The Politics Test

--------------------

You are a Social Moderate (41% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (13% permissive) You are best described as a: Strong Democrat

--------------------

a cowsmic view of world organization

--------------------

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.

FINNISH SOCIALISM: You have two cows. Soon you have to kill one of them because in the Netherlands there is an overproduction of milk and the European Union rules say so. When you do so, you realize that it was not necessary, only the system was too slow in getting you the up-to-date news. From the stress, you get an ulcer in your stomach so you go to a doctor. The doctor realizes that this ulcer is a serious one, so you need an urgent treatment. Therefore, you soon get a call to the local hospital. The call's date is for 3 months later, because there is a queue with more urgent cases. Then your ulcer becomes even more serious because you remember that 40 percent of your income is taken for social tax.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate".

BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.

JAPANESE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You give the milk to gangsters so they don't ask any awkward questions about who you're giving the milk to.

EASTERN EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You sell the milk (diluted with some water) at a high price to the neighbors or to anyone at the open-air market. If somebody asks for receipt, you charge them a price twice as high, so nobody will request an invoice. For concerned families with small babies you claim that the milk is "bio", though you collect the grass for feeding at the side of the highway and you keep the milk in plastic barrels used previously as containers of dangerous chemicals. Later, your neighbor or anybody from town will steal the cows and you will buy their meat for a high price, and if you ask for a receipt, you will be charged for a price twice as high.

SINGAPORE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed animals in an apartment.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

EUROPEAN FEDERALISM: You have two cows which cost too much money to care for because everybody is buying milk imported from some cheap east-European country and would never pay the fortune you'd have to ask for your cows' milk. So you apply for financial aid from the European Union to subsidise your cows and are granted enough subsidies. You then sell your milk at the former elevated price to some government-owned distributor which then dumps your milk onto the market at east-European prices to make Europe competitive. You spend the money you got as a subsidy on two new cows and then go on a demonstration to Brussels complaining that the European farm-policy is going drive you out of your job.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad.

FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war-mongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

--------------------

"character"

--------------------

In many circles of Canadian society, it is almost considered a joke to talk about fundamental values and character, about the need for such attributes as honour, respect, integrity, compassion or responsibility. To them, such talk is the hallmark of conservatives, of Canadians who espouse "family values," and of evangelical Christians. But not for Don Cousens, the mayor of Markham and a former Progressive Conservative MPP, who believes strongly that character matters, and that it is crucial to building better communities. He also feels character is lacking, or at least slipping, in today's society, and he is trying to do something about it.

"Character is something fundamental to our society," Cousens said in a recent interview. He contends there has been a breakdown in society and values are no longer promoted or taught by, in his eyes, too many parents and teachers. Cousens said he started to feel restless in 2000, worrying about his community and Canada. "There had to be a better way to show our respect for one another, demonstrate good citizenship, teach our children how to participate responsibly in a civil society and foster democratic ideals of justice," he wrote in the introduction to his book, titled Building Character, a Community's Success Story. "Yes, there had to be a better way to build a stronger spirit of community."

Here are the 11 character attributes of the Character Community program:

• Respect: Treat others and yourself with high regard and dignity.
• Responsibility: Be accountable for your actions and keep commitments.
• Honesty: Be sincere, trustworthy and accountable.
• Compassion: Be sensitive to the feelings of others.
• Courage: Stand up for your beliefs and principles.
• Inclusiveness: Build a community where everyone feels valued.
• Fairness: Treat others equitably.
• Optimism: Keep a positive attitude.
• Perseverance: Keep your eye on the goal when faced with challenges.
• Initiative: Recognize what needs to be done and do it.
• Integrity: Do what is right and ensure there is no difference between what you say and what you do.

Cousens isn't naive. He knows there are lots of cynics, but he keeps pushing his ideas — and the book. "It is not a prescription to cure society's ills," he says, "but is a movement."

— BOB HEPBURN, Toronto Star (2005/10/29)

--------------------

Equality: The Heart of a Just Society

--------------------

It is not easy to make history in just 92 words, but Canada accomplished that feat in 1985 when Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. It marked a milestone in Canada’s evolution as a nation by making equality rights a permanent part of our constitution. Section 15 has guided our lawmakers in creating laws that are just, and has helped ensure that everyone in Canada has the right to be free from discrimination.

