19 October 2006

Politics is the best contact sport! (part 2: Peter sent to the Pound)


MP to Peter MacKay: "What about your dog?"
Peter Mackay to MP: "You already have her."

Mais voyons donc!

Just when the day couldn't get more interesting.
It seems that while David Orchard and company of the former Progressive Conservative party begrudges MacKay for betraying his party, and the support lent by its members, when he fatefully decided to share his bed with Harper, MacKay turns out to be even better at holding grudges - personal ones - and not... letting... go... at... any... cost.

From occaional jabs to the drama-queen scene out in Nova Scotia following Newmarket-Aurora M.P. Belinda Stronach's decision to follow her conscience and join the Liberals (Peter, cry me a river, you've played this game too, sois conséquent), MacKay seems to spare no effort to make very publicly clear his grudge against Stronach.

The expression of that grudge has reached a new low today. In the House of Commons, Canada's legislative venue for the deliberation amongst elected Members of Parliament on matters pertaining to the administration of the nation, the honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs drags his Former Affair into the fray. In a debate regarding the environment, Liberal members ask, in jest, about the impact proposed measures would have on his dog. Not missing a beat, the Minister replies: "You already have her".

Read it for yourself:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061019.wstronach1019/BNStory/Front/home

Entertaining as this may be, the comment was unwarranted, childish, out of place, and borderline libelous. MacKay should apologize publicly immediately, and grow himself the testicular fortitude to talk to Belinda (instead of childishly resisting her entreaties to meet) and apologize to her too.

Politics is the best contact sport! (part 1: Garth going Green?)

In the span of five minutes, I've managed to glean enough from the headlines to see just how badly the Conservatives are falling apart - or at least, showing incredible difficulty at keeping their game together when under pressure.

Either that, or just coincidentally, politics is suddenly the best show in town!
I mean, no sit-com or soap can beat what I've just run into.

I submit to you for your reading pleasure:
1) Garth Turner, whom I barely heard of two days ago, renegade Conservative MP from southwestern Ontario, had in the past developed a name for himself by virtue of his singular brand of populism, his wide range of opinions on very much everything - and I assure you, he does have an opinion on everything - and most especially, his adherence to a set of principles which, perhaps to his peril, do not behold him very closely to the breast of Stephen Harper. Or to any cut-and-baked ideology for that matter.
Yesterday (see previous posts), this gentleman was unceremoniously shown the door of the Conservative party of Canada. Unable to muzzle him as effectively as they do Canada's media, the Conservatives cut loose an MP who, increasingly, was seen by the CPC Politburo either as a threat to Harper's one-man team approach to government or, more specifically, a dangerous, outspoken liability to have onboard in these trying times. The Tories have, since 23 January this year, dogmatically pushed forward a legislative agenda which, while largely respecting their stated five priorities (minus the health care guarantees), is not necessarily the agenda Canadians want. It's increasingly becoming clear that while we wanted the lobster bisque entrée, the main course isn't all that appetizing, let alone dessert.

In a blog conversation with a friend, I was reminded that "Canadians get what they voted for." True, I acknowledge, pertinent, and good food for thought for those, such as myself, who find themselves very easily inclined to denounce the current regime at each and every opportunity that presents itself on the basis of its legitimacy or lack thereof. I therefore ask the question: "Are we getting what we asked for?" And better yet, "What did Canadians ask for on 23 January?" Considering, as factors, the underlying fundamental irrationality of the exercise of voting, in the sense that policy is near the bottom of the totem pole of factors taken into account when the average Canadian goes to vote, the scandal of recent memory (sponsorship), the scandal-in-the-making during the election (income trusts) and Harper's solidity in delivering a clear, understandable and coherent message during the campaign, Canadians wanted fresh blood, a respite from - and for - the liberals, and a common-sense, stick-to-the-basics, get-the-job-done, but-without-putting-into-question-our-fundamental-values government.

They did not ask for, to name a few: polarized, false debates on the validity of Canada's role and duration of involvement in Afghanistan; the arbitrary axing of federal programs which, while the case hadn't been made for their validity, had even less been made for their elimination; a reversal on our international environmental commitments, which enjoy high popular support across the land; the interventionist, government-trying-to-tell-me-whom-I-can-sleep-with type attack on consenting Canadians' civil liberties and equal rights via the reopening of the definition of marriage.

So all this said, Garth had a few things to say, gets booted from his caucus... and is now exploring joining the Green Party!
Wow.


This is significant news: Should this adoption occur, Turner will become the Green Paryt's first MP in the House of Commons, not only foreshadowing a new fracturing of Canada's political landscape (back to the five-party paradigm), but a fundamental shift in voter choices. With the envionment being a current political hot-button issue, the Greens have much to gain, if only they can capitalize, develop and sustain the necessary momentum through next spring. An MP in the House lends significant weight, credibility, and resources, to the Greens, who will have a spokesperson guaranteed time in Question Period every day. A strong Green party will provide a very palatable choice for some current liberals and NDPers, who may make the switch should the proper conditions be forthcoming (for instance, those opposed to Layton's stance on the war, or Liberals disappointed in the choice of their new leader).

More to follow.

Ladies and gentlemen, at long last, it's done!!!

(cheers and applause)
Oh my God, the exams are over, thank you sweet Jesus! Le périple est terminé!
I can now return to a normal sleep schedule, reestablish normal relations with friends, turn on the TV, chill, sleep, ... it's unbelievable!

