Would you like a little umbrella in that?

Yesterday afternoon I was standing in line at the LCBO to buy a bottle of Black Seal rum (my fave). I was behind some guy who, from the looks of him, probably turned booze-legal sometime that morning — happy birthday. He was in the process of buying two four-packs of something self-described as "strawberry pineapple hard lemonade". And I find myself thinking, "Jesus, buddy, why don't you wait half an hour and I'll piss in some Kool-ade for you?" And suddenly I had all I could do to keep from laughing out loud. I dunno; maybe you had to be there. :) Anyway, this stuff didn't even come up to that Kids In the Hall "Girl-Drink Drunk" skit. Cut the price in half, sell it in a drugstore with instructions to spit it out, and it would be mouthwash. If you have to disguise booze as Hawaiian Punch just to get it down, maybe you should just stick to Hawaiian Punch.

The Six Million Vote Man

Steve Harper. Neocon. A career barely alive.

Gentlemen, we can rebrand him. We have the philosophy. We have the capability to spin the world's first Liberal Conservative.

Steve Harper will be that man.

Nicer than he was before.

Nicer... gentler... kinder.

THE SIX MILLION VOTE MAN
(give or take)

Interesting result...

The CBC just announced the results for Canada's three largest urban centres. In all cases, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, most of the ridings voted Liberal; the balance voted NDP. It looks as though there will be no representation in the federal caucus or cabinet from Canada's three largest cities.

I know that, Stateside, CBS canned its rural comedy suite over thirty years ago. But under the circumstances, maybe they should reconsider. Perhaps The Beverley Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Pettycoat Junction could be joined by a new entry called... oh, how about Harper Valley, GTA? Oughta be a hoot...erville. ;)

Onnnne... twoooo... uhhhh... onnnnne...

It's 11:15; the polls have been closed in British Columbia for well over an hour... and for half an hour now, we've been sitting here with one riding left to report: Vancouver Centre, I believe. Who the hell do they have counting ballots there, Clever Hans? Clop once for Liberal, twice for Conservative; nod your head for NDP... Either that or they're counting the vote in a hot box. "One... two... three... uhhh... uhhmmm... pass the M&Ms, man? ...What was I—? Oh, yeah. Ten... elv— no, wait..."

UPDATE: 11:25. Apparently, there were "long line-ups" at some of the polling stations in Vancouver Centre, so they "extended the voting hours". Uh huh. Man... the good stuff reeeeeally does make time seem to stretch on forever, doesn't it...? :)

How it went...

I've got some well-wishes in reply to my post of the 13th about the new job, and telonjedi very kindly inquired as to how it went. Given the opportunity to gab about myself, hey... what man could resist. :)

First of all, there are two reasons I haven't been around much in the blogosphere lately... mine or anyone else's. The first is my Flickr account. I've been spending a lot of time combing through nine years of up-until-now pointless digital photos I've taken, trying to find ones worth putting up, writing about, and putting into sets. It's been such work, if I were getting paid for it, it would be moonlighting!

Which brings me to my other reason, of course: the new job. A lot of the posting I've done till now was done at my old job, during downtime when I was bored. So far, there hasn't been much of that in the new job. It looks like it's going to be busier, but that's a good thing... except it means I won't be quite as effusive as I was.

It was a good first week. I'm working with peers again, which is something I haven't had for about five years. They seem like a good bunch, and the company atmosphere is less formal and uptight than what I'm coming from. My boss wears jeans, for instance. There's a lot of work there, the possibility of promotion over time, and best of all, it's exactly the same ride to work. I even had some of the old posse meet the new posse at a restaurant on Friday — that went really well. There was even talk of an all-building soccer team, though I don't know if that'll go anywhere. But it would be neat if it did.

Anyway, I'll sign off now with a few gratitous photos from my Flickr account. Y'all come back now, y'hear? :)

Big election

It's funny... tomorrow's election day and I can't seem to make it sink in. I'm more caught up in the new job than the likely change in government. I have to make an effort to remember to vote!

Speaking of which, I know a lot's up for grabs, because it's the first time in my life I can remember getting election collateral from four federal parties... in this case, the Liberals (incumbent in my riding; what a surprise), the Tories, the NDP, and — in a first for me — the Green Party. I always feel sorry for people in parties like that because you just know they're putting themselves through hell for little more than the gesture... the beauty of democracy. But they don't get much to show for it. I don't know; I guess it's an argument for proportional representation. But then there's the counter argument: all those religious right finge parties who want to basically legislate everyone's dick into a jar you'll need official permission to take it out of once a year on your birthday; subject to government supervision to ensure you're not using it in manners offensive to God. Of course, the very same people don't want the government telling them how to educate their kids; oh, no... that's a personal matter.