I have the privilege today of attending the second day of a conference co-hosted by the Department of Justice Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General and the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to mark the 20th anniversary of the adoption of s. 15 of the Charter, an historic event in Canada's legal and political existence... not only do I get a chance to hear people like Peter Cory, Frank Iacobucci, Doris Anderson, Joe Clark, Roy Romanow, etc. speak -- to learn history from the makers of history -- I also have the opportunity to meet and interact with others who are continuing to make history by ensuring that the notion of equality as a fundamental value remains not just within academic and political discourse, but that it reverberates within the psyche of all Canadians...

the recent passing of Rosa Parks is a poignant reminder that, despite the amount of progress we have made, there remains a lot of work to do in order to realize the ideals that lie at the heart of a just society... while I don't discount the importance of other issues that are raised in the context of discussing the Charter -- i.e., the charge of judicial activism and the politicisation of the judiciary -- the more salient point seems to be that the constitutionalisation of rights is really only the first step in creating a true democracy and ensuring the protection of human dignity... it's more important that we continue to internalize these values so that the Charter itself and the values enshrined therein cease to be the focal point of the discourse, but rather underpin all discourse going forward...

Section 15 was never meant to be simply a symbol. It was intended as a working tool to ingrain equality in every aspect of Canadian life. Pierre Elliott Trudeau set out the challenge more than two decades ago, when he said: “We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties, there is a way of life and a system of values which make us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasurable joy.” Ultimately, Section 15 – like the rest of the Charter – is part of our shared identity. It unites us in defining the society we wish to be. Equality, clearly, is less a destination than a journey and will continue to guide Canada’s progress toward the goal of achieving a truly just society.

--------------------

it's that damn Call Day

--------------------

less than 12 hours to go... yikes!

Damn Call Day
by Shaylene Finch
Mock Trial 2005: Thriving Under the Influence

(to the tune of Damn Cold Night)

I'm sitting on the couch
I'm waiting in the dark
I thought a firm would call by now
My pen and paper's out
I've turned the TV down
I'm listening, but there's no sound
Isn't anyone trying to call me?
Won't somebody please call my phone?

It's that damn Call Day
Trying to get a job on Bay
Won't you call me on my phone
Ask for an interview
I don't care who you are
I just... want an interview

My heart is beating fast
My hands are sweating too
The seconds ticking by so slow
It's two minutes past eight
This isn't going great
Now how will I pay off my loan?
Why isn't anyone trying to call me?
Won't somebody please call my phone?!

It's that damn Call Day
Trying to get a job on Bay
Won't you call me on my phone
Ask for an interview
I don't care who you are
I just... want an interview
I want an interview

--------------------

sometimes you have to sit down to stand up

--------------------

many of us get caught up in the daily minutiae of our lives never looking at anything beyond what's pressing and urgent to us... it's easy to forget that there is an opportunity even in our most mundane actions to do something that's greater than ourselves... sometimes it's as "simple" as casting a vote... other times, it means a serious introspection of one's beliefs and acting out of conscience, even if the results are far from pleasant... but each of us has the capacity to do something significant, and none of us should just sit back and "enjoy" the bus ride of life...

"I am leaving this legacy to all of you ... to bring peace, justice, equality, love and a fulfillment of what our lives should be. Without vision, the people will perish, and without courage and inspiration, dreams will die — the dream of freedom and peace."

-- Rosa Parks (1913-2005)

--------------------

conquering the C.N. Tower

--------------------

OK, it wasn't really "conquering"...

more like "1776 steps for man, an incremental leap for United Way"...

the Super Troupers were re-united, plus or minus a few members... although $430 and 18:46 aren't as stellar as previous years, it was still a good time... but alas, i'm getting slower and older... maybe i'll just cut a big cheque next year... oh wait... with what money?

--------------------

yep, i'm going to hell alright...

--------------------

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
-- The Usual Suspects

and in other news...

