God love Canada's justice system, eh?
Some defence lawyer is pissed because of a Conservative government plan to get rid of a time-served credit for people waiting to go on trial, meaning that if you commit (allegedly of course) a crime and spend time in custody before your trial, you get credited for two days served of your sentence for every one day actually served.
Say what? Why are we giving criminals credit for anything? Oh, it must have been tough spending 30 days in a detention centre for raping the old lady, so when you get sentenced, we'll just round that 30 days up to 60 and knock that off your time in jail. High five!
This lawyer, Mark Ertel, sounds like just the king of guy that gives criminal defence lawyers the type of not so amazing reputation they have. I can get on board with knocking the actual number of days served pre-trial of a sentence, but barely. The idea of two-for-ones is insane.
I'm not saying I support the idea of getting rid of this farce as a detterent to people committing crime, because as University of Ottawa criminology Prof. Irvin Waller put it in a story in the Ottawa Sun today, "we know the length of prison sentences makes no difference to deterrence."
I buy that. I just don't see why we should reward criminals for hanging out in jail before their trials.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Twittery, dickory, dock
People who constantly update their Facebook statuses with boring details about their lives that very few other people, if any, actually care about, drive me crazy.
I don't care that you like/love your boyfriend/girlfriend. I assume you do.
I don't care that you don't feel like going to work. Neither do I.
And I don't care that you are confused/upset/angry/discouraged. You are only posting that so someone will ask you why.
The above is why the extent of my status updates on Facebook generally consist of plugging my blog or my photography website.
And then yesterday I signed up for Twitter. Having banged around on the site for a bit, I've got to say I'm pleased that someone managed to take the status update concept and turn it into something useful. Basically, as far as I can tell, Twitter is just the status portion of Facebook, which rids you of all the creepy stalker stuff and 16-year-olds who take endless self-portraits of themselves for the sole purpose of a FB album.
Now, I still don't really care about the average person's status updates. (Again, if it's 1 p.m. on a Wednesday, I assume you are at work, so posting that you're at work is kind of redundant.) But I've already found many useful people to follow (if you don't understand what that means you are out of touch and should look it up) on Twitter where the updates are actually interesting.
With this tool, you can follow news sites, entertainment sites, celebrities, tech-savvy politicians, etc. and get quick and informative updates in 140 words or less. From what I can see, many news sites (CBC, CTV, etc.) are using it to frequently post headlines of big stories, and that's awesome. It saves me the time from having to screw around on sometimes less-than-stellar websites to find stuff. A former journalism professor of mine has posted links to websites useful to anyone in the business and that is also very cool. I also think it will be even more useful once more people catch on and those boring "I'm at work" status updates may actually become useful. For example, you're trying to track down a friend, you can check their Twitter feed to find out, they are in fact on their way to meet you, assuming they have updated their account.
So again, here's another online tool for people to keep tabs on us wherever we are, but so far it seems this one could significantly more useful, and a lot less violating, than Facebook.
I don't care that you like/love your boyfriend/girlfriend. I assume you do.
I don't care that you don't feel like going to work. Neither do I.
And I don't care that you are confused/upset/angry/discouraged. You are only posting that so someone will ask you why.
The above is why the extent of my status updates on Facebook generally consist of plugging my blog or my photography website.
And then yesterday I signed up for Twitter. Having banged around on the site for a bit, I've got to say I'm pleased that someone managed to take the status update concept and turn it into something useful. Basically, as far as I can tell, Twitter is just the status portion of Facebook, which rids you of all the creepy stalker stuff and 16-year-olds who take endless self-portraits of themselves for the sole purpose of a FB album.
Now, I still don't really care about the average person's status updates. (Again, if it's 1 p.m. on a Wednesday, I assume you are at work, so posting that you're at work is kind of redundant.) But I've already found many useful people to follow (if you don't understand what that means you are out of touch and should look it up) on Twitter where the updates are actually interesting.