Oh, am I back ranting again on my blog? Yes, it seems I am. :)

Don't forget to vote. Or, if you're not a citizen yet, scream real loud the name of the candidate of your choice instead. :)

Reflections in transition

What do you say on walking out the door for the last time after having worked at a place for nearly six years?

When I started at the place I worked this morning, I was still sort of "young". Well, now I'm cusp-middle-aged. I took a picture of my work station today and I can't believe, even now, that I've seen it for the last time. I sat in that swivel chair for nearly six years. Or at least five; it might have been my boss's chair and I inherited it from him when he quit in December, 2000.

The guys I worked with were great; I really only knew them about a year, and even then, only fairly closely for about the last six months or so. But I was surprised when I woke up this morning to realize they wouldn't be a daily part of my life anymore. Perhaps a periodic one; I'm literally going to be working right upstairs (yeah, same street, same building, same parking lot... different company! Given there are only two in the building, what are the odds?). But those common elements of the job that our relationship was founded on are now essentially gone. Is there enough to keep going?

I hardly said good-bye to anyone. It's not my style. I'm kind of shy; I never made friends easily and I'm awful with names. I couldn't see the point in subjecting myself to the awkwardness of wandering around, shaking hands with folks I really hadn't said two words to all month in most cases, or people I once worked with but hadn't spoken to in ages. Maybe that seems cold, but it isn't. It's just cowardly. Not the same. I'm really rather maudlin and sentimental. But I just hate being put on the spot. I hope they'll understand. Let's face it, most of them won't give a damn. I don't mean they're inhuman either; that's just how it is.

Monday I start my new job. I'll probably park in the same spot. I think, I hope, I'll be glad. But tonight I'm kind of sad. Mourning, almost, it feels like. Not so much for my friends there -- I'll have ample opportunities to see them again. But my comfy, familiar workstation and my role, my lot there. The simple things I took for granted all these years that are no longer mine. I'm divorced.

I have to confess that my last few months in the job weren't really happy ones. For a lot of reasons; my boss is (I mean, was) the micromanaging type, and that came to mean that my large, one-time achievements were forgotten and overshadowed by small, nit-picking issues (one involving the use of the preposition "in" as opposed to "by" in a sentence where there was no semantic difference between them). So I was looking around. And I did find something. I suppose I ought to be happy I'm leaving on my own terms under my own steam, but the process of landing the other job and then segueing out of this one has been so long that there's no "bang" to it. Landing the new job was a job in itself; it has none of the flavour of a treat or a surprise. I wish it did.

Anyway, I haven't been blogging much, partly because of the logistics of transition — passing on my knowledge to the poor guys stuck doing my job in addition to their own till they hire a real replacement — and partly because I've been spending so much time on my Flickr account, posting my photos there and writing about them. I need to find more time for this. I'll do my best... for those to whom it matters. ...Hello? <:)

Elway Court, two

Elway Court, two
Originally uploaded by Lone Primate.

I'm just testing my blog-posting abilities out of my Flickr account, folks. But you're welcome to swing by and have a look. This particular photo is one I took about four years ago on a street where half the buildings were torn down in the construction of the Spadina Expressway, known today as "the Allen". The photo's in a set about the expressway.

Was this what Osama really had in mind?

If you don't go and read this post on In Other News (formerly In Cold Blog), the terrorists will win. Actually, the point is, they sort of did, and we missed it...

Picture this

Happy New Year to all you primates (et al.?) out there. :)

I finally got serious about my Flickr account last night, with just hours to go in the month and the year (I wanted to take advantage of my 20MB monthly upload limit so as not to handicap efforts in January). I have a few sets up so far, but I see I'm limited to three... so I guess to make of it what I'd like, I'll have to pony up. Well, it's only $24.95 US a year. Nickels and dimes.

But, the point is, now I have a place to share my photos with you! Not just a few here and there, but whole sets. I don't know if any of you will avail yourselves, but I hope you will. I love amateur photography, and feel deeply fortunate to live in such an age... even ten years ago, this was essentially impossible. Now it's just a lark for Saturday afternoons, both shooting and posting.

Hope you'll have a look. The link is here, and you will also find it permanently in my links list on the left side of this page. Or try this link to see a really neat slideshow of recently-posted images.

