Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Take that Steve

For a court that goes out of its way to stop Parliament from doing its job, it has certainly bent over backwards to defer to it in this particular instance, eh? Why didn't the court take this opportunity to (ahem) circumcise Joe Camel's nose?

As is always the case, I agree with the result, but am not impressed with how the Court got there. Call me Thomas J.

Expression is a tricky thing to minimally impair and is quite separate and apart from "Speech" though there is a strong link. This debate has changed significantly since the advent of the "defamation machine" known as the internet, but the distinction remains - s/he who has a press is welcome to use it to express whatever they think they should have the right to express.

Unless they are trying to sell cigarettes. There are tricky issues involved with this case - and it isn't only about limiting "speech" but also about forcing it.

Let me begin by saying that I do not believe that advertising constitutes expression or speech. The freedom of expression, in my admittedly narrow view, is limited to participating in the public discourse. Dentifrice, Dentifrice Dentifrice is NOT speech - any lawyer who advances this argument deserves to be disbarred for stupidity. I do not believe that I am out on a limb by saying that when cigarette ads are seen as free speech worth defending, we have to take a second look at the charter rights associated to speech.

Expression is a slightly different kettle of fish. The Falun Gong don't actually say anything, but use expression protection in Canada to do their mime routine, except THEY don't actually need the protection in Canada. Anti-abortionists walk around with placards and don't exactly harass us, but their pictures are gross. Expression can be dance, it can be art, it can be used for a commercial purpose - but I think it is a stretch to say that advertising is a form of expression in and of itself - it is an expression with a purpose which is not necessarily in the public interest. And that is the bright line test for me.

Ironically, some advertising with a specified political purpose constitute speech and expression, and even constitute (depending on the cost) peaceable assembly & association. We have lots of unconstitutional laws (in my view) that limit this type of speech. If, however, it is OK to limit political speech, expression, association and peaceable assembly (as the Elections Act and Bryan decision does) by all means, regulate the fuck out of the cigarette and booze industry for all of the above. But, why stop there?

I agree wholeheartedly with clearly expressed limits on the freedom of speech - there are some things so awful that simply uttering them should be punishable by death - or at least, very strict fines. As long as the rule is "You can't say X." That is what the current Tobacco Act says. Yay for laws.

I get uncomfortable is when Parliament starts telling people they have to express something - forced expression - when that expression is itself a political message. I am an ex-smoker- I get the need for strong warnings - but to say that you are forced to put disgusting pictures on your product is going to far. I would rather that smokers be forced to sign a complicated waiver each time they bought cigarettes then be exposed to these pictures. There is the rub - kids today actually think they are cool! I used to try and collect the various packages like trading cards. They are so pervasive to people who have already made the decision to smoke that they are now lacking in effect and are not inconvenient in any way.

And not surprisingly, this is where the Court lost me - in doing their analysis - they look to pressing and substantial, and minimal impairment, but they glazed over rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective. For five of the six questions, my analysis would have ended at "is it speech?" For the last one, I could be convinced that the law should be struck down.

Of course, I would have written a one page dissent in part- only to agree with the result.

Norrin Radd-ically underwelming

It isn’t the product placement that bothered me, it is the fact that they choose the Dodge Ram over the “Fantastic Ford.” Of course, the point of product placement is so I can go out and get the stuff, right? So, I want to buy a flying car ASAP.

For the second superhero movie in a row- they insisted on a dance sequence. God lord, why has it come to this? Spiderman was at least evil when he did his – what is Reed’s excuse?

There were some things about this movie didn’t make me want to vomit. I liked the fact that we never actually saw Galactus. I liked the fact that Doctor Doom was smarter than Reed Richards – he always was. I liked the idea of the Board as the source of the power, kind of like Mjolnir, Thor's Hammer. I liked the fact that the Surfer turned black when he lost his power – I wonder what Lawrence thought about that, eh?

That said, this movie was bad. Very bad. The first hour was completely unnecessary except to provide the back story for the true message which was probably lost on most people.

“The sacrifices you make for love are nothing if they make you abandon your principles and prevent you from doing that which is right.”

On a micro-level, Sue is mad at Reed for screwing up their wedding (again) and wants to leave this life behind to raise a family. On a macro-level, Sue sees that Norrin Radd made an actual sacrifice – never to see his planet again. Through living his servitude, Sue comes to realize that it is selfish to deny the world her powers for her own family desires – knowing that she can still have a family, just not the white picket fence kind. With Great Power...Don't they have any other morals in the Marvel Universe?