With this tool, you can follow news sites, entertainment sites, celebrities, tech-savvy politicians, etc. and get quick and informative updates in 140 words or less. From what I can see, many news sites (CBC, CTV, etc.) are using it to frequently post headlines of big stories, and that's awesome. It saves me the time from having to screw around on sometimes less-than-stellar websites to find stuff. A former journalism professor of mine has posted links to websites useful to anyone in the business and that is also very cool. I also think it will be even more useful once more people catch on and those boring "I'm at work" status updates may actually become useful. For example, you're trying to track down a friend, you can check their Twitter feed to find out, they are in fact on their way to meet you, assuming they have updated their account.
So again, here's another online tool for people to keep tabs on us wherever we are, but so far it seems this one could significantly more useful, and a lot less violating, than Facebook.
Friday, March 20, 2009
To helmet or not to helmet
The sudden death of actress Natasha Richardson on the ski slopes of Mont Tremblant are adding some serious fuel to the debate of whether or not skiers should be forced to wear helmets while on the hills.
I have a bit of a hypocritical view on the subject, because while I think that people should wear a helmet skiing/snowboarding, I have never -- with the noted exception of when I used to race and helmets were mandatory -- worn a helmet skiing. I probably never will wear one skiing, unless of course I am required to do so.
I can't really defend my defiance here as I really can't think of an argument that would justify my not wearing one. If I had to, I would probably say that because I fall under the category of an advanced skier, the odds of me tipping over and knocking my head on the ground (such as was the case with Richardson) are likely slim. I've taken some pretty nasty falls in the 20 or so years I've been a skier, and never once have I been worried about suffering a head injury. In fact, when I've taken big spills on a ski hill my head is usually the last of my worries, after worrying about breaking a limb or my skis. I don't glade ski (skiing around trees) so I'm not too worried about crashing into a tree. If I did glade ski, I would most definitely sport a helmet. I don't do any kind of intense ski jumping, either. So I feel that, while I probably should wear a helmet, the risk of me cracking my head open on a ski hill are relatively minimal.
So this brings me to my point and my thoughts on the idea of forcing helmets on skiers. Don't. But there should be some system in place where skiers of a lower skill should be made to wear them. Richardson was apparently a novice skier, was skiing on a beginner run (I've been on the run in question, and it is about as flat and harmless-looking as it gets) and it sounds as if she more or less tipped over and hit her head. As it is, the odds of such a fall causing a fatal head injury are slim, and the odds of an expert skier falling that way are likely even slimmer.
So for experienced skiers comfortable on any run, helmets should be a personal choice. For anyone else though, I don't dispute that helmets save lives and therefore should be worn by the less experienced.
I have a bit of a hypocritical view on the subject, because while I think that people should wear a helmet skiing/snowboarding, I have never -- with the noted exception of when I used to race and helmets were mandatory -- worn a helmet skiing. I probably never will wear one skiing, unless of course I am required to do so.
I can't really defend my defiance here as I really can't think of an argument that would justify my not wearing one. If I had to, I would probably say that because I fall under the category of an advanced skier, the odds of me tipping over and knocking my head on the ground (such as was the case with Richardson) are likely slim. I've taken some pretty nasty falls in the 20 or so years I've been a skier, and never once have I been worried about suffering a head injury. In fact, when I've taken big spills on a ski hill my head is usually the last of my worries, after worrying about breaking a limb or my skis. I don't glade ski (skiing around trees) so I'm not too worried about crashing into a tree. If I did glade ski, I would most definitely sport a helmet. I don't do any kind of intense ski jumping, either. So I feel that, while I probably should wear a helmet, the risk of me cracking my head open on a ski hill are relatively minimal.
So this brings me to my point and my thoughts on the idea of forcing helmets on skiers. Don't. But there should be some system in place where skiers of a lower skill should be made to wear them. Richardson was apparently a novice skier, was skiing on a beginner run (I've been on the run in question, and it is about as flat and harmless-looking as it gets) and it sounds as if she more or less tipped over and hit her head. As it is, the odds of such a fall causing a fatal head injury are slim, and the odds of an expert skier falling that way are likely even slimmer.