Context sensitive

It's been about six months since I've been here [N.B. March 6, 2011: This post was originally made on LiveJournal]. That's because I started a blog in May. I've been concentrating most of my efforts there. It's a little more interactive than this and that's kind of what I've been after.

So today is the last day of 2005. It's the last day of the first year without Jody in it. That only occurs to me now because I've happened to come back to this journal to glance it over. That in itself demonstrates the value of things like this.

Jody's dad isn't well. The course of his cancer has pretty much reached the point where he's counting down the days. He's very brave, very matter-of-fact about it. Maybe that's just how you get when you really face it; I don't know. He might have been joking, but in one e-mail, he speculated that he was expecting to die around January 27th. I believe that was the day of the Apollo 1 fire that took the lives of Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffe. He's been encouraging me to get in touch with his other son, Jason. He hasn't come right out and said it, but I think that's so Jason will be able to tell me when something happens.

I remember Jason when I was in Dallas. Pretty sage for a guy so young. He didn't seem quite sure then what he wanted out of life -- who's supposed to at 23, 24? -- but he sure knew what he didn't want. He had some pretty high ideals for the US that I think might eventually see him leave the country... though I'm not sure any land could really measure up. But then, without our idealists, there'd be no progress at all.

Down to the mundane... what's today supposed to be like? P-Doug and Ge and I are supposed to get together for a movie and dinner. Larry might or might not come along. He's hard to read these days.

I have a new job. Starts mid-month. It's literally upstairs from where I currently work. No joke; it's a longer trip into work simply because a two-floor elevator ride is involved. Must be one of the smallest transit changes involving working for a different company in history. :)

I should probably check in here more often, though I'm not sure why. Does anyone read this thing? I doubt it. But I hate the idea of abandoning it. Firstly, it's kind of a link back to Jody. Secondly, suppose I let it languish and they delete it or something? Thirdly, suppose someone does show up?

"Our Endangered Values"

From an article on CounterPunch by Paul Craig Roberts...

Since his retirement by Ronald Reagan, President Carter has given active service to the causes of human rights and peace. He has written a number of books, and now he has delivered a humdinger: Our Endangered Values (Simon & Schuster, 2005) in which he takes the Bush administration to task.

Jimmy Carter is an uncommonly decent and sincere person to have gone so far in American politics. His presidency failed because it coincided in time with three crises: economic malaise resulting from the exhaustion and failure of postwar Keynesian demand management, the outburst of long-simmering hatred in Iran of US interference in Iran's internal affairs, and a run-up in the oil price (small compared to what Bush and Cheney have achieved).

President Carter finds it unpleasant to write his assessment of the Bush administration, but he steadfastly makes it clear that the Bush/Cheney/neocon "war on terror" is in fact a war on America's reputation and civil liberties. He points out that the Bush administration has used the "war on terror" to justify actions "similar to those of abusive regimes that we have historically condemned." Consequently, "the United States now has become one of the foremost targets of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life."

Carter reports that the deception, naked aggression, and torture that define the Bush administration have caused a tremendous setback for human rights throughout the world. At an international human rights conference in June 2005, "Participants explained that oppressive leaders had been emboldened to persecute and silence outspoken citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism . . . The consequence is that many lawyers, professors, doctors,and journalists had been labeled terrorists, often for merely criticizing a particular policy or for carrying out their daily work. We heard about many cases involving human rights attorneys being charged with abetting terrorists simply for defending accused persons." Carter is especially disturbed that the Bush administration is encouraging these abusive policies in the name of "fighting terrorism."

Who among us ever expected to hear an American president, vice president, and attorney general justify torture as essential to the protection of the American way of life? Carter quotes attorney general Alberto Gonzales, who sounds more like a third world tyrant than an American when he dismisses the Geneva Convention's provisions as "quaint." Bush threatened to veto any congressional limitation on his right to torture, and Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon declared that "the president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as Commander in Chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture."

It is not only Carter who is disturbed, but also members of the previous Bush administration, including the current president's own father and former National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft. Carter quotes Dr. Burton J. Lee III, President George H.W. Bush's White House physician as follows:

"Reports of torture by US forces have been accompanied by evidence that military medical personnel have played a role in this abuse and by new military ethical guidelines that in effect authorize complicity by health professionals in ill-treatment of detainees. . . . Systematic torture, sanctioned by the government and aided and abetted by our own profession, is not acceptable. . . . America cannot continue down this road. Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength. . . . It is not leadership. It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States."