Ironically, at the same time, Norrin comes to realize that his sacrifice for love was very selfish, and that the principle of standing up to the blight should trump it, regardless of the cost to you personally.

And that is when the movie lost me, because if the Silver Surfer was able to kill Galactus before, why didn’t he? It took Sue Richards whining about choices to make him realize that the deaths of billions, if not trillions of lives was ok? Right.

How the Silver Surfer was able to destroy Galactus from within is not explained. The Silver Surfer was the servant of Galactus – it would be kind of like the photocopy guy at Enron taking the elevator up to the top floor and saying “Stop- all evil must be arrested or I shall take you down with my list of numbered copying accounts.”

Galactus, as a villain, was designed to be a force of nature. Like a sentient storm that destroys all in his path to survive. Reed Richards never realized this until he was given the option to make the EXACT OPPOSITE choice Norrin Radd made by fighting against Galactus to prevent him from winning the very first Secret War. Doctor Doom and Galactus figured out the cosmic chess game in about one second. It took Reed Richards seven issues. Some genius… And of course, he makes the selfish choice and fights against Galactus so that he can see Sue again. Imbecile.

For me- this movie has re-inspired a lot of the great ideas for Galactus/Surfer that never quite made it into comic books. For one- In the books, never truly see Galactus’ revenge on Zenn-la – we know that he went back and ate it and that only Mephisto (the devil) saved any part of it (stealing Shalla-Bal’s soul to torment the surfer). That is a book that needs to be done right now. "The Surfer has sacrificed you for strangers- prepare to reap his reward." Nice.

My other pet project is a Superman/FF cross-over where Kal-el learns that he isn’t actually the last son of Krypton, but the lost herald of Galactus, with General Zod et al being the greedy criminals who drew Galactus to Krypton in the first place. Of course, some idiot has already fucked up the idea.

Luckily, it isn't so bad that I can't rewrite it for them in a sequel to their bad movie. Kind of Like FF2.

I love that word Reform

Yesterday, in a planted question in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister rose to chide the Liberal Senate again. Here is the quote from Hansard:

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that in rejecting terms of less than 45 years, the Liberal Senate has not merely defied the government, it has defied its own leader here in the House. It has defied its former leader in the Senate and of course defied public opinion and all common sense. Liberal senators will not stop Senate reform. They will only ensure that they are not part of the reform that is coming, because reform is inevitable, because the public will not stomach any longer an institution that functions like that.

Now, I am not an expert, but the Prime Minister used the word "Reform" three times in this answer. Given his party's...history, you think they could have right clicked on it at least once?

That said, I have been a Senate Abolitionist since I first learned about what the Senate does. The only really useful thing that it has is the Senate Banking Committee, but the reason for its isolation has been rendered moot by changes to the contribution rules under the Elections Act.

Every once and a while, a Senator or Committee will issue a fantastic report. Yay.

Every once and a while, a Royal Commission will do the same thing, at a fraction of the cost. And with some element of focus - not the haphazard random precision with which Senators pick their topics.

If reform is the only answer, I like the idea of electing Senators. I also like the idea of appointing guenuine leaders in the community to a place of esteem.

Maybe we need Knights.

I don't take issue with any of the "reform" proposals put forward by the government. I just think it is a hornet's nest that no one wants or needs to get involved with unless they are going to make real changes. A few tweaks here or there that will still likely require provincial approval just appears to be a smokescreen.

Honestly, does anyone with a pulse really care about Senate reform? This 45 year term thing is overplayed and a brutal exageration. Only people who watch NASCAR don't understand that.

Besides, opening up the constitution has always done Prime Ministers very well in Quebec. On second thought, go nuts Steve. Reform away.

C is for CAR!!!

From the Eco-Action website:

To qualify, follow these five easy steps:
1) Hire a qualified energy advisor to perform an energy evaluation of your home.
2) Select the improvements from your home energy action checklist.
3) Implement the recommended energy upgrades within 18 months.
4) Call your energy advisor to perform your post-retrofit evaluation, to confirm your new energy rating and to submit your application on your behalf.

They forgot Step Five

5) Rent a remarkably fuel-inefficient vehicle and race it around an oval track 200 times as a form of political advertising.

Stephane Dion is going to sponsor a dude in the Tour de France, I'd bet.

I do know that these cars do not exactly have a long shelf life - their goal being to get around a track at breakneck speeds and to do so a fraction faster than their opponents. I can't wait for that news footage as the "C is for Car" erupts into a ball of flame after being hit by the "Tide" car.

