Hedley band member charged. meh rock stars aren't exactly known for being diligent about checking ID backstage. by going backstage or to the hotel after the show, the understanding is the person is confirming they are of age, and agreeing to participate in what is very well known to happen partying with rock stars backstage. a convention that has been in place for decades. Hedley seems to find themselves suddenly afoul of some new rules that weren't there before and they weren't told of. in a way it's unfair to Hedley as backstage antics are long part of the lore of rock star life. so I guess Hedley is perhaps unlucky that a long tour bus ride seems to have suddenly ended when they happened to be on. oh well I guess the results will play out in court as they will.
Hunter Tootoo loses job for office flings. hmmm I think it's safe to say that as long as women have been working on Parliament Hill in numbers, going back to the 1970s, there have been office affairs between cabinet members, senators, and other powerful persons, and their staff members. Sure it looks bad, it's tawdry. But if you unpack and expose every other Ottawa affair between powerful men and women and staff members, all of them would look bad too. The mother/daughter thing, yeah it's bad. But not especially worse than what has been the norm for decades now. Really the worst that should have happened to Tootoo for it should have been a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of a cabinet member. But nothing more.
Massimo Pacetti ons. Liberal MP kicked out over one night stand with fellow MP. hmmm, again as long as there have been women in numbers in Parliament, going to the 1970s, there have been drunken one night stands between MPs in hotel rooms. nothing to be proud of, not the type of thing you would include in the quarterly letter to constituents back home, but something that has long been accepted as part of the culture. to the details Frank link, the evidence is they went to the hotel room and did hotel room things voluntarily. uh it was her who provided the protection. the intent seems pretty clear. if there was an issue or changed mind then should have said so and made it clear. Pacetti cannot be expected to read minds. so again the worst for Pacetti should have been a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament. nothing more
--
So the social revolution of the last 50 years or so is ending or at least changing. When I was younger we were told coming out of the 1970s the standards are "if it feels good it's okay". That is not quite compatible with the new norms emerging today. Some like those discussed above have been caught up in this changeover. It's clear that the new standards or today's norms, are similar yet somehow different.
meh the social revolution is turning out to be a house built upon the sand. perhaps it always was. it's not clear what will emerge. maybe for the better in some ways. clearly the men of today have to be much more careful than in the past two generations. avoid these types of dubious situations. the wise man should avoid situations where there is an imbalance of power or resources, or where he is relying on the discretion of the other party.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Monday, July 16, 2018
Bad Behaviour in Cape Breton Lotteries
So there is yet another lottery dispute in Cape Breton. In Margaree Forks, Barb Reddick is trying to get Tyrone MacInnis' share of a $1.2 million Chase the Ace Jackpot winner.
She doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on. Trying to split hairs and say nephew only had equity on the 50/50 part and not the chase the Ace draw. Good luck with that.
The only other case would seem that nephew added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent. hmmm, so was Tyrone's name on the ticket through fraud, or "theft" of her equity by surreptitiously adding his name. Again good luck with that. If he added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent, were the police called? Barb's own verbal accounting of events she seems to concede that she allowed him to put his name on the ticket. from the Global story
Plus the winning cheque has been issued now. $600k+ each to Barb and Tyrone. It would be quite difficult at this point to put the $1.2 million money into some kind of escrow pending resolution of a dispute over ownership of the winning ticket. I'm sure some lawyers will be happy to take her case and bill Barb for the satisfaction of denying Tyrone all or as much as possible of his $600k, regardless of how much she also loses in the pursuit. Quite possibly they will both lose all of it. Serves her right, but too bad for Tyrone.
It's not the first time there has been controversy around winning tickets in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. In 2017 there was a dispute about a reneged verbal agreement to split a $100,000 prize. In this case it was again pretty clear cut legally. Kimberly Seymour was not the legal owner of the ticket (her husband Darin was), and so was not authorized to make any deal to split the equity in the ticket.
Sad, again a lotto win turns sour.
Also on this site I wrote back in 2007 there was some let's say suspicious silence about an $80k win from the husband's ticket of the nurse who was the hospital office pool ticker organizer. why did the nurse co-workers only find out about this big lottery win long after, and through other sources?