Oh yeah, Obligations - how did that go, you ask?
Voici un bilan rapide:
----
Connaissance de la matière: 7.5/10 (feeling pretty solid there)
Facilité des questions: 5/10 (they were quite convoluted, the best response was not always easy to pinpoint - once again, leading me to develop many possible different angles, maybe to the detriment of my marks, and certainly to the detriment of the time I had to answer all questions)
Le "feeling" général suivant l'examen: soulagement! C'est fini! Mais j'aurais pu faire un peu mieux, c'est certain.
----

It's time to celebrate like it's 1968, or 1972, or 1975, or 1980, or 1993, 1997, or 2000!

I'm gonna eat now... A+!

B.B.

Freedom of speech - ce thème figurement hautement au palmarès ces jours-ci!

La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, colonne vertébrale de la constitution canadienne contemporaine, célèbre une valeur qui, il me semble ces jours-ci, devient peu à peu denrée précaire. I mean, who am I to argue with it on the value of freedom of speech?

Witness if you will then, my latest find from the Globe and Mail, reporting on a Member of Parliament being ejected from his caucus:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061018.wturner1018/BNStory/National

My first reaction: Well, the tories used up all their muzzles on the media! (lol)

Some other reactions: this does reveal that there's laundry fresh for the hanging on the other side of the Commons - and it's about time, I think everyone in the western world knows whether the libs wear boxers or briefs these days, and it's a bit of a relief that the public immolation of Canada's great governing party is coming to an end, after three years of a combination of internecine conflict and being raked over the coals for isolated incidents of impropriety on behalf of a marginal segment associated to the party regarding the sponsorship of events in Québec.

But now to the point: how long can the tories expect to suppress dissent? I'm proceeding, of course, along the supposition that Mr. Turner was expelled from caucus due to continued and public expressions of dissent from his caucus, and not due to the official reason that would have something to do with "caucus confidentiality". For one, it's refreshing to see that not every conservative buys the Harper package part-and-parcel. The examples of hypocrasy, double-speak and promise reversals will continue to grow, and alongside, a torrent of measures and legislation that, while promised, are just plain corrosive to the Nation.

So yeah, does anyone know anything about this guy? I'll have to check out his blog - from the exerpt captured in the screenshot included in the Globe's article, it looks like it could be interesting.

B.B.

Three down - one left! Obligations... (genre, je suis "obligé" de le faire)

Bilan de Procédure civile:
-----
Connaissance de la matière: 7/10
Facilité de l'examen: 4/10 (questions 1 et 3 plus difficiles, question 2 très facile)
Appréhension de la matière: 6/10
Le "feeling" après l'examen: 5/10
-----

(remarques-tu que mon barème change après chaque examen! lol, c'est pas fait exprès, mais je n'ai jamais prétendu à une rigueur scientifique non plus ;)

J'ai eu le temps de tout faire, de tout répondre, mais par endroits, je n'étais pas tout à fait certain d'avoir invoqué le bon article du Code de procédure civile. Ainsi, avec un style qui m'est propre, "I sent wave upon wave of my own men at [it]" to quote Zapp Brannigan of Futurama fame, soulevant toutes les possibiltés d'articles qui pourraient s'appliquer à l'instance en l'espèce, dans l'espoir que le nombre de réponses pertinentes surpasserait les réponses nulles.
On verra à quoi le tout aboutira, mais je ris en imaginant le pauvre professeur qui aura à lire des phrases qui continuent bien au-delà des lignes fournies sur la feuille-réponse.

Next, and final exam... pour casser cette merdique traversée de désert de-Gaullien:
Obligations.
Il y a beaucoup, beaucoup de matière à retenir, passant par les contrats, les erreurs et lésions viciant les contrats (et parfois, comme certaines formes de crainte, qui ne vicient pas le contrat), and much, much more. Stay tuned, and I'll let you in on all the excitement this final installment will yield on my exam-mashed brain.

So the question begs: How to cap off this mid-October inquisition?
Travel! Beer! Chartreuse! Getting together with friends! Meeting up with the better half!

I'll be on the road to Lac Mégantic on Friday, et ensuite en visite chez un ami de longue date à Shawinigan samedi, et de là... on verra. That's too far in the future for me right now.



A+, et merci de votre appui (ou au moins, intérêt) jusqu'ici! :)

B.B.

17 October 2006

Two down, two to go

Droit constitutionnel - Bilan:
------
Connaissance de la matière: 9/10
Difficulté de l'examen: 5/10
Appréhension générale: 7/10....
We'll see.
------

My first impression: very well done, answered all questions, had time to answer all questions very completely.
However, a lingering impression of having missed an element here or there persists...so we'll see.

But it's a great boost heading into the second half of the Exam period!
Prochain examen: Procédure civile

Appréhension initiale: I'm really not sure yet, will get an impression after studying tonight.
A+!

B.B.

16 October 2006

One down, three to go. Next up: Droit constitutionnel

Whew!
So the first exam is done, about 45 minutes ago, and here's how it went:
(I like to call this my auto-critique de moi-même)
------
Sujet: Biens et prescription
Connaissance générale de la matière: 7/10
Facilité des questions: assez facile, la difficulté réside plus dans les nuances, et à chercher partout dans le foutu de Code civil pour l'article désiré

Question favorite: la troisième, qui était à développement
Défaut identifié: j'ai pris trop de temps à répondre à la première partie, des vrais-ou-faux un peu pièges, lorsque j'aurais dû sauter tout de suite dans la deuxième partie, un cas pratique assez intéressant.
Bilan final: Ok... j'ai pas échoué, mais il aura de la place à améliorer pour l'examen final
------
Alright, keep our chins up, next up: Droit constitutionnel!
Objective: Rape that sucker. Should't be too difficult, largely resembles my Canadian politics and Politique constitutionnelle courses of erstwhile, but from a legal perspective.
A+!

B.B.