bob tarantino

Stuff You Should Totally Read 06.29.07

Johann Hari goes on a National Review cruise, discovers, to his (and what is presumably meant to be our) shock that he disagrees with what the people around him are saying.  I hereby volunteer to attend The Nation's crusie and be similarly distraught upon disembarkation.

Back in 1999 or 2000, in what essentially functions as a previous life, I spent something like ten days in The Avon Old Farms Hotel, a wonderful place which is just the far side of the middle of nowhere.  Joey (Accordion Guy) deVilla had a much better time there than I did.  Balalaikas were involved.  For Joey, not for me.  *sad*

I think it's probably praiseworthy that Tony Blair, rather than retiring to what could likely have been a rather lucrative post-electoral politics life of, say, speechifying and book-writing, decided to take on the Gordian knot of, oh, solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  It's praiseworthy, but also either a sign of maniacal hubris or a rather inspiring level of commitment that I wouldn't have expected.  This guy chalks it up to the former.

Apropos of this piece in TNR by Cass Sunstein on recent decisions of the US Supreme Court, let us note that thoughtful public intellectuals in the United States are continually engaged in discussions about the consequences of having a conservative/liberal president appointing conservative/liberal justices (see also here and here for the rather enjoyable spectacle of watching liberal commentators splutter in astonishment).  Let us also note that, for the most part, the Canadian commentariat, media and legal establishment absolutely refuse to even consider the possibility that the exact same dynamic occurs in this country.

As we gear up for the birthday celebration of what is, except for our lousy weather, the best country in the world, it's worth reminding ourselves of the fact that so few of us seem to know or appreciate our own history or culture (whatever else you want to say about it, the fact that only eight friggin' percent of respondents correctly identified the Queen as Canada's head of state is just ... heart-breaking).

Stuff You Should Totally Read 06.28.07

Check out the Podcasting Legal Guide for Canada (perhaps optimistically subtitled "Northern Rules for the Revolution") created by Creative Commons Canada. (hat tip: Geist)

Sheila Copps twice refers to St Jean Baptiste day as "Quebec's national day" in this column.  So now not just the Quebecois are a nation, but so to is Quebec itself?  And from a Chretienite, to boot.  Wonders never cease.

Videogames and education just don't work well together.

As "left" political parties (cf. British Labour, American Democrats and Canadian Liberals) became more "right" in the 1990s, are "right" political parties in the process of becoming more "left"?

Looking for a map showing where in Toronto murders occurred in 2005, 2006 and 2007?  Want the information to be sortable by age of victim, gender of victim and type of homicide?  Look no further.

MTV covers the Billboard album chart action: Jovi at #1 and White Stripes at #2.  Which means that last week was my favourite week for music all year.  Except that the new Bon Jovi album blows.  But I still love those dumb bastards anyways.  It's complicated.

Stuff You Should Totally Read 06.27.07

Oliver Kamm writes in TNR about the possible foreign policy of new British PM Gordon Brown, and also offers a handy overview of US/UK relations (not always particularly warm) after World War II.

If this isn't the dumbest column written by James Travers, it's certainly in his top/bottom five.  Any time a Toronto Star columnist unleashes the hoary "speak truth to power" invocation, you might as well keep rolling your eyes until you've moved on to the next bit of cliched bluster by the next columnist over.  But it's worth reading to the very end, wherein we are blessed to discover that Liberal foreign policy is actually "Canada's default character", so I guess it's nice to learn that I'm somehow deficiently Canadian.

I cannot possibly convey to you how badly I wanted to be a ninja when I was a kid.  Grady Hendrix traces the pop culture history of that mysterious discipline and hits most of the high notes that drove my own aspirations ("the GI Joe character and popular toy Snake Eyes was originally a commando but was quickly rebranded as a ninja when Hasbro realized that this would increase his awesomeness by 40 percent").  Also includes the somewhat startling assertion that "ninjas are basically supercool Jews".  I didn't know that.

"On either side of the comma, past and present each get four syllables".  Examining the "greatest one-liner in movie history".

The perils of landing a book deal.  Leah McLaren makes an appearance.  Provide your own joke, please.

If you're as into roadtrips as I am, you'll love the Simplified Eisenhower Interstate System map.