Carter notes that the illegal detentions following 9/11 were hurriedly legalized by dubious methods which violate a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties. Carter is distressed that children as young as 8 years old are being held in indefinite detention and tortured. Confronted by Seymour Hersh, a Pentagon spokesman replied that "age is not a determining factor in detention."

Socks it to me

Say, you know, it occurs to me that if there've been two President Bushes, why couldn't there be a second President Clinton? Yup, you know who I mean...











Gotta be better than the guy they got now.

Why You Can't Own a Canadian

A correspondent to City In the Trees has presented a comment in reply to Why Can't I Own a Canadian? below. This person has certainly presented a well-thought piece; there's no escaping the fact that it went through several reiterations. The tone is highly respectful, and, while frank, compassionate.

But with respect, I have to disagree with the comment's suggestion that the prohibition against homosexuality is based on something other than "God arbitrarily said so". That's really all we've got. There are myriad ways for human beings to love each other. Some are sexual, some aren't. Of the ones that are, only one single means of expressing it results in reproduction; dozens of others don't. It's inescapable that if the bottom line is reproduction, and so homosexuality is wrong, then so is every other heterosexual act that results merely in pleasure, and serves only to strengthen the bond between two people. In fact, every act of heterosexual copulation that does not result in conception -- as when contraception is used, or between couples who are knowingly infertile -- would be an abomination because it would, technically, occur outside the plan the commentor speaks of. Imagine the hurt that suggestion would place on the hearts of such loving people. And yet this is precisely what this philosophy hopelessly condemns homosexuals to. Little wonder the commentor can profess to have never known a truly happy homosexual! In my opinion, no loving God could desire such a thing.

My own feelings on the matter are that if there is a God, a conscious God of whatever nature, then It ("He" strikes me as wrong, but we really don't have an appropriate pronoun in English) has placed the only real commandment in our hearts already -- don't hurt others. Don't do to them what you wouldn't want done to you. Almost all the rest is politics, and generally speaking, I don't believe it's "God's will" anymore. As the Why Can't I Own a Canadian? article pointed out, there are simply too many examples of "God's will" that stand neither the test of time nor this crucial test in the human heart. The pronouncements on the justice of enslaving neighbouring tribes, on the treatment of women, the severe punishments for the most trivial of transgressions... these can't be the will of God. We've rejected them as such. But so many of us seem to say, "Well, God didn't really mean that bit about slaves, but He really meant it when he was talking about homosexuals." Samuel Morse (of Morse code fame) certainly held that "God really meant that bit about slaves", and he and others like him said so rather forcefully . The untold misery that resulted stems from that. So does the misery that homosexuals have gone through for centuries, right up to this day. But if Morse was wrong, and God didn't really mean one thing, why do others presume they're right in saying He really did mean something else that seems just as at-odds with our everyday experience to the contrary? Why are we free to reject one tenet but not the other?

Human beings are complex animals. We're sexual beings from the outset, but I personally feel we're far too complex for the exact nature of our sexuality to be hardwired. I think it's learned; it's a matter of socialization. Look how different the standards are around the world. A person, at some point in his or her life, simply becomes attracted to something in others, and that forms the basis for his or her sexuality from then on. The idea of a "gay gene", so-called, strikes me as ridiculous for two reasons. First of all, a gene whose entire raison d'etre is to prevent the continuation of the gene pool in which it exists wouldn't last long. What's the survival advantage in not surviving? Secondly, as I said, we're incredibly complex. When one looks at the spectrum of what turns people on (above and beyond the first layer, male and/or female), it's pretty clear it's learned. I mean, how could there possibly be, for example, a shoe fetish gene? Regardless of how we arrived at it -- created or evolved -- it's our nature to be sexually diverse. If we were created, then that's a feature of our nature created by God.

Getting back to the singular commandment of the heart... not to hurt others... we see this reflected in every culture, and in just about every person (gay, straight, white, black, whathaveyou). We even see it demonstrated in other animals approaching us in intelligence and sophistication. My cats have claws and fangs. But it is very clear to me they are aware of their capacities, and finely tuned to the level at which their application causes me pain. For them to curl their front paws around my arm with their claws out to hold but not tear, or to pinch, rather than bite, with their teeth as in a show of affection, demonstrates this. Why should it be so? Firstly, they have affection for me; I firmly believe this based on the evidence of their conduct and attitude towards me. Secondly, they are aware of my pain, and their own ability to cause it. Thirdly, something in their nature makes them desirous that I should not feel pain from their actions, and they clearly take measured steps that avoid it, almost without fail. I'm sure almost everyone has had experiences like this. It isn't just humans who sense and follow the Golden Rule. My own feeling is that if there is a mark of divinity in the world, this is the best hint of it. Perhaps the only one.