So for experienced skiers comfortable on any run, helmets should be a personal choice. For anyone else though, I don't dispute that helmets save lives and therefore should be worn by the less experienced.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Bus ads aren't a big deal, so chill and enjoy your life
I'm not going to get into any sort of is there or isn't there a god debate. I'm not religious, and that's a personal decision. There are many, probably too many, religious out there, and most of them believe in a different god, and if it makes you happy to believe that your god is the only "real" one, or if you want to believe that there is a universe full of diverse gods, or if you think it's all bullshit, then more power to you. It's your business.
But if I've learned anything in my career in newspapers, and I hope that I have at least learned a thing or two so far, it's that you have some cash, you pretty much buy advertising space for anything. You want to hook up with a transvestite midget, buy an ad. You want to sell extra book shelves you don't have room for, buy an ad. You want to find a good room in an inexpensive, though maybe slightly cult-ish, home for your senile parent, buy an ad.
And, of course, if you want to tell everyone to relax because, hey, there probably isn't a god, buy an ad.
If the City of Ottawa does, and they likely will, decide to allow ads by an atheist group that says something like, "there probably isn't a god, so relax and enjoy your day", they will be making the right decision. Sure, the ad is probably expensive as hell and will be rather large, they aren't advertising anything illegal or immoral.
If a religious group feels like buying a bunch of ads that says "god loves you", go ahead. Regardless of what an ad says doesn't mean it's true, whatever the message is. For the religious folk that want to spend their time protesting this, they may want to ask themselves the question of how strong their faith really is. If you are a true believer, an ad that says there isn't a god shouldn't make you feel differently. To these people I say stop worrying about what other people will think when they see these ads. It's their business, and their beliefs are just as a valuable as yours. So relax and enjoy your day, however you want to do that. There are bigger fish to fry.
But if I've learned anything in my career in newspapers, and I hope that I have at least learned a thing or two so far, it's that you have some cash, you pretty much buy advertising space for anything. You want to hook up with a transvestite midget, buy an ad. You want to sell extra book shelves you don't have room for, buy an ad. You want to find a good room in an inexpensive, though maybe slightly cult-ish, home for your senile parent, buy an ad.
And, of course, if you want to tell everyone to relax because, hey, there probably isn't a god, buy an ad.
If the City of Ottawa does, and they likely will, decide to allow ads by an atheist group that says something like, "there probably isn't a god, so relax and enjoy your day", they will be making the right decision. Sure, the ad is probably expensive as hell and will be rather large, they aren't advertising anything illegal or immoral.
If a religious group feels like buying a bunch of ads that says "god loves you", go ahead. Regardless of what an ad says doesn't mean it's true, whatever the message is. For the religious folk that want to spend their time protesting this, they may want to ask themselves the question of how strong their faith really is. If you are a true believer, an ad that says there isn't a god shouldn't make you feel differently. To these people I say stop worrying about what other people will think when they see these ads. It's their business, and their beliefs are just as a valuable as yours. So relax and enjoy your day, however you want to do that. There are bigger fish to fry.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
You're a stupid face!...no, you are...I know you are but what am I
Children, children, take it easy.
That is the message coming from Ontario Speaker Steve Peters to the rest of the provincial legislature because they are apparently acting like, well, children.
Now, it's no secret that politicians can be more catty and more immature than your average 12-year-old, but not often do you hear the Speaker come out and tell them to shut up and grow up.
Good advice, though.
Peters' quotes (in today's Sun) on the issue have been pretty funny too, with him saying "this does not in my view include the kind of schoolyard name-calling and derision that has become the trend of late."
He followed that up by saying that MPPs should not be talking about "booze cruises" and "bathroom breaks".
What the hell kind of conversation were they having when booze cruises and bathroom breaks came up? Amazing.
Watching a debate in the Ontario legislature, or in the House of Commons, has got to be one of the most ridiculous spectacles in the world. Seriously, it more often than not seems like our elected representatives would rather sling shit at each other than actually get anything accomplished.
And we wonder why the Canadian political scene has deteriorated into such a joke.
Hmm.
That is the message coming from Ontario Speaker Steve Peters to the rest of the provincial legislature because they are apparently acting like, well, children.
Now, it's no secret that politicians can be more catty and more immature than your average 12-year-old, but not often do you hear the Speaker come out and tell them to shut up and grow up.
Good advice, though.