Stuff You Should Totally Read 06.26.07

The Victims of Communism Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C. on June 12, 2007.  The US President spoke at the dedication, as did the Democrat chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to a crowd of one thousand.  You almost undoubtedly didn't hear about it.  There's a reason for that, and it speaks volumes about one institution in particular.  (hat tip: Flea)

As Michael Geist notes, two IP bills received Royal Assent just before Parliament shut down for the summer.  As Geist also notes, Bill C-59, which provides for anti-camcording provisions to be added to the Criminal Code of Canada, managed to receive due consideration (meaning introduction, debate and all three votes) by the House of Commons in less than eighty minutes.  Total time from introduction to Royal Assent - fewer than twenty days.  Now that is some lobbying muscle.  Wouldn't it be nice if issues that actually mattered received the same level of concentrated effort from our legislatures?

General rule for survival: don't mess with anyone that has a tattoo on their face.  So, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do not f*** with this guy.

I still haven't gotten around to reading any of his long-form fiction, but this spectacularly long post by scifi guy Dan Simmons (the "June-July 2007 Message from Dan" - he doesn't believe in permalinks, evidently) about US options (such as they are) in Iraq is by turns informative, funny and depressing.

This Slate Explainer (unintentionally) helps explain why political polling is so frequently so useless.

Another milestone in the pristine history of modern journalism - evidently there's just one angry Muslim out there (via Hitchens, who has his own piece worth reading).

Jackson Diehl on the UN Human Rights Council (hat tip: Daimnation!)

Dawg talks about spanking children (as a legal matter - get your mind out of the gutter), which promptly erupts into a rather robust comments thread.

The Tuesday Discussion 06.26.07

And so the inaugural edition of what will hopefully be a regular feature: The Tuesday Discussion.  Having coming to the conclusion that I'm actually more interested in hearing what you guys have to say about most issues than what I think, each Tuesday will feature a topic for discussion.  I usually won't be participating, except when I think I have something especially insightful to add.  The basic rules should be obvious: nothing defamatory, racist or otherwise illegal; ignore the trolls; try to stay at least vaguely on topic; there's a premium on thoughtful, respectful rhetoric.  I decide, in my sole, absolute and utter discretion what, if anything, gets deleted - those who have spent time at Let It Bleed or here know that I have a pretty high threshold for what goes on in comment threads, so something needs to be pretty out of line for me to step in - but I may decide to change that standard on a whim.  The topics will usually be matters about which my own thoughts are not entirely settled, but will hopefully range the gamut - I'm thinking next week will involve Neil Gaiman's Sandman.  Suggestions always welcome.

This week's discussion topic: the morality of using communist imagery as a marketing device (cf. Toronto's Pravda Vodka Bar), with particular reference to how your answer would differ, if at all, to the question of using fascist imagery instead.  To the extent it matters, my own views on this have changed over the years.  While I think that the use of both types of images is morally reprehensible, there is value in countenancing, say, selling CCCP t-shirts: first, it helps identify the historically illiterate, and second, can you imagine how pissed off, say, Dzhugashvili would be to find "degenerate" Western fashion houses hawking these wares, rather than them being a threatening symbol of triumphant Soviet armies?  In short, while it's blameworthy, I'm not sure it's worth getting worked up over.

Passing By 06.25.07

Evidently I was the last person to find out about it, so I was reduced to near-hysterics when I came across this traffic sign on a recent trip to Chicago:

The Vanilla Ice version (Stop. Collaborate and Listen) is just about as funny.  If anyone finds either species in Toronto, let me know.

Stuff You Should Totally Read 06.25.07

Climate change hits home: "the Jack Daniels distillery in Lynchburg, Tenn., has warned it may have to reduce or suspend production, because the iron-free spring waters on which it relies are flowing as much as two-thirds below normal".  Seriously, though, John Ibbitson has marred what is basically a really interesting story (thirty year drought cycles in the southern and southwestern US coupled with millions of new residents in a region really not intended to bear quite that many) by trying (and failing miserably) to shoehorn it into the Globe's predetermined climate change reporting agenda.  Ignore all the stuff about how this all might be a function of global warming (a point even Ibbitson is forced to concede), and marvel at how the most dynamic region in the US is running out of water.

Damian Penny has some great pictures of icebergs off the coast of Newfoundland.

Er... okay - The history of the Soviet Union had fewer black pages in its history than certain other countries, not least the US, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in a speech.

Steve Lefsetz reviews the current albums on the Billboard Top 100 which have sold more than one million copies.  As Lefsetz notes (caps his), Carrie Underwood has the "BIGGEST SELLING RECORD ON THE CHART!"  Her only competition?  Nickelback.  Lordy.