--
So yeah it's basically bad. Gambling, especially lottery, is inherently self-destructive. Even the rare win brings strife and destruction, sheesh. It's sad, lottery manages to bring out the worst in people whether you win or you lose. I suggest stay away from lotteries.
but if you are going to play, here's some lottery advice. get off your fat ass and go buy your own lottery tickets.
consider the old sayings
"if you want it done right then do it yourself"
"if you didn't want to do it yourself, then don't bitch afterward if someone else didn't do it the way you wanted"
don't delegate your lotto purchase to others. also don't make foolish promises giving away your pre-draw equity in exchange for little or nothing in return. protect your own lotto tickets. don't make deals, especially verbal deals, giving away your pre-draw equity in your tickets. protect your property. and stay away from lotteries, they are toxic.
She doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on. Trying to split hairs and say nephew only had equity on the 50/50 part and not the chase the Ace draw. Good luck with that.
The only other case would seem that nephew added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent. hmmm, so was Tyrone's name on the ticket through fraud, or "theft" of her equity by surreptitiously adding his name. Again good luck with that. If he added his name to the ticket without her knowledge or consent, were the police called? Barb's own verbal accounting of events she seems to concede that she allowed him to put his name on the ticket. from the Global story
Reddick, 57, said Friday she sent MacInnis money to buy $100 worth of tickets and told him to put his name on them for “good luck.”Recent events and rulings have made longstanding rules around lotto tickets very clear. It is the players, Barb's, responsibility to protect the integrity of her lotto tickets. Make sure that her own name was the only one on the ticket. If Barb carelessly or foolishly regrettably gave away half her equity, perhaps as consideration to Tyrone doing the real work of actually purchasing the tickets, then that is her loss and she should have no recourse through the courts. Barb should call the police if she thinks Tyrone put his name on her ticket without her knowledge or consent.
Plus the winning cheque has been issued now. $600k+ each to Barb and Tyrone. It would be quite difficult at this point to put the $1.2 million money into some kind of escrow pending resolution of a dispute over ownership of the winning ticket. I'm sure some lawyers will be happy to take her case and bill Barb for the satisfaction of denying Tyrone all or as much as possible of his $600k, regardless of how much she also loses in the pursuit. Quite possibly they will both lose all of it. Serves her right, but too bad for Tyrone.
It's not the first time there has been controversy around winning tickets in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. In 2017 there was a dispute about a reneged verbal agreement to split a $100,000 prize. In this case it was again pretty clear cut legally. Kimberly Seymour was not the legal owner of the ticket (her husband Darin was), and so was not authorized to make any deal to split the equity in the ticket.
Kimberly Seymour had said she has been emotionally distraught and on stress leave since the ordeal, as people had started confronting her at her workplace and at her home.
Sad, again a lotto win turns sour.
Also on this site I wrote back in 2007 there was some let's say suspicious silence about an $80k win from the husband's ticket of the nurse who was the hospital office pool ticker organizer. why did the nurse co-workers only find out about this big lottery win long after, and through other sources?
--
So yeah it's basically bad. Gambling, especially lottery, is inherently self-destructive. Even the rare win brings strife and destruction, sheesh. It's sad, lottery manages to bring out the worst in people whether you win or you lose. I suggest stay away from lotteries.
but if you are going to play, here's some lottery advice. get off your fat ass and go buy your own lottery tickets.
consider the old sayings
"if you want it done right then do it yourself"
"if you didn't want to do it yourself, then don't bitch afterward if someone else didn't do it the way you wanted"
don't delegate your lotto purchase to others. also don't make foolish promises giving away your pre-draw equity in exchange for little or nothing in return. protect your own lotto tickets. don't make deals, especially verbal deals, giving away your pre-draw equity in your tickets. protect your property. and stay away from lotteries, they are toxic.
Saturday, July 07, 2018
Adventist Summer Conference
There's been a bit of a flap lately about some Seventh Day Adventist youth summer conference out around Pugwash Nova Scotia. When this first made the news, my reaction was disbelief. How or why would an activist possibly care about activities or guest speakers at some church summer camp.
Here are some questions a good reporter would have asked the activist or anyone publicly challenging the Adventist camp
are you a personally a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church?
when if ever was the last time you set foot in an Adventist church?
how much of your own money have you put into Adventist coffers in your lifetime?
If the answer to the above questions is not affirmative, then I would be extremely skeptical and suspicious of the activists sudden interest in the Adventist church. There are some who would be happy to see it destroyed. They have seized this as a wedge issue.
This is a private Adventist matter. nobody is forced to send children to the camp. nobody is obligated to be a member of that church. what do the troublemakers care anyway? don't send your children to the camp if you don't want them there, or you have a problem with the activities, curriculum or guests.