A convicted murderer says the Devil made him do it — but he wants God to pay for his sins. The inmate, a Romanian identified only as Pavel M., is suing God for failing to save him from Satan. Pavel says when he was baptized as a child, he was in fact making a pact with God that was supposed to protect him from all evil and keep him out of trouble. "God received ... valuables from me, as well as prayers in exchange for promises of a better life," he notes in his lawsuit. "In reality, this did not happen — I found myself in the devil's hands."

Pavel, who's serving 20 years in the Timisoara jail in western Romania, has fingered the Romanian Orthodox Church as God's direct representative here on Earth. And he says it's the church that should be forced to compensate him for the God-inflicted damage wrought by His alleged crimes: "Cheating, concealment, abuse against people's interest, taking bribe and traffic of influence."

Pavel's complaint was sent to the Timisoara Court of Justice and forwarded to the prosecutor's office. But court officials say the suit will likely be dropped because the defendant — identified as "God, resident in Heaven" — is neither an individual nor a company, and therefore not subject to a civil court's jurisdiction.

And besides, they could have difficulty delivering the subpoena.

--------------------

faking it... and maybe never making it...

--------------------

“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.”
-- Jeremy Bentham

a few weeks ago, Martha Stewart fired one of the wanna-be apprentices for uttering something totally inane on the show: "I'm just gonna fake it until I make it"... suffice it to say, after the somewhat shocking discovery of how many blogs by law students are floating around, i somewhat hesitate to utter the same phrase, lest someone discover this little secret that i've been harboring... then again, who cares? who really reads this anyway?


i spent the day at the inaugural annual -- they hope, anyway -- CLPE Workshop, on the topic of "The Corporate Governance Matrix: Unfolding the New Agenda"... this year's conference brings together academics and practitioners for two days of discussions in comparative and interdisciplinary corporate governance, gathering critical insights from securities regulation, labour law, history and political science.... to pretend that i know anything substantial about any of these subject matters would be laughable... although i suppose that was a reason to have attended in itself, if only to learn from the so-called experts in the field...

nevertheless, pretend i did... and will do again tomorrow...

the most poignant part of the day was confessing to this pretension with someone who admitted to being as equally lost in the esotericism of the discussion... it seemed to us both that we simply were not in the same "box" as all these apparently brilliant scholars... as i've written about elsewhere, this is akin to "the notion of fields as a domain relevant arena of discourse which is built into the process of establishing warrants and backings of claims put forward in argument"... in other words, since i had very little idea about the paramaters of the debate or even the basic fundamental concepts, i had little chance of actually engaging in any substantial depth with the material being presented...

which seems to describe a significant aspect of my academic experience...

this is not to say that i'm totally ignorant or -- even worse -- haven't learned anything despite graduating cum laude as a philosophy major and having survived the first year of law school with an above-the-curve GPA... i think it's more to do with the inevitable intellectual penis envy that accompanies an inherently competitive discipline like law... sometimes, i'm hard-pressed to find a good reason to feel like i belong here, given the variety of academic pedigrees and sheer life experience that surround me... i feel like i'm just treading water or donning the mask of inquisitiveness and intellectual curiousity so as not to reveal the difficulty i have comprehending certain issues... and not just certain issues, but a lot of issues... i'm certainly no expert in law or philosophy, even on a relative scale...

all i've seemed to learn is how to BS, albeit in a very eloquent way...


i'm not sure if i'm shortchanging myself or overstating other people's sophistication (which may simply be a matter of perception)... perhaps this feeling of inadequacy isn't entirely solipsistic... i mean, it's not like i never actually "get" anything... it just seems like there's always someone else to compare myself to that gets it -- whatever "it" may be -- a lot more quickly than i do... when you're faced with the dreaded grading curve, this isn't the most comfortable discovery to be making...

of course, the trite answer would be to consider things simply from the perspective of self-emendation and leave the intellectual navel-gazing to the uninitiated... i mean, i did get this far in academia and in my career after all, right? or is that the very epitome of "faking it until you make it"?

--------------------

Goodbye TDCT

--------------------

I was going to use a subject line that would have been more clever ("Cashing Out One Last Time") or sentimental (like my standard "Parting is such sweet sorrow..." whenever I left a branch) but, in the end, something short and sweet was more apropos -- like this:

"It has come to our attention that while you are documented as a casual employee, you have not worked any hours within the last three (3) months. As we do not anticipate any possibility of work hours becoming available in the foreseeable future, we will be removing you from our Bank records, effective Oct. 31, 2005."

