with my two hands... i can change the world
צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף
-
mens-rea replied to your post: This year is the transition year at the University…I love my JD. I now select the ‘doctor’ option on important things like magazine subscriptions.
Oh goodness. You’re one of those people?
See, this was kind of a preventative measure! If I’d gotten the J.D., I probably would have been tempted to put an illegitimate “Dr.” on my business card! I have zero willpower, so it probably would have happened.
-
MARIO, YOUR PRINCESS IS IN ANOTHER AQUARIUM?!?!
Reddittor jennyleighb posted video and these photos of her roomate’s 55 gallon aquarium that’s been customized with a LEGO Super Mario Bros. level. Here’s a link to more photos showing the progession of the build.
This is almost as cool as that Labyrinth Aquarium.
I would like both please.
Merci.
-
This year is the transition year at the University of Manitoba from the LL.B. to the J.D., because we were the last class entering the LL.B. program, we had the option of choosing which one we wanted to graduate with. Apparently, I was the only person who chose the LL.B., everyone else went with the now standard JD.
So I’m the last person to ever graduate from the U of M with an LL.B.
Or in other words, not awkward at all.
-
Lakehead University Law School gets its first Dean
Lee Stuesser, a man familiar to Manitoba’s legal community (former U of M prof, recently passed over for the Dean’s chair at our law school, in favour of the much more awesome Dean Turnbull) has been appointed Dean of Canada’s newest law school, at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Like the other recently opened law school, at Thompson Rivers University (in Kamloops, BC), Lakehead’s law school is ostensibly designed to train lawyers for practice in northern and rural areas - areas not properly served by the first tier law schools (being all but TRU and Lakehead) located in the cities and urban centers. While schools like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Calgary/Alberta have historically provided a sufficient number of lawyers to service the northern parts of their respective provinces, as well as the Territories, it’s always been tough to get freshly graduated law students to move up there.
The problem, of course, is that these law schools aren’t going to end up serving their founding purpose (at least by my guess). Rather than servicing the communities they were designed to provide for, they’re going to end up taking in the spillover from the established law schools, exacerbating the Articling problem now under consideration in Ontario.
What will this mean? As in the United States, going to law school may soon become a very unattractive option in Canada. With a constantly and confusingly increasing supply of potential lawyers, and a negligible increase (if not an outright decrease) in available jobs for those lawyers, be prepared for some unhappy grads and some frivolous lawsuits.
The problem isn’t just limited to Ontario. I can only speak for the province I’m currently in, but Manitoba, with its single law school (with an annual graduating class of only about 95, half of whom don’t even consider staying in the province for work) is already starting to see supply and demand problems. Last year, two students who wanted law jobs couldn’t get them. This year, the number is closer to ten.
What effect will new law schools have in an already crowded market? In an industry notorious for hiring based on personality, sociability and nepotism, rather than skill or qualification, it can’t be good.
-
I was giving some lectures in Germany about the death penalty. It was fascinating because one of the scholars stood up after the presentation and said, “Well you know it’s deeply troubling to hear what you’re talking about.” He said, “We don’t have the death penalty in Germany. And of course, we can never have the death penalty in Germany.”
And the room got very quiet, and this woman said, “There’s no way, with our history, we could ever engage in the systematic killing of human beings. It would be unconscionable for us to, in an intentional and deliberate way, set about executing people.”
And I thought about that. What would it feel like to be living in a world where the nation state of Germany was executing people, especially if they were disproportionately Jewish? I couldn’t bear it. It would be unconscionable.
And yet, in this country, in the states of the Old South, we execute people — where you’re 11 times more likely to get the death penalty if the victim is white than if the victim is black, 22 times more likely to get it if the defendant is black and the victim is white — in the very states where there are buried in the ground the bodies of people who were lynched. And yet, there is this disconnect.
Bryan Stevens, from his TED talk; “We Need to Talk about Injustice”(Source: ted.com)
-
TED talks are almost always excellent, but this one is, I think, particularly noteworthy. If it were up to me, this video would be mandatory viewing for every law student, lawyer and judge.
The opposite of poverty is not wealth… in too many places, the opposite of poverty is justice.
Powerful words.
-
I’m sorry Tumblr, I forgot to mention that I’m driving from Toronto to Winnipeg.
I’m currently in beautiful Silver City, Michigan. Actually, if I had arrived before dark, I’m guessing it would actually be pretty nice. My AmericInns hotel is literally on the edge of Lake Superior.