Sexual acts, in and of themselves, are not harmful. It's the context that is. A sexual act forced on another is harmful. But any sexual act between consenting adults, not forced on one another or anyone else, is not harmful. It's an expression of one of the joys of life. One might as well say that two men must not sing together. Or two women must never eat some magnificent confection from the same bowl. So long as the act is not done when one or both of the parties is in a committed relationship with someone else, how can it be harmful? (Morally speaking, of course; one might say 'it risks spreading disease', but then, one could say the same of singing together or sharing a bowl of food. Diseases spread by many means, but somehow we don't come to consider those social activities as 'evil' as a result.) So it seems to me that any affectionate act that doesn't violate the Golden Rule (i.e., don't rape someone, don't do it if the knowledge you did would break someone's loyal heart) would be fine with whomever created us. If the only appeal otherwise is to a book written centuries ago by people who clearly had an agenda, then we're right back to resurrecting the legitimacy of rules on slavery, diet, women's uncleanliness, and so on. If I can't credit those, I can't credit the suggestion that God meant that two people who love each other should deny themselves and one another simply because the nature of their releationship cannot result in reproduction; that it might offend some being who may or may not even exist. We might as well be rabbits, or perhaps not even that sophisticated, if we're meant for nothing more than that. If God's plan is the continuation of our race, that's surely not at risk (at least not from any lack of interest in the act that ensures it)! But is that all there is? Is there nothing more? Is there room for nothing else? I can't believe that.

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

Not so much about Canadians per se, but about the usefulness of the Bible (in particular, the Old Testament) in buttressing one's moral arguments... Thanks to The Levee Breaks for this amusing and empowering link. :)

Where No Fan Has Gone Before!

Are you a Star Trek fan? Check out Memory Alpha, a Wikipedia-like project to catalog the Star Trek canon.

Will he take the "u" out of "colour", too?

I just happened by the Conservatives' web site, where they have the following title as a link to an article:

Stephen Harper will initiate reforms to elect senators and set fixed election dates

...and I couldn't help myself. First thing that went through my mind was, "Oh, he's going to annex us to the United States?" :)

Old friends in new clothes

I haven't been down to the East Donlands Park in about three months. Last time I was there, the river was still warm enough to wade, and it was still barefoot hiking season...


Time of the season

...Well, hiking season it may still well be, but not unless you're nicely trussed up. It was hand-numbingly cold as I took these shots. But I wanted to get out with my cameras and do some winter photography in a place I was familiar with from one season, but had never seen in its other facets.

Today I had with me both my cameras; my Canon 350D Rebel XT and my Kodak CX7330. I set the CX7330 to photograph in black and white and left the XT on "program" setting, letting the camera itself do all the tricky grunt work. Getting fancy with settings is a warm weather game. I was interested in contrasting how the scenes would look in colour and native black and white, again, without having to constantly flit settings back and forth on the XT.


The approach

Above is the view heading down from Finch Avenue to the path through the forest to the old track of Cummer Avenue, which is a five-minute walk in good weather, but about ten minutes in the low-traction snow.


Up the path

Above is a view of the path as you step onto it. On the left in this shot is the East Don River. I found this shot very compelling when I got home and looked it over. It's the kind of scene, when I was a boy, I used to fantasize about simply disappearing into, becoming one with. The calm, cool simplicity and stillness of winter, forever.

Below is the first of our comparision shots. These are both panoramic images composed of three shots each, assembled by a stitching program that came with the XT. This is the first bend in the path as you head northward, before you emerge into the flood plain.






And, speaking of which, below is a comparison of how the flood plain itself looks in black and white and colour. I only bothered to take shots for a full panorama in black and white; the colour version is a single image.






...I find the image in black and white much more sombre, more alluring somehow than the colour image. There's a sort of cheeriness in the colour one I find distracting from the solemnity and solitude of the place and the moment.

I find the same to be the case below, on the approach to Old Cummer Avenue Bridge itself. Judge for yourself.






Last summer I was here frequently. I walked to the river and waded in it well over a dozen times; it was a magnificent communion. I'm fascinated by the place because it was once such a vital part of city life... cars crossed this bridge hundreds of times a day; people lived down in the valley shouting distance from where I was standing for these shots.