-- letter from GTAS Regional Office

And so, my friends, this is how my short but distinguished career at TD Canada Trust ends -- not with a bang, but a whimper. Of course, I've been insanely busy at school since I started, so the loss -- such as it is -- doesn't come as a surprise.

Still, there were a lot of good times that were had during the past 4 years, and for those I will always be grateful. Now I can look forward to paying regular service charges, waiting in line-ups, not having my CIF ETOT blocked out, and (crossing my fingers) maybe even getting the odd CSI call. But no worries, someday I'll be at the branch certifying a cheque from my law firm's trust account.

Or not.

For now I'll be joining the ranks of the TDearly departed.

--------------------

distractions

--------------------

if you're claustrophic... or, in my case, just obsessive-compulsive...

the crimson room will definitely push you to the brink of insanity...

and then you can go over the edge of it with the viridian room...

--------------------

the brick

--------------------

A young and successful executive was traveling down a neighborhood street, going a bit too fast in his new Jaguar. He was watching for kids darting out from between parked cars and slowed down when he thought he saw something. As his car passed, no children appeared. Instead, a brick smashed into the Jag's side door! He slammed on the brakes and backed the Jag back to the spot where the brick had been thrown. The angry driver then jumped out of the car, grabbed the nearest kid and pushed him upagainst a parked car shouting, "What was that all about and who are you? Just what the heck are you doing? That's a new car and that brick you threw is going to cost a lot of money. Why did you do it?"

The young boy was apologetic. "Please, mister... please, I'm sorry but I didn't know what else to do. I threw the brick because no one else would stop." With tears dripping down his face and off his chin, the youth pointed to a spot just around a parked car. "It's my brother. He rolled off the curb and fell out of his wheelchair and I can't lift him up." Now sobbing, the boy asked the stunned executive, "Would you please help me get him back into his wheelchair? He's hurt and he's too heavy for me."

Moved beyond words, the driver tried to swallow the rapidly swelling lump in his throat. He hurriedly lifted the handicapped boy back into the wheelchair, then took out a linen handkerchief and dabbed at the fresh scrapes and cuts. A quick look told him everything was going to be okay. "Thank you and may God bless you," the grateful child told the stranger. Too shook up for words, the man simply watched the boy push his wheelchair-bound brother down the sidewalk toward their home.

It was a long, slow walk back to the Jaguar. The damage was very noticeable, but the driver never bothered to repair the dented side door. He kept the dent there to remind him of this message: "Don't go through life so fast that someone has to throw a brick at you to get your attention!"

--------------------

tale as old as time... tune as old as song

--------------------

bittersweet and strange... finding you can change... learning you were wrong...

I want adventure in the great wide somewhere
I want it more than I can tell
And for once it might be grand
To have someone understand
I want so much more then they've got planned

--------------------

getting the point across...

--------------------

sometimes pictures are worth a thousand words...

dans ce cas-ci, une vidéo pourrait avoir plus de valeur...

--------------------

"Science v. Religion" ... or "Science & Religion"

--------------------

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.
-- Albert Einstein

The ongoing court case about evolution and intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania, is, according to the usual storyline trotted out for such occasions, a battle between Christian creationists and rational scientists. But it is more about a struggle between good philosophy and bad philosophy. The theological point remains that God created the body of man from some pre-existing thing, and whether it be holus-bolus from the slime or though a million-year process of evolution, is not of great import. "I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," Vienna archbishop Christoph Cardinal Schonborn said.

And the limits of scientific theory are where the disputes arise. The theory of evolution -- whatever its strengths and weaknesses -- simply does not deal with ultimate causes. Being a scientific theory, it deals with measurable changes and hypotheses about how those changes take place. It has nothing to say about where the ape or the finch or the lungfish or the primordial slime came from in the first place. And it has nothing to say about the human soul, which is not a material organ like the heart or gall bladder, and therefore cannot be measured. The soul is the domain of philosophy and theology, not natural science.