Only problem? I, being the idiot that I am, decided at 8:30 that I was still feeling pretty good about driving, I wasn’t too tired, and so instead of staying in Marquette, Michigan, for the night, I should try to get to Ashland, Wisconsin.
For reference, or to be amused by my naivety, see this map.
I realized I was screwed just before 10:00, when it was almost dark. That was when I saw my first (live) deer at the side of the road. All day I’d been seeing way more dead deer laying on the shoulder than I had expected. I was soon to see why.
I kept driving. See, even though Marquette to Ashland is 291km, I figured that after leaving at 8:30, I could get there by 10:30 or 11 at the latest. I’d been driving between 120km/h and 140km/h most of the day, even though the speed limit dropped to 55MPH (about 90km/h) when I crossed into the northern part of Michigan. I hadn’t seen a single cop since entering the US, and there was virtually no traffic. So I figured I could maintain 140km/h pretty steadily to Ashland, making it with time to spare.
Of course, not 10 minutes after leaving Marquette, I got pulled over. (Funny story, this was the first time I’deverbeen pulled over by a cop. Ever.) He was actually pretty nice, and seemed to think that as a result of being Canadian, I was slow-witted and innocent. He helpfully explained to me that the speed limits were posted on big white signs at the side of the road, and that I should go, but keep my speed to no more than 5 over the limit.
After that, and for no good reason besides that I figured I now had bad luck, I didn’t go above 110. It seemed frustratingly slow after making great time all day, but I was soon to learn that it was still too fast.
Now we’re back at that first deer sighting. After having a ‘deer in the headlights’ moment, it darted right in front of my path. That got the adrenaline going. But still, I figured it was a one in a million thing.
That is, until I saw another two about 10 minutes later. And then again. By this time it was almost pitch black. I’ve got my brights on, driving down and unlit, two lane highway (one lane in each direction), trees at road level on either side, punctuated by an intersection controlled only by a Yield light every 40-50kms.
So now it’s 10:30, it’s pitch black, and I’m not going any faster than 90, scared to death that I’m going to kill Bambi. My GPS tells me Ashland is still 170 kms away and as luck would have it, I see a sign for an AmericInn (like CanadInns, for you Winnipeggers) 16 miles away. Keeping in mind that I have no fracking clue how big a mile is, I turn off to follow the sign, now going north, instead of the west I should be going, and I drive for what feels like another hour.
At one point I actually pulled over, deciding I would give in to the Rogers Satan and pay their damn roaming fees if it meant I could figure out where I was. Of course, no reception.
I finally made it to Silver City. Tomorrow I’ll be heading to Wisconsin bright and early, hopefully making it to Winnipeg by the early evening.
Although I’m pretty sure none of my followers live along my route, if you do, you should tell me. Or not. Your call.
-
The first good explanation I’ve seen of why the Montreal protestors are in the right
It’s not often I agree with the National Post. It’s even more rare of an occurrence that the National Post comes down on the left side of an issue. Yet here they are, explaining why the Montreal Protesters have it right, and the majority of Canadians, acting as if they’re spoiled ne’er-do-wells, are the truly selfish.
If only the protesters had framed their issues like this in the first place, they might have got a bit more sympathy. That and the violence and intimidation probably didn’t help…
“Entitlement.” We hear that word associated again and again with student protesters in Quebec. Usually, it’s preceded by the words, “sense of.”
“They think someone owes them a living,” disgruntled critics harrumph. “Wait until they get into the real world.”
Setting aside the fact that this intergenerational hectoring dates back to Socrates, let us ask: Who exactly is making the charge? Quebec has had low tuition rates for a half century. That means almost every living adult in the province, having already been afforded a plum goodie, is now wagging his finger at the first generation that will be asked to pay the tab. So who really is entitled here?Canadians now aged 55 years and older will collect Old Age Security when they hit 65. The rest of us will have to work two more years. Those who came of age in the 1960s enjoyed Employment Insurance and Medicare when they were still unfunded liabilities. They cash a Canada Pension cheque that depends upon today’s working men and women. The plan probably won’t exist by the time the rest of us reach whatever age of retirement the government decrees by the time we are old.
In the 1970s, parents pulled on the (now discontinued) Family Allowance program. The employed could count on a level of job security that allowed them to take on debt to own houses, cottages and cars. They paid them off and retired to indexed pensions.
