In court today and tomorrow. The room is packed, and there are two overflow rooms that are also packed. Apparently they received 700+ participation forms in the two months that it was open - the lawyer said that is A LOT for a class action, but since I have never been in one, I only have his word.
It’s also really, really warm in here.
On the bright side, the judge has said he wants to hear from everyone that wants to speak, so that is really good.
Comparing this to the one other times I was in court (Queen’s Bench and a military proceeding), it is pretty different so far
I had been rooting for Tom Mulcair to get a chance at being PM in 2015. Even Stephen Harper was smart enough to not wear blackface in his 20s, and he was a buzz-cut Reform Party thug. Between Jian Ghomeshi and the current PM, I wouldn’t be surprised if the “wannabe-progressive sociopath” becomes the latest Canadian stereotype.
Doesn’t change a thing for me. I didn’t know about this specifically, but we’ve all known for a while that the modern Justin Trudeau is an artificial, superficial construct and that his past incarnations were, at the very least, pretty immature. Somebody knew about these pictures months ago and chose to wait until the election campaign to release them, which makes it seem like a cheap shot in my view. (I’m trying really hard not to use the word “smear”.)
I’d rather judge Trudeau on what he has actually done as a politician and PM, which is some good and some bad, including some bad things reminiscent of the other Trudeau.
Hard to tell. Things started off civilly enough, but in the latter half, the questions got harder, there were many deflections in answers, the leaders were trying to talk over one another, and the Moderator at the time had to remind them, “One speaker at a time, please!” So I have no idea who won.
How many times has anyone really won or lost a debate? I can think of, to be honest, exactly two examples; in 1984, Brian Mulroney absolutely floored John Turner, and in 2011, Jack Layton knocked out Michael Ignatieff’s teeth. And in both cases they won because they had a crushing one-liner, which was memorable and damaging but really has nothing to do with the national interest.
Honestly I preferred the Face to Face session formats where the moderator acted as a bit of a ref or fact checker. It would mean the leaders hang out in the green room, get called out and grilled for 15/20 minutes on established topics. No talking over people, no benefiting from quippy one liners but actual examination of platforms.
Well folks, since this is going to include the Library and Archives Canada as well as the Ottawa Public library here’s the current proposal for the new OPL-LAC building here in Ottawa
It is, but :
[ul]
[li]We only admit 1 person at a time. [/li][li]Payment is through contactless cards only.[/li][li]The bouncer now does all of his work verbally.[/li][li]You have to bring your own glass.[/li][li]The bar itself is enclosed in plexiglas held in place by 1x1s. We’ve modified the beer taps so they can shoot horizontally, through a hole, into your glass. We’re looking into the sticky-floor situation and will make an announcement at a later time.[/li][/ul]
We also offer a phone-only service where a philosopher/ethicist will help you decipher the 2000-dollar page to determine which of the 5 criteria you meet, whether you’re entitled to more money if you meet them all, and whether there’s any meaning to having the same list of criteria appearing 3 times under different headings.
We thank you for your cooperation in these unprecedented times.