Too many proponents of evolution propose it not as a scientific theory, but as a fact, like the laws of thermodynamics. As a scientific theory it represents a great advance in understanding how species change -- how finches adapt their beaks to their environment. It is also promising in understanding how one species might become something else altogether, or how very complex organs like eyes or ears might develop. But promise is not the same as evidence, and the theory of evolution, like all theories, is in need of supporting evidence. Assertions that the theory has proven more than it has are simply bad science.

The bad philosophy is worse. Good philosophy understands the proper competencies of the various disciplines. Mathematics is competent to analyze the quantitative aspects of physical bodies; it is not competent in calculating ethics. Aerodynamics is essential for understanding flight; it does determine whether watching an eagle soar is beautiful or not. Pure philosophy deals with questions about the origins of things -- why is there something rather than nothing? Bad philosophy asks scientists, who can only measure what is measurable, to theorize about things which aren't -- God, creation, the human soul.

If religious teaching makes a false scientific claim -- e.g., that the Earth is flat -- then science, in its proper competence, has a correction to make. But where science starts to make metaphysical (literally, "beyond physics") claims -- e.g., about the existence of God or the origin of matter -- then good philosophy needs to put it back in its place. In Dover, evolutionary science is masquerading as a philosophy of human origins. Combined with secularist zealotry, it has resulted in the current court case.

On the particularities of intelligent design -- the theory that life is too complex not to have had an intelligent designer of some sort -- I hold no particular brief for or against. In any case, the Dover Area School District is not proposing to actually teach intelligent design. It simply mandates that a four-paragraph statement be read before the theory of evolution is taught, wherein the fact that evolution is a theory is underscored, and the alternate view of intelligent design is mentioned. That's it.

Yet if the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and intelligent design is a philosophical conclusion about the origins of life, there should be no conflict. Teach evolution in biology class. Teach intelligent design in metaphysics. No problem. The conflict arises only because evolution is really taught as both a scientific theory and a philosophy of origins. Evolutionists of a rather extreme sort -- the sort which would consider the four anodyne paragraphs in Dover as violating the Constitution of the United States -- may be good scientists, but they are bad philosophers. What the students in Dover's high school need is not so much a few paragraphs about intelligent design as a good philosophy course.

-- Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post (2005/10/06)

--------------------

I couldn't resist posting parting comments in the online debate on the Globe & Mail...

The invective is frightening, to say the least, because the more one side accuses the other of being dogmatic, the more they themselves demonstrate the inherent dogmatism of their own position. Is this what enlightened conversation is about?

Again, speaking from my personal experience as one of Mr. Giza's former students, I took everything that was taught me with a grain of salt. I went on to study philosophy in university, and exposed myself to all sorts of ideas and modes of reasoning. Anyone who's even had an inkling of training in the philosophy of science knows that even the scientific method is subject to criticism. The only definitive conclusion I've come away with is this: we as human beings are in no position to claim any sense of certitude about our knowledge, because by our very nature we are limited to seeing things from an all-too-human perspective. Much of this conversation smacks of nothing but hubris.

I daresay that few, if any, of those readers engaging in this fundamentalist anti-fundamentalism themselves understand all that's implicated by the science that they've elevated to this pedestal. How many are taking for granted the things that scientists (as if they were a homogenuous group themselves) are teaching, without themselves examining the basis of those conclusions?

I'm not a deist, but I'm in no more position to tell someone what not to believe as I would be in telling them what to believe. I can't say whether there is or isn't a higher being, any more than anyone in this conversation can. So let's stop talking as if we could or had the means by our humanly-created scientific method to decide something that, by definition, isn't a scientific question. More importantly, if we can't agree to disagree, let's at least be more respectful in our tone.

--------------------

lightening things up...

--------------------

in light of the seriousness of recent posts, i dug up these doozies from past junk e-mail...

One afternoon a wealthy lawyer was riding in his shiny limousine when he saw two men on the side of the road eating grass. Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. He asked one man, "Why are you eating grass?" The poor man replied, "We have no money for food. We HAVE TO eat grass."

Shocked, the lawyer said, "Well, you can come to my house and I'll feed you!"

"But sir, I have a wife and two kids with me. They are over there, under that tree."