Looking west across the bridge


Looking east up the former route of Old Cummer Avenue -- must have been a steep climb in winter

Once on the bridge itself, I took in the beautiful views of the river just doing its thing.




Looking south down the East Don


Looking north up the East Don


The beauty of water in transition

Under the bridge itself, a broad sandbar had built up on the west side. This was utterly swept away in the August storm that also bisected Finch Avenue itself in the west end. I thought I'd see if things had changed. Sure enough, it looks as though the river is trying to pay back what it stole in its swollen rage: it has began depositing sand again in the slow, lazy west pocket of the bridge.






After taking in the bridge and the river, I headed west along the old track of the road. This way follows along the hydro corridor for about a hundred yards/metres and then heads abruptly north into the woods again. It's along this stretch, and northward, that about a half a dozen homes once stood, till the 70s and 80s. Once they were gone and the land upon which they stood was absorbed into the park, the old road clearance itself was closed, but continues to live on as a footpath.


Someone's home stood here till about 1980


"And miles to go before I sleep..."

Something about hydro towers has always captivated me, even as a little boy. They seem like the skeletons of giant robots, just waiting for their chance to spring back to life and attack...


Skylines


Thy fearful symmetry I


Thy fearful symmetry II


Thy fearful symmetry III


Thy fearful symmetry IV


Brothers west


Brothers east

At this point, I was heading back. The remaining shots are wandering southbound again back the way I came, towards Finch Avenue.


What a driver heading east on Cummer Avenue in winter once saw


Southbound on the path


The bend seen from the north side

I'd brought my wide angle lens with me but completely forgotten about it until this point. With numbed hands, I managed to attach the thing to the primary lens and I got these marvelous, Christmassy shots. The last one, with the single ice crystal caught in the needles of a pine tree, I am particularly happy with. And we'll sign off on that. Hope you enjoyed the little stroll.


Snow and pine needles


Evergreen overpass


Nature slips an ice diamond onto the finger of a tree

Her Majesty's Yankees?

Wednesday morning I woke up to the news that Queen's Park had amended the province's elections act to fix the date of elections to every four years:

Ontario sets fixed-election date for 2007
CTV.ca News

A new law passed Tuesday tells Ontarians exactly when they will choose their next provincial government, but critics say riding and funding disclosure changes have no guarantees.

Ontario's next provincial election will happen on Oct. 4, 2007. From then on, Ontario voters will go to the polls on the first Thursday in October every four years.

The changes are part of the Election Statute Amendment Act which passed third and final reading in the provincial legislature by a 60-19 margin.

Ontario is the third Canadian province to set election dates in law. British Columbia was the first, followed by Newfoundland and Labrador in 2004. Manitoba has also considered making the change.

"First Thursday in October every four years" has a rather American ring to it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I'm unclear as to why there's a sudden vogue for this among several of the provinces. First of all, we already have constitutionally-fixed terms for all legislatures in Canada: no parliament may sit beyond five years from the return of the previous Writ of Elections. That's typical across the entire British Commonwealth. In practice, most jurisdictions in Canada aim for elections every four years or so anyway. So why the need to carve it in stone?

And I'm wondering if it's practical. A feature of the Westminster system that's absent from the US system is the institution of non-confidence votes. Generally, they're not an issue; most governments are insulated from non-confidence votes by having a majority of the seats in a given legislature. But as we've just seen, this isn't always the case: we're in the middle of a federal election campaign right now because the government fell in a non-confidence motion in the House of Commons. This kind of thing is impossible in the US system, from which the idea of fixed dates for elections comes to us.

So what are the ramifications? If a leglislature knows it's going to the polls on the first Thursday of October in year 20XX, does that mean they can't be prematurely defeated by the failure to pass a budget (a non-confidence issue)? Or does an early election throws out the next scheduled date and pushes it back to the first Thursday of October four years from the snap election? Or, is the date maintained, and whoever wins the snap election only gets the balance of the current four-year term? How does this work with our existing traditions?

A winter in grey

I've always been a fan of the stark beauty of black and white photography, especially in melancholy outdoors scenes. I usually chicken out because I'm afraid I'll miss something if I don't take the full spectrum -- and I tell myself I can always turn colour images into black and white later, but you can't do the reverse.

But today, on the slow creep in, I decided to take in some of the scenes in black and white. These are some of the quietly impressive scenes the day showed me.