I would have thought that this announcement by Lawrence Lessig, one of the key popular writers on the intersection of technology and intellectual property, would have been slightly bigger news.  Shorter Lessig: he's not going to be writing about the stuff which made him (sort of) famous anymore.

Benjamin Wittes writes in TNR about "declining institutional confidence" in the US Supreme Court.  Wittes cites the increasingly political tone and ideological divides on the court as the proximate causes - perhaps something for the Canadian Supremes to bear in mind?

Under Arrest - Update 06.25.07

I think it's probably safe to say that I'm no longer down with the publisher - the previous publication date of June 30 is obviously not going to happen, I still don't have galley proofs (the final stage before printing), and it's just come to my attention that Amazon has now changed their page to indicate a release date of August 30.  *grump*  Anyone interested in publishing my next book is invited to email me.

In any event, make sure you don't miss out on the quasi-book launch/blogstravaganza scheduled for next Saturday, June 30.  From 2pm to 4pm, join James Bow and myself at Nicholas Hoare Books at 45 Front Street East in Toronto.  James will be hosting the launch of Fathom Five, the second volume in his Unwritten Books series - and I will be the guy looking like his publisher should have had a book ready for sale.  The assembled masses will then proceed across the street to the The Flatiron and Firkin for drinks, discussion and (*searches thesaurus for another "d" word*) diversion.  See y'all there.

"apply online as well as off-line"

For elusive reasons, today's a big day for blogging and defamation lawsuits.  So I'll do my bit to add to the pile-on.

• The Globe and Mail has an article outlining a number of recent lawsuits that have been launched in Canada relating to statements made on blogs
• in the US, a suit in small claims court over blogging statements looks like it's about to turn into a federal case (pun intended)
• And back at home, Steve Janke is evidently being sued by "a prominent member of Paul Martin's inner circle".  Help him out.

Under Arrest - Update 06.07.07

First the bad news: the publisher informed me today that Under Arrest will not be available for release on June 30, 2007, but will likely be delayed a couple of weeks.  Why?  I'll let y'all figure it out - I handed in the manuscript back in November.

Now the good news: it takes a lot more than a taciturn publisher to stand in the way of a blogstravaganza!  On Saturday, June 30, 2007, join us for the launch of James Bow's Fathom Five at Nicholas Hoare Books at 45 Front Street East in downtown Toronto (just west of Church Street).  From 2-4pm, James will be hosting the launch of the second volume in the Unwritten Books series - and I will be doing... well, something in connection with Under Arrest, though there won't be copies available for sale (you can pre-order, though!).  Immediately afterwards, we will rampage across the street to The Flatiron and Firkin, where a blogstravaganza will unfold.

I had the privilege of reading a late draft of Fathom Five, and I can safely say that anyone who enjoyed The Unwritten Girl is in for a treat: James has a gift for pitching the tone of his writing to match the emotional weight of the circumstances his characters encounter.  Fathom Five is thus darker, richer and more compelling than The Unwritten Girl - just as its characters mature, so has the prose.  And if you missed The Unwritten Girl, this is a great point to jump into the series: the volumes are all self-contained.

What's a blogstravaganza, you ask?  A gathering of bloggers, blog readers, friends and hangers-on.  This will be the first blogstravaganza I've hosted that has the added element of a book launch, so it should be interesting to see how it goes (reminder to self: drink after the book launch ... after).  We're looking forward to seeing y'all there.

Great Moments in Canadian Sentencing 06.07.07

First up, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Then:

A 20-year-old who killed another Halloween reveller with a "sucker punch" in a parking-lot dispute after his friend was refused a cigarette has been sentenced to 15 months in jail.

... With time off for good behaviour, Gorshkov will likely serve only six months [said the brother of the deceased]. [emphasis added]

This is the part I enjoy:

[Justice] Then said factors militating against a harsh sentence included Gorshkov's youth, supportive family, steady work and education endeavours, and lack of a criminal record.

It isn't completely clear from the Star's account, but it appears that Gorshkov was twenty years old when he killed Dmytro Nikolaenko.  Which prompts the question: since we already have in place a juvenile justice system which is specifically constructed to avoid holding to account individuals under the age of eighteen, at what point does a person become sufficiently mature for the judiciary to deem them responsible for their actions?

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada offers us an opportunity to fondly recall some earlier stellar sentencing decisions:

Lesley Miller burst into tears when she was told the man who beat her husband into a vegetative state has been granted a new trial by the Supreme Court, partly because the trial judge took too long to submit his written ruling.