"Bring them along!" Turning to the other poor man he said, "You come with us, too."

The second man said, "But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!"

"Bring them all!" the lawyer answered. They all jammed into the huge limo. Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said, "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."

Genuinely touched, the lawyer replied, "Glad to do it. You'll really love my place; the grass is almost a foot high!"

--------------------

Lawyers should never ask a witness a question if they aren't prepared for the answer. In a trial, a small-town prosecutor called his first witness, a grand-motherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"

She responded, "Why, yes I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you." The lawyer was stunned!

Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?" She again replied, "Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him." The defense attorney almost died.

The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you bastards asks her if she knows me, I'll throw you in jail for contempt."

--------------------

Q: I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true?

A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it, so don't waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.

Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?

A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of vegetable products.

Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?

A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!

Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?

A: Well, if you have a body and you have body fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.

Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?

A: Can't think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain ... Good!

Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?

A: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING!!!. Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In
fact, they're permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?

Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?

A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only
be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.

Q: Is chocolate bad for me?

A: Are you crazy? HELLO ...... Cocoa beans .... another vegetable!!! It's the
best feel-good food around!

Q: Is swimming good for your figure?

A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.

--------------------

President Bush was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy". So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of "tragedy".

One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy."

"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident."

A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."

"I'm afraid not," explained the president. "That's what we would call a great loss."

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room.

"Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"

Finally at the back of the room a small boy raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying you and Mrs. Bush was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."

"Fantastic!" exclaimed Bush. "That's right. Can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"

"Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."

--------------------

Bob Giza and "Intelligent Design Theory"

--------------------

Bob Giza is the teacher every parent prays her kid will have in high school. A torrent of energy and inspiration. A dynamo of community activism. An educator given awards by his peers for his teaching skills in and out of the classroom. But here is the thing about Mr. Giza, 58, head of science at Chaminade College School, an all-boys Roman Catholic high school in suburban North York: The students taught biology by him more than likely learned that intelligent design offers a more complete explanation than unalloyed Darwinian evolution for the origins and development of planetary life.

"Take the eyeball," he said a couple of days ago, his fit, lanky frame sprawled in a chair. "How did the eyeball develop? How do you make an eyeball from no eyeball? Three-quarters of an eyeball is no good. There are things the experts can't answer."

He says it's not the micros of evolution that concern him, it's the macros -- how the eyeball came to be; how life got going. The eyeball, he explained, is an example of what intelligent-design proponents call "irreducible complexity." Meaning it has God's fingerprints on it, God's hands reaching into the wet clay of life. It didn't develop through Darwinian random genetic mutation.

In the United States, teaching intelligent design in the schools has politicians, educators, parents and the media immersed in a cauldron of controversy and conflict. But in a Toronto publicly funded high school, Bob Giza teaches intelligent design alongside evolution sans fuss, politicians' polemics or outraged parents.

I posted the following comment online after reading the article in the Globe and Mail.

--------------------

First, I want to commend the Globe and Mail for recognizing CCS and Mr. Giza. As an alumnus of the school (I graduated the year after Steve Vona, and took Gr. 11 biology with him), it gives me great pride to know that my alma mater is part of this important debate. For people who have been questioning Bob's expertise and teaching capabilities, I'll only say this: tell me how many highschool teachers can cogently and coherently explain the Krebs Acid Cycle to Gr. 12 students, and more importantly, without boring them to death.

That being said, I think the important thing that Mr. Giza is doing is encouraging his students to think about these issues on a deeper philosophical level and not just going through science education mechanically. Whether or not intelligent design is a cogent theory is irrelevant -- that will or will not be borne out by the continuing work of science. It's important that educators of young minds impress upon them early on that there are different ways to conceptualize the world.

All this invective flies in the face of the so-called "marketplace of ideas" that our society holds dear. The fact is, there is no conclusive proof to support either complete atheism or intelligent design in conceptualizing evolution, and probably never will be. Both camps are just convinced of one thing: their conception "just is", but there are simply too many limitations on human episteme for anyone to say that they have the monopoly on "truth."