It’s almost like Canadians had a “sense of entitlement,” or something.
In the ’90s, this same well-entitled generation began the drumbeat for lower taxes, never once offering up a government program they were willing to sacrifice. When the economy tanked, it fell to money-starved governments to bail everyone out. Today’s youth had nothing to do with that profligacy, but are being called upon to “grow up” and shoulder the adult responsibility of paying the debt off.
We hear a great deal these days about how we have to be reasonable about the times we live in. Corporate officers pulling in massive salaries and bonuses even as their companies lose money say average working men and women have to understand that the age of job security, pensions and even a middle-class wage are behind us. Have any of them offered to take the lead by surrendering even a fraction of their benefits? Are Federal Labour Minister Lisa Rait and Quebec Premier Jean Charest prepared to trim their gold-plated pensions to set an example to the students and workers they condescendingly lecture about the “new reality”?
Today’s youth face a grim future not of their own making. Is it any wonder that they’re angry about it? What they are asking for is what previous generations so eagerly gobbled up for themselves. If those generations now believe their entitlements were too generous, then, perhaps, in the spirit of sharing the burden, they might want to give some of them back.
Didn’t think so.
(Source: fullcomment.nationalpost.com)
-
Winnipeg Transhit
Not a typo (only today though) some days it’s bearable. But tonight. I hate it with a passion.
Welcome to my life. Rapid transit? More like cut-services-and-make-my-commute-longer-transit.
“More like cut-services-and-make-my-commute-longer-transit.”
THIS
-
Canadian democracy is fracked
Thank you, iPolitics, for explaining just how screwed up our government is. Canadian politics might have the veneer of respectability that American politics lacks, but deep down, it’s just as dysfunctional and top-down.
Conservative backbencher David Wilks was caught red-handed this week telling his Kootenay-Columbia constituents how Ottawa really works. The 12 minutes of amateur video taken during a frank and open discussion in Revelstoke, B.C. about the budget bill might mark the last time Canadians ever hear from Wilks — beyond the “yay” he has now promised to give C-38.
Let’s remember the Top 5 things Wilks taught Canadians about their democracy:
1) Stephen Harper gives his backbenchers less face time than his soon-to-be-published hockey book — he reportedly worked on it 15 minutes every day. When asked about the opportunity to raise his concerns with his party and the prime minister, Wilks explained: “We can do that at national caucus, which is every Wednesday from 9:30 until noon. We have about a 10 minute period in which we can speak to the prime minister.”
2) Being a backbencher? Kind of like being picked last in gym class. Or just not picked at all. When asked about the lead-up to the bill being tabled, Wilks said: “With regards to the 425 page document, you saw it at the same time as the backbenchers see it. The exact same time. We’re not privy to it at all, period … We receive it at 4 o’clock on March 29, the same time as it’s released to the press.” (NB: accredited members of the Press Gallery actually review the document at a lock-up in advance of it being tabled.)
3) How whipped is a whipped vote? Thoroughly. There are even levels to describe it. A free vote is known as a level one. A level two whipped vote means the cabinet’s preference is known, and alignment is strongly encouraged. A level three whipped vote is more severe, because the prime minister and the cabinet are behind it. “There is no argument … You will vote with the party. You will,” Wilks said.
4) This whole set-up creates some animosity, Wilks confirms. “It certainly concerns some of us backbenchers, that decisions are made predominately by cabinet. And then they come back to us, informing us how this is going to move forward. Some backbenchers, including myself, with meet with Flaherty or Oliver or Kent, or whoever it may be that you want to meet with. But at the end of the day, in my opinion, they’ve made up their mind.”
5) As he answers his constituents’ questions, Wilks repeatedly insisted that as a lone MP he doesn’t have much sway in the House of Commons. The real power to change the budget bill — beyond cabinet — is with Canadians. “One person is not going to make a difference — one MP, one MP is not going to make a difference … If Canadians want it changed, then enough Canadians have to stand up to their MPs and say ‘no.’ ”
On Wednesday, after his remarks became known, Wilks issued a statement on his official Member of Parliament website: “I wish to clarify my position with regard to Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act. I support this bill, and the jobs and growth measures that it will bring for Canadians in Kootenay-Columbia and right across the country … I look forward to supporting the bill and seeing it passed.”
And that’s the sixth thing he taught us.
(Source: ipolitics.ca)
student, academic, activist, political junkie, jew, geek.
it's all here.