Seriously, if the Government Party is doing this, doesn't it completely undermine the idea behind the emasculation (that word choice was deliberate) of the domestic manufacturing sector through feebates? I am 100% that this vehicle would not qualify for a rebate.

The glib jokes about this aside, I have never quite understood the Nascar craze. I drive cars, and watching other people drive fast usually means I am in traffic going the other way. Lewis Black put it best when he said "People of Atlanta and Boston go to see Nascar because they really don't know what driving is about - Everyone else has no excuse."

In my opinion, there has never been a better example of the largesse of North America than its desire to openly squander a significant amount of non-renewable resources purely for entertainment and Manufacturing bragging rights. They are literally driving in circles - and it is disturbingly loud. No bias here- I like Golf, Baseball and Hai Alai - very passive and relaxing when compared to the "ZOOOOOOOOOM CRASH SMASSSSSSH" of Nascar.

Luckily, they are ready to set me straight -

NASCAR spokesman Jason Christley said cars in the Canadian NASCAR circuit use unleaded gas, which is better for the environment than leaded gas (from the
above link)

Well, ok then. I hear that .33 caliber bullets are better for your lungs than .50s

The topper is that they are actually sponsoring Pierre Bourque's car. There are many who would say that Mr. Bourque is not exactly balanced - I am NOT one of them- I think he seizes on all ridiculous stories, not just ones that make Liberals look bad. I will admit, however, that his propensity to continue to kick the Liberals when they are down is quickly growing tiresome.

That said, if a single voter decides to change their vote because of this, it is time to invite the Queen back to govern for a decade or two. There is a difference between pandering to the lowest common denominator and encouraging political discourse.

I still believe

The New York Yankees have won 8 games in a row.

In 1978...

The Perils of Using Litigation to Win a Political Battle

There were two very interesting stories today involving the use of Courts to achieve a political end.

If the Government won't do it, force an activist Court to make them do it - that will endear the Prime Minister to your cause

Now, I am not an expert, but an important element of using a court to enforce compliance is ensuring that all other available avenues have been exhausted.

WAIT A SECOND - I AM AN EXPERT!!!

It is 2007. The protocol requires reductions based on the 1990 emissions levels between 2008 and 2012. If there has ever been a lawsuit that can't sustain a judicial order this is it. Notwithstanding the ability of the Environmental non-governmental organizations to prognosticate - it might not be ridiculous to suggest that Canada won't meet an obligation under an existing plan, it is ludicrous to initiate a lawsuit seeking an order to meet an obligation the terms of which have yet to expire.

It would be like my bank preemptively suing me for non-payment of my mortgage which doesn't expire for another four years. My favourite part of their application is:

The applicant relies on the following statutory provisions, rules and principles:

e) the precautionary, intergenerational equity and public trust principles;

I am sorry, were these added as important aspects of the Rule of Law while I was napping in Law School?

I admire their initiative - I really do - but you can't use international treaties like contracts. Issue Estoppel doesn't apply to reductions which could, theoretically, still happen.

Oh, and in terms of the expected result, if I was the judge, my judgement would still be rooted in the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Accord. Their application makes no mention of it.

Sadly, it isn't only ENGOs who don't understand how courts work:

I am gonna sue you!

I don't understand why a man who has constantly assailed activist judges is going to sue Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to make them "shut up" or expects such a positive result that he is inviting them to sue the federal government.

As it relates to his action - on the one hand, where is he going to do it? Newfoundland Supreme Court? I can't imagine the PM would get a fair trial these days - the judgement would likely be "Let Danny be Danny." On the other hand - on what grounds? The "Waaaaaah- they won't leave me alone" provisions of the Atlantic accord which he is violation of? If he is right, he doesn't have any recourse beyond the political battle that he is winning in seven of the ten provinces. If he is wrong, the correct response is "fuck you, I'm right."

Now, his suggestion that the Premiers' sue him is an entirely different kettle of kelp. The question of whether or not the Atlantic Accord is a contract is a subject matter I happen to have a little familiarity with. If it was a contract, it was most assuredly broken by the Prime Minister's resource revenue recalibration under Budget 2007 - so, he is inviting Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to sue for the strict enforcement of a contract he is obviously in violation of? DOOO-EY!!! DOOO-EY!!!

On the other hand, if the accord is a political arrangement, based on the 2005 agreement signed between then Prime Minister Martin, the federal Minister of Natural Resources and the Provinces, on what grounds do the provinces initiate their suit? Promissory Estoppel?