Finally, anyone who says they can separate their scientific and religious beliefs is probably being disingenuous, or hasn't truly examined the implications of their beliefs. Mr. Giza is only doing what most rational human beings try to do: he's trying to find a way to reconcile the different belief systems that he is committed to. It's an exercise that everyone should take on, if only to realize the complexity of the various modes of human thought.

--------------------

Python v. Alligator, [2005] BBC Reports 10-05

--------------------

An unusual clash between a 6-foot (1.8m) alligator and a 13-foot (3.9m) python has left two of the deadliest predators dead in Florida's swamps. The Burmese python tried to swallow its fearsome rival whole but then exploded.

You know you're a law school nerd when the question in your mind is...

"Did the python win costs on a party-and-party or solicitor-client basis?"

--------------------

the leader of the free world?!

--------------------

there are no words to preface this... just read and listen for yourself...

"When forgetting is a weapon used against us by those who continually
re-write history, remembering is an act of self-defence."

--------------------

law: the good, the bad, the ugly... and the uglier...

--------------------

Provinces can sue tobacco companies, S.C.C. rules

The Supreme Court of Canada has opened the door for the provinces to try to recover billions of dollars in health-care costs related to smoking by ruling unanimously that British Columbia can proceed with a landmark suit against tobacco companies. The top court said B.C. legislation that authorized the government to file a lawsuit is constitutional and the judges unequivocally rejected all the tobacco companies' arguments that the law is unfair. Now B.C. -- and other provinces -- can proceed with legal claims against Canadian tobacco companies and their U.S. counterparts.

NZ legal first on HIV disclosure

A New Zealand court has ruled that a man who did not tell his sex partner that he was HIV-positive should not be prosecuted, because he used a condom. In what is believed to be a legal first, Justin Dalley was acquitted of two charges of criminal nuisance. New Zealand law says people with HIV should disclose their condition if it could endanger their partner. The New Zealand Aids Foundation welcomed the ruling, saying it highlighted condoms kept people safe.

Euthanasia test for U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing its first case under new leadership, concerning the emotionally charged issue of assisted suicide. The federal government argues that a law in the state of Oregon allowing terminally ill patients to end their own lives should be overturned. The court's ruling will have implications across the U.S. Oregon is the only U.S. state to permit euthanasia, following a 1997 law that was backed in a state referendum. Since then 208 people, mostly cancer patients, have elected to die under the law, which has strict conditions.

Dane fights for state-funded sex

A disabled Danish man is fighting for the state to pay for him to have a prostitute visit him at home. Torben Hansen, who has cerebral palsy, which severely affects his speech and mobility, believes his local authority should pay the extra charge he incurs when he hires a sex worker - because his disability means he cannot go to see them. His case is currently being considered. In Denmark, local authorities compensate disabled people for extra costs incurred because of their disability.

--------------------

haiku

--------------------

this post is dedicated to james, who seems to love haiku...

--------------------

This tale will ring true,
To many a student thought,
This does not compute.

In Japan, they have replaced the impersonal and unhelpful Microsoft error messages with haiku poetry messages. Haiku poetry has strict construction rules: Each poem has only 17 syllables - 5 syllables in the first line, 7 in the second, 5 in the third. They are used to communicate a timeless message, often achieving a wistful, yearning, and powerful insight through extreme brevity. Here are some actual error messages from Japan.

Aren't these better than "your computer has performed an illegal operation?"

Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.
--------------------------------------------
Program aborting
Close all that you have worked on.
You ask far too much.
--------------------------------------------
Windows NT crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.
--------------------------------------------
Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.
--------------------------------------------
Your file was so big.
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.
--------------------------------------------
Stay the patient course.
Of little worth is your ire.
The network is down.
--------------------------------------------
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.
--------------------------------------------
Three things are certain
Death, taxes and lost data.
Guess which has occurred.
--------------------------------------------
You step in the stream,
But the water has moved on.
This page is not here.
--------------------------------------------
Out of memory.
We wish to hold the whole sky,
But we never will.
--------------------------------------------
Having been erased,
The document you're seeking
Must now be retyped.
--------------------------------------------
Serious error.
All shortcuts have disappeared.
Screen. Mind. Both are blank.
--------------------------------------------
I ate your Web page.
Forgive me; it was tasty
And tart on my tongue

--------------------