Remember this case?  This was the one where the assailant "attacked [the victim] after the apartment caretaker found him sleeping in a hallway and asked him to leave".  Among the results of the attack?  Let's see - "a broken skull, nose and jaw and robbed [the victim] of his speech"; "tore off one of [the victim]'s ears"; oh, and the aforementioned "vegetative state", complete with feeding tubes. 

So, how many judges had the chance to intervene in the litany of hideous crimes which this psychopath undertook?  Let's speculate: "Teskey [had] a 15-year history of violence ... [and had] previously [been] convicted of a list of crimes, including shooting city police Const. Mike Lakusta in 1988 and tearing the penis off the two-year-old son of a girlfriend in 1992."  Brilliant.  The especially nice touch is that within four years of having shot a cop, he was free to rip the penis off a two-year old, and within the decade was available to beat a man into permanent disability.  Now seems like a decent time to remind everyone of the Globe and Mail's sneering about conservatives being spooked by the "supposed hold of the bleeding-heart, soft-on-crime" judges.  Yep, sure glad there's none of them around.

Parody Finds Its Way In

Michael Geist notes that the federal Industry Committee considering Bill C-47 (which would accord additional protection to Olympic marks) has modified the draft bill to include protection for parody.  Geist notes a variety of other amendments which were made to the Bill and their significance, but I think it's worth highlighting the importance of the "parody" amendment - unless I'm mistaken, this marks the first time that any Canadian intellectual property legislation recognize parody as a defence to a claim of infringement.  Among other deficiencies, the lack of a parody defence in Canadian IP law ranks as one of the biggest issues to be addressed.  If this committee recognizes the need for a parody defence in this narrow instance, that hopefully bodes well for an acceptance of that conclusion in future reform efforts.

Under Arrest - Update 06.03.07

On Friday afternoon last week I handed in my comments on the edits on the Under Arrest - Canadian Laws You Won't Believe manuscript.  Meaning the publisher, Dundurn Press, took the manuscript I had submitted back in November and did their work on it, then sent it over to me to (a) review (and either confirm or complain about) the changes they had made, and (b) check (again) the accuracy of quotations and citations.  One of the funny dynamics of the publishing industry is that events proceed at a pace which is either glacial or frenetic - despite the last six months, we're now firmly in the "bug-eyed-panic" stage in anticipation of printed copies of the book being available for the end of June.

I was somewhat suprised (but pleasantly!) to see that my editor exercised a relatively light hand in going through the manuscript - and the changes he made were decidedly for the better.  Because so much of my writing (such as it is) to date has been done either for a philosophy undergrad, law school or academic publication, coupled with a probably unhealthy affection for the work of Jacques Derrida, my writing style tends to be heavy on the parenthetical, the semi-colon, the colon and the em dash.  Short declarative sentences (notwithstanding this one) are not my forte.  That style doesn't lend itself to easy reading, however - and one of the big challenges for me in writing Under Arrest was (a) finding the correct "tone" to my writing (e.g., what's a concise way to explain stare decisis?) and (b) marrying that tone to the somewhat baroque tendency in my writing style.  I've never been a "multiple drafts" writer - I tend to write once, review for obvious typos, then submit.  Thankfully, I think my editor did a great job at simplifying my occasionally ponderous prose and helping me to combine the aforementioned (a) and (b).

Anyways.  I'm sure there will be a couple of items still to be discussed between the editor and myself - should references to "the Queen" always be capitalized? (Yes, I say.)  What about "the Charter"? (Yes, I say.)  Is it acceptable to use the stylization "(in)famous"?  (Guess.)  The next step, once any stylistic disputes are addressed, is proofs (i.e., a mock-up of the actual type-set and printed volume).  And then the printer.  Should be worth a laugh.

"It was a different story"

A big high five to the Canadian Press for attempting to torque a story and being completely incompetent at it.  At 4:38pm (the time I accessed the story) on Friday, June 1, 2007, this story, carried at the Toronto Star website, reads (in part) as follows:

The federal Conservative government has rejected Ontario's call for a ban on handguns. ... [Stockwell] Day argued that other countries where handguns have been banned have seen the numbers of gun crimes increase.  "In jurisdictions that have eliminated or tried to eliminate, to ban handguns – the United Kingdom, Ireland, other jurisdictions – in fact crime with guns has unfortunately gone up," Day said.