I sincerely hope that the rest of the country can see just how ridiculous this issue is. Danny's gripe is political. It always has been. He says Steve promised. Rodney thinks he can have either the budget or the accord, and wants to choose the accord. They should continue to fight these battles on National, or local, television. They will simultaneously win the local battle and lose the national war.

Now, back in the real world - offshore natural resources are not specifically considered in the constitution, and the respective positions of the federal government and the provincial governments are equally stupid. My view on the issue is that both orders should work with each other and come up with a solution that makes EVERYONE rich.

Both Premiers claim that they were wronged by the budget. Maybe they were- so what? My view on equalization is REALLY simple. If we are forced to have equalization - we should take every nickel of tax revenue - put it into a pot and then divide it by the number of people in the country. Assign it equally. Side deal carve outs for any province whose infrastructure was paid for by everyone else equally are ridiculous. What Danny and Rodney are complaining about is similar to raising the "personal exemption" to income taxes to a higher level for their provinces.

Would my idea encourage provinces to lower their taxes and compete internally for investment dollars knowing that other jurisdiction tax dollars would flow back into their province under the one man, one dollar formula? Absolutely.

The only actual issue as it relates to offshore revenue is that Danny (personally, not as the Premier, PERSONALLY) is a barrier to investment in the province's infrastructure by private industry who have money to invest. They think he is totally insane- and they are probably right.

For every nickel he thinks he is being screwed out of by Harper, he is screwing himself out of a dollar from offshore developers who are realistically looking at St. Pierre (or even London England) as a home base for their on shore offices. Calgary is also of the view that it isn't worth investing anything in the area because of the...instability of the regime.

Danny can hoot and holler all he wants - and notwithstanding his popularity - there is no constitutional validity whatsoever to his view that offshore licensing are subject to any type of provincial controls. Even if it fell squarely under 92, and even if the Atlantic Accord specifically excluded resource revenue in the various calculations, what he doesn't seem to understand is that once you get the black junk out of the bottom of the ocean, it has to be refined and shipped from somewhere. Even if they could do it from Hibernia(s) or the White Rose (they are massive faclities, afterall), the on-shore infrastructure is where it is at. Danny remains the biggest disincentive to MASSIVE offshore investment right now because he thinks he can take a skim off the top for the province.

Not only is he wrong, he is doing his province a dis-service - he is complaining that revenue that will NEVER EXIST (unless he starts to play nice with the oil companies) aren't being excluded from the equalization process. He should focus on getting the revenue flowing, then complain on how much of it he has to share.

Not Understanding Things for 24 years

I was humming my favourite song to myself on my way home from the golf course this afternoon (I was horrible, thanks for asking- I guess I just can't do things competitively anymore - this saddens me deeply).

Anyhoo, my favourite song is "Every Breath you take" by the Police- and it has been on and off since about 1983, when it was song of the year- tied with Billie Jean. Also a great song which I love. It's only about mistaken infidelity and parentage based on a torrid night on the dancefloor.

"Every breath you take, Every move you make, Every bond you break, Every step you take, Ill be watching you"

This is a song about stalking someone. Now I feel sick and dirty. How many times have I sang this song? Just singing it is probably a crime if C-22 passes.

"Since youve gone I been lost without a trace, I dream at night I can only see your face, I look around but its you I can't replace, I feel so cold and I long for your embrace, I keep crying baby, baby, please..."

Not only is he a stalker, he is a pussy.

What you can get away with with a strong baseline, I guess. I have a friend whose nine year old's favourite song is "Shook me all night long" by ACDC. I am sure he hasn't explained what the lyrics mean to him either.

Lame Ducks

And this post isn't even about Hockey.

This week, the leaders of the most powerful economic countries in the world are meeting to discuss a bunch of things. Two of them are not (most likely) going to be the leader of their country next year, and a third is so emasculated at home, that his presence at the G-8 is for the photo-op only. He likes the Schnitzel.

Follow this bouncing ball - The Russians are threatening to mess the talks up and steer the discussion towards the missile defense shield. They are very upset at the U.S., and fear that they will be forced to escalate their military production to compensate- you know, that MAD thing? The U.S. says "Vlad, don't be mad. You don't have to worry about it, the cold war is over. Russia is friend of America, ya?" Yakov Smirnoff diplomacy. The Russians can't afford new military stuff, but what is a guy to do?

The state of Russia's democracy is, at best, questionable. They are also the unintended primary (or backdoor secondary) source of information and commodities for AOE countries with nuclear ambitions. This should put them in the "Bad" books of one former Texas Governor.

