea culpas and retractions from these esteemed, frequently-called-upon-for-panels-on-blogging-ethics types start rolling in? I wouldn't hold my breath.
Still not a menace on the roads.
I'm pleased to say that I passed my defensive driving evaluation this week with flying colours. My instructor actually remarked it had been a long time since he'd seen so few shifting, steering, and general handling errors, as much as I need to work on being much more observant (in terms of things like scanning inside and ground-viewing parked cars and keeping a minimum eye lead time when in motion), which was where my score really suffered (I got a 44 out of 50 - a pass is 35). But one thing I definitely didn't do was make any kind of driving error or illegal move that would have failed me on a road test. I was starting and shifting very smoothly -- most times, you can't even feel the car shift. I'm definitely becoming a better and better driver each week as I progress through my lessons. I'm not perfect, of course, but I have come a long way from the nervous nellie who first started shifting gears in a parking lot last winter and stalled far too often in the middle of downtown traffic.
In fact, I think I'm just about ready to take my road test, and am seriously considering taking it in my instructor's manual Mazda3, even though so many people have said it's a much easier test to do in an automatic. I'm becoming very comfortable with a manual transmission and have gotten over a lot of bad habits and beginner's mistakes. Certainly when the time comes to buy a car, I know I'm not going back. The final evaluation for my driving course will actually be a simulated driving test -- running the same route and using the same maneuvers as will be required by the Ministry examiner (all of whom are trained by Young Drivers these days). If I can pass that, I know I will be truly ready to take the road test and get my licence.
The one thing that I'm still working on is processing lots of information at the same time while driving, in the sense that you have to be aware of who is behind you, what's going on up ahead, whether the traffic light is "fresh" or "stale" and whether anyone's about to cut you off. I'm quite good at this on a bicycle, but everything happens a lot faster in a car, and while much of driving is now second nature to me, there's still refinement. Of course, if I had any access to a car, I'd have the ability to practice outside my weekly lessons, but such is not the case.
Still, my instructor and I both learned a lesson about the powers of observation, because we both missed what could have been a very serious accident until it was almost upon us. I'd been stopped on the Vanier Parkway, about to turn left onto St. Patrick Street to return to the University of Ottawa, and we were waiting for our turning arrow. There's no ability to turn from that lane if the arrow isn't green, and we'd been advancing slowly forward and had to wait as some fire trucks blared through the intersection, and the light would quickly change throughout this progress and stay red for considerable periods of time. Finally, we were at the head, the arrow turned green, and my instructor told me to get moving. Ahead we went, when all of a sudden a car decided to proceed through the red and turn left onto the Parkway. She cut right into our path and had we both not caught it and hit the brakes together (such cars have a passenger-side brake pedal for the instructor), she would have thoroughly t-boned us on the passenger side. I don't believe in honking horns out of anger, but I was sorely tempted to. It was an idiotic thing for that driver to do. I don't know if she'd run the red or was absent-mindedly anticipating her light to change green, but I learned something about being really clear on not assuming that you're in the clear just because your turn is protected by a signal. People can and will do idiotic and illegal things. Commensensical, yes, and of course I do scan intersections before proceeding, but you really only need to have it happen in practice once to hit home.
On the other hand, the fact that both my instructor and I were caught by surprise didn't make me feel as bad. She really did just come out of nowhere. The intersection looked perfect, and had motion not cut into the corner of my instructor's eye, we could both have been badly hurt (and at the very least his precious shiny new car would have been).
I guess the lesson is, you have to be a very cautious and defensive driver, because a lot of other drivers out there are complete numbnuts (and yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. I'm-reading-the-Globe-and-Mail-while-I'm-driving).
Luckily, this official test says I am a very cautious and defensive driver. Yay me.
In fact, I think I'm just about ready to take my road test, and am seriously considering taking it in my instructor's manual Mazda3, even though so many people have said it's a much easier test to do in an automatic. I'm becoming very comfortable with a manual transmission and have gotten over a lot of bad habits and beginner's mistakes. Certainly when the time comes to buy a car, I know I'm not going back. The final evaluation for my driving course will actually be a simulated driving test -- running the same route and using the same maneuvers as will be required by the Ministry examiner (all of whom are trained by Young Drivers these days). If I can pass that, I know I will be truly ready to take the road test and get my licence.
The one thing that I'm still working on is processing lots of information at the same time while driving, in the sense that you have to be aware of who is behind you, what's going on up ahead, whether the traffic light is "fresh" or "stale" and whether anyone's about to cut you off. I'm quite good at this on a bicycle, but everything happens a lot faster in a car, and while much of driving is now second nature to me, there's still refinement. Of course, if I had any access to a car, I'd have the ability to practice outside my weekly lessons, but such is not the case.
Still, my instructor and I both learned a lesson about the powers of observation, because we both missed what could have been a very serious accident until it was almost upon us. I'd been stopped on the Vanier Parkway, about to turn left onto St. Patrick Street to return to the University of Ottawa, and we were waiting for our turning arrow. There's no ability to turn from that lane if the arrow isn't green, and we'd been advancing slowly forward and had to wait as some fire trucks blared through the intersection, and the light would quickly change throughout this progress and stay red for considerable periods of time. Finally, we were at the head, the arrow turned green, and my instructor told me to get moving. Ahead we went, when all of a sudden a car decided to proceed through the red and turn left onto the Parkway. She cut right into our path and had we both not caught it and hit the brakes together (such cars have a passenger-side brake pedal for the instructor), she would have thoroughly t-boned us on the passenger side. I don't believe in honking horns out of anger, but I was sorely tempted to. It was an idiotic thing for that driver to do. I don't know if she'd run the red or was absent-mindedly anticipating her light to change green, but I learned something about being really clear on not assuming that you're in the clear just because your turn is protected by a signal. People can and will do idiotic and illegal things. Commensensical, yes, and of course I do scan intersections before proceeding, but you really only need to have it happen in practice once to hit home.
On the other hand, the fact that both my instructor and I were caught by surprise didn't make me feel as bad. She really did just come out of nowhere. The intersection looked perfect, and had motion not cut into the corner of my instructor's eye, we could both have been badly hurt (and at the very least his precious shiny new car would have been).
I guess the lesson is, you have to be a very cautious and defensive driver, because a lot of other drivers out there are complete numbnuts (and yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. I'm-reading-the-Globe-and-Mail-while-I'm-driving).
Luckily, this official test says I am a very cautious and defensive driver. Yay me.