Here comes the torque:

Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with the facts.

Interesting.  And, dear Canadian Press, what evidence do you marshall to maintain this assertion?

There was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms offences in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year, according to figures from Britain's Home Office.

I know this particular blogging tic is increasingly frowned upon, but permit me to indulge: You. Absolute. Morons.

Here is the UK Home Office page from which the Canadian Press seems to be getting their statistics.  And here is what it says:

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

• 16% reduction in the use of handguns

If you go to that website, and look three lines down from the piece I quoted, you will see the following:

Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98.

So the Canadian Press has messed up in a variety of ways.  One, they got the time period wrong - the statistic they are quoting is not for 2006, but for the year ending March 31, 2005.  Two, they misrepresent the nature of the statistic: it is not the case that, as the Canadian Press characterizes it, "firearms offences" dropped 16%, it is handgun offences which dropped, which is only a subset of the larger category of "firearms offences".  Third, the Canadian Press takes a one year drop and tries to use that as evidence that Day's point, that handgun offences have increased in the UK since the handgun ban was introduced nearly a decade ago, is incorrect - the fact that they don't mention the trend in handgun offences in the UK for the entire period is a critical omission and a flagrant misrepresentation.  Fourth, and most important, they entirely ignore the statement of the Home Office that Day's point is entirely correct - since the United Kingdom enacted a handgun ban in 1997, gun crime offences have soared.

For further proof of the correctness of Day's statement, and the absolute mendacity of the Canadian Press, let's look at this Home Office report.  Here's what it reveals: there was a sixty percent (60%) increase in firearms crime from 1999/00 to 2004/05 (page 72).  Also see Figure 3.4 - although it is a bit difficult to tell because the gradations are not provided, firearms crimes involving handguns more than doubled from 1998/99 to 2001/02, before declining somewhat until 2004/05, though finishing at a number approximately 50% higher than in 1998/99.

Canadian Press: liars.  And incompetent ones at that.

"It was a different story"

A big high five to the Canadian Press for attempting to torque a story and being completely incompetent at it.  At 4:38pm (the time I accessed the story) on Friday, June 1, 2007, this story, carried at the Toronto Star website, reads (in part) as follows:

The federal Conservative government has rejected Ontario's call for a ban on handguns. ... [Stockwell] Day argued that other countries where handguns have been banned have seen the numbers of gun crimes increase.  "In jurisdictions that have eliminated or tried to eliminate, to ban handguns – the United Kingdom, Ireland, other jurisdictions – in fact crime with guns has unfortunately gone up," Day said.

Here comes the torque:

Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with the facts.

Interesting.  And, dear Canadian Press, what evidence do you marshall to maintain this assertion?

There was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms offences in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year, according to figures from Britain's Home Office.

I know this particular blogging tic is increasingly frowned upon, but permit me to indulge: You. Absolute. Morons.

Here is the UK Home Office page from which the Canadian Press seems to be getting their statistics.  And here is what it says:

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

• 16% reduction in the use of handguns

If you go to that website, and look three lines down from the piece I quoted, you will see the following:

Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98.

So the Canadian Press has messed up in a variety of ways.  One, they got the time period wrong - the statistic they are quoting is not for 2006, but for the year ending March 31, 2005.  Two, they misrepresent the nature of the statistic: it is not the case that, as the Canadian Press characterizes it, "firearms offences" dropped 16%, it is handgun offences which dropped, which is only a subset of the larger category of "firearms offences".  Third, the Canadian Press takes a one year drop and tries to use that as evidence that Day's point, that handgun offences have increased in the UK since the handgun ban was introduced nearly a decade ago, is incorrect - the fact that they don't mention the trend in handgun offences in the UK for the entire period is a critical omission and a flagrant misrepresentation.  Fourth, and most important, they entirely ignore the statement of the Home Office that Day's point is entirely correct - since the United Kingdom enacted a handgun ban in 1997, gun crime offences have soared.

For further proof of the correctness of Day's statement, and the absolute mendacity of the Canadian Press, let's look at this Home Office report.  Here's what it reveals: there was a sixty percent (60%) increase in firearms crime from 1999/00 to 2004/05 (page 72).  Also see Figure 3.4 - although it is a bit difficult to tell because the gradations are not provided, firearms crimes involving handguns more than doubled from 1998/99 to 2001/02, before declining somewhat until 2004/05, though finishing at a number approximately 50% higher than in 1998/99.

Canadian Press: liars.  And incompetent ones at that.