Germany and France are pushing the Kyoto Accord. The only way Japan, the U.S. (unratified, but signed) and Canada would be able to meet their targets would be buying foreign credits under the Clean Development Mechanism of the accord. The only viable market for these credits is the former soviet union- which is now a member of the G8 and is threatening to scuttle the talks over military issues.

So, a new cold war is potentially going to be funded by global warming, high level international talks about which are being derailed to prevent a cold war? The irony is delicious.

My view on both issues is the same - neither can possibly work, and the existence of both makes solving the actual underlying problems more costly. In some cases, you could argue that working on these two specific policies is actually at odds to the end goals they are designed to achieve. But both issues will dominate the talks where real progress could be made on other far more pressing global issues.

The Reign

I told myself it was for charity. It was too wet for it to be any fun.

As I listened to the rumbling thunder and watched the lightning crackle nearby, I was reminded of a time a short while ago when I was helping out with some junior golfers. Not the most underprivileged group, I will admit, but deserving nevertheless.

The day was just like every other day, except that the south west horizon had a razor sharp black cloud line stretched across it as far as the eye could see. There was a handful of juniors ready to play in their first tournament of the year, and I was less than enthused about the prospect of herding them for the next few hours. Despite my new found passion for volunteerism, there were limits to what I was willing to do.

As the younglings puttered about, waiting for their call to tee-off, the sky finally opened up to release its full fury. The parents who were (ultimately) in charge of the event, huddled to confer as to what was going to happen. The kids, feeling the anticipation of "god, we don't have to be here anymore" started to collect their things and say so long. Except for one little girl who was, curiously, with three adults, all of whom seemed to be on edge. Usually, it only takes one parent to attend these social tournaments, but what do I know.

One of them caught my eye, hurried over to me, and asked "Is the tournament still on?"

I wasn't exactly sure what to say other than "I would be very surprised if it happened - it is brutal outside."

She didn't seem to hear me, or care to hear me, and quietly, she suggested to me that the tournament had to happen. Confused, and jaded by what I initially perceived as over-competitive parenting, I was about to ask "why?" when a second adult came over to inquire as to the status of the tournament. Before she began to speak, I could hear the gathering of the "official" parents dispersing, and they were headed my way.

"This tournament can't be cancelled," the second adult said, "My daughter has to play." I am not sure I have ever heard an adult talk that sternly to me in my life. No teacher, no principal and not my parents who were adults, teachers and (in my father's case) principals.

Before I got a chance to respond, the second adult pulled me aside and explained the situation to me. I looked over my shoulder, noticing that a parent from the organizing committee was patiently waiting to speak to me, presumably about rescheduling, or cancelling, the event.

After the explanation, completely dumbstruck, I pulled the organizing committee aside. I discretely detailed what I was told to them, and announced, most definitely, that the tournament would be going forward. I am not sure who put me in charge, but I was acting like it, so why wouldn't they listen? There was no opposition from the parents, but it would be entirely voluntary. No child would be forced to play in the event. I made the announcement, and informed the kids that in Scotland, this was considered a sunny day.

As it turns out, there was only one participant. A nine year old girl. I put on my rain gear, and I played along side her. In possibly the worst rainstorm outside of monsoon season. The rain was coming down sideways it was blowing so hard. We played all nine holes, and when she sunk the final putt, she smiled with a level of satisfaction and relief that I am not quite sure I have ever seen before or since.

Her mother, and Aunt and Uncle, were waiting for us on the 9th green. They cheered and then we had a "champions" dinner of hot dogs and soda. I presented her with the trophy, and to this day, her name adorns a plaque at the club.


The little girl's father died that morning, and his dying wish was that she played in the tournament. Not only did she play, she won.

Symbolisn't

Last night, at around 11:30 - in the pouring rain, Bobby Abreu made a shoestring catch that saved two runs.

Just before midnight, Alex Rodriquez hit a home-run in the top of the ninth inning that helped secure the New York Yankees won a series against the Boston Red Sox.

A few minutes after midnight, Mariano Rivera, after beaning a Red Sox batsmen, saved the game for the Yankees.

It doesn't mean anything. The Yankees are still 12 games back. They are still beyond pitiful. They are working together as a team about as well as UAW teamsters work with Japanese importers. Adding a middle aged superstar won't help the fact that they have more wounded players than can realistically be expected by even the worst OLG Pro-line commercial.

This weekend they blew five leads. In three games. Five leads. When I hear stories about being blown five times in three days, I think back to university.

It could, however, been the first splinter in what has, thus far, been an virtually unbeatable Red Sox team. A blown save. A no decision.

I believe.

Ok, I will shut up about it for now.