Peters' quotes (in today's Sun) on the issue have been pretty funny too, with him saying "this does not in my view include the kind of schoolyard name-calling and derision that has become the trend of late."
He followed that up by saying that MPPs should not be talking about "booze cruises" and "bathroom breaks".
What the hell kind of conversation were they having when booze cruises and bathroom breaks came up? Amazing.
Watching a debate in the Ontario legislature, or in the House of Commons, has got to be one of the most ridiculous spectacles in the world. Seriously, it more often than not seems like our elected representatives would rather sling shit at each other than actually get anything accomplished.
And we wonder why the Canadian political scene has deteriorated into such a joke.
Hmm.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Pot to kettle: you're black
So the North Koreans made rare move of asking for a meeting with American-led U.N. forces in South Korea today. Their goal, apparently, was to reduce mounting tensions between the the crazy communist side of Korea (North), and the less crazy and not at all communist side (South, obviously).
I guess the North Koreans are worried that things are starting to get a little unfriendly between the two sides and they could be -- wait for this shocker -- on the brink of war.
Just to be clear here, it's been a long while since the two Koreas were friends. Since the Korean war in the early/mid fifties, actually, so this tension isn't exactly a new thing.
Anyway, this time around the North Koreans are pissed about upcoming US/South Korean military drills that are going to be taking place.
Again, the North is always said to have their fingers on the big red "nuclear kaboom" button, so it seems a little weird that they'd be surprised that the South is getting a little more prepared in the event that shit hits the fan.
Again, I digress.
The truly amusing part of this story, I think, is that the crazies in North Korea called the meeting to diffuse tension, yet at the same time their "newspaper"* said the following: "This is nothing but reckless provocative acts of pushing the tense situation on the Korean peninsula closer to the outbreak of a nuclear war."
So, while the North Koreans were trying to say, "hey, chill, lets be friends and blow each other up", the country is also saying, "hey, we should chill and not blow each other up, but if you guys don't stop preparing in the event that we decide to bomb you, we're going to blow you the fuck up."
That's some seriously twisted logic. Only the North Koreans could try to diffuse this kind of conflict by threatening to nuke their adversary.
In any event, does anyone else find it a tad hypocritical for the North Koreans to try to stop these military training sessions (which happen every year and haven't usually been a problem) because they think it's a prequel to an invasion, when the same pissed off dudes that worship a dead leader are preparing to "test" long-range missiles.
Chew on that one.
*NOTE:I put the word newspaper in quotes here because it's really hard to have a traditional, unbiased newspaper in a communists country)
I guess the North Koreans are worried that things are starting to get a little unfriendly between the two sides and they could be -- wait for this shocker -- on the brink of war.
Just to be clear here, it's been a long while since the two Koreas were friends. Since the Korean war in the early/mid fifties, actually, so this tension isn't exactly a new thing.
Anyway, this time around the North Koreans are pissed about upcoming US/South Korean military drills that are going to be taking place.
Again, the North is always said to have their fingers on the big red "nuclear kaboom" button, so it seems a little weird that they'd be surprised that the South is getting a little more prepared in the event that shit hits the fan.
Again, I digress.
The truly amusing part of this story, I think, is that the crazies in North Korea called the meeting to diffuse tension, yet at the same time their "newspaper"* said the following: "This is nothing but reckless provocative acts of pushing the tense situation on the Korean peninsula closer to the outbreak of a nuclear war."
So, while the North Koreans were trying to say, "hey, chill, lets be friends and blow each other up", the country is also saying, "hey, we should chill and not blow each other up, but if you guys don't stop preparing in the event that we decide to bomb you, we're going to blow you the fuck up."
That's some seriously twisted logic. Only the North Koreans could try to diffuse this kind of conflict by threatening to nuke their adversary.
In any event, does anyone else find it a tad hypocritical for the North Koreans to try to stop these military training sessions (which happen every year and haven't usually been a problem) because they think it's a prequel to an invasion, when the same pissed off dudes that worship a dead leader are preparing to "test" long-range missiles.
Chew on that one.
*NOTE:I put the word newspaper in quotes here because it's really hard to have a traditional, unbiased newspaper in a communists country)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)