It's basically the logical extension, the next step, of the checkboxes I wrote about before and the persecution of the Christian faith. First the checkboxes were brought in to attempt to deny funding, and transfer wealth from the taxes of church members to the opponents of the church. Now, emboldened by the checkboxes, there is harassment and "review" of private church camp guest speakers by outsiders who have nothing to do with the church. Attempting to establish authority over the church, demanding that the church answer to their agenda regarding camp curriculum and guest speakers.
The correct move for Adventist is to ignore the outsiders. Do not acknowledge them, do not respond. Stay on the path. Do not swerve to the left or the right. See the objectors for what they are. Recognize they do not have the interests of the church or the overall Christian faith at heart.
--
The thing is, it should be noted Michael Carducci and Danielle Harrison, are basically essentially right. Any reading of the New Testament, Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, the message is pretty clear and consistent about turning away from the ways of the flesh which is death. The Christians are constantly instructed in the Bible to give up the paganism, idolatry, deviance and immorality and turn to Christ. just saying.
--
To the activists. why don't you also object to harmful degenerate materials youth are bombarded with. for one example of many the Riverdale show. I watched one episode it was one too many. where is the protest around that side of the degeneracy. kids bombarded with degenerate messages and images and one small lone voice on the other side. if these activists are supposedly so concerned about youths being corrupted, exposed to damaging messages and images.
Here are some questions a good reporter would have asked the activist or anyone publicly challenging the Adventist camp
are you a personally a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church?
when if ever was the last time you set foot in an Adventist church?
how much of your own money have you put into Adventist coffers in your lifetime?
If the answer to the above questions is not affirmative, then I would be extremely skeptical and suspicious of the activists sudden interest in the Adventist church. There are some who would be happy to see it destroyed. They have seized this as a wedge issue.
This is a private Adventist matter. nobody is forced to send children to the camp. nobody is obligated to be a member of that church. what do the troublemakers care anyway? don't send your children to the camp if you don't want them there, or you have a problem with the activities, curriculum or guests.
It's basically the logical extension, the next step, of the checkboxes I wrote about before and the persecution of the Christian faith. First the checkboxes were brought in to attempt to deny funding, and transfer wealth from the taxes of church members to the opponents of the church. Now, emboldened by the checkboxes, there is harassment and "review" of private church camp guest speakers by outsiders who have nothing to do with the church. Attempting to establish authority over the church, demanding that the church answer to their agenda regarding camp curriculum and guest speakers.
The correct move for Adventist is to ignore the outsiders. Do not acknowledge them, do not respond. Stay on the path. Do not swerve to the left or the right. See the objectors for what they are. Recognize they do not have the interests of the church or the overall Christian faith at heart.
--
The thing is, it should be noted Michael Carducci and Danielle Harrison, are basically essentially right. Any reading of the New Testament, Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, the message is pretty clear and consistent about turning away from the ways of the flesh which is death. The Christians are constantly instructed in the Bible to give up the paganism, idolatry, deviance and immorality and turn to Christ. just saying.
--
To the activists. why don't you also object to harmful degenerate materials youth are bombarded with. for one example of many the Riverdale show. I watched one episode it was one too many. where is the protest around that side of the degeneracy. kids bombarded with degenerate messages and images and one small lone voice on the other side. if these activists are supposedly so concerned about youths being corrupted, exposed to damaging messages and images.
Thursday, July 05, 2018
Justin Trudeau could just call an election
Sheila Copps might be a close relevant precedent. about a generation ago Copps found herself painted into a corner around the hated GST tax, reminded of a campaign promise she made to resign if the GST was not repealed. When first reminded of her pledge she attempted to be breezy about it. Alas it became clear her commitment could not be brushed off, that every time she stood in Parliament or opened her mouth there would be a loud chorus of calls to resign. Sheila did resign and of course easily won the byelection in Hamilton. So in a way the resignation was moot, it didn't change or accomplish anything for Sheila or her opponents. but it did allow her to clear the slate, face the consequences of her foolish campaign promise, and put the matter behind her.
Today Justin Trudeau finds himself painted into a corner. Facing credible allegations that he groped a reporter in Creston B.C. in August 2000 at a festival. The exact details are unclear at this time but Trudeau, then 28 and not in politics, did apologize to the reporter the next day over something. Now the problem isn't as much the allegation, but the well established precedent established and enforced by Trudeau around misconduct. These people have all lost their jobs in politics due to usually anonymous allegations of some kind of sexual misconduct. In these cases Trudeau either was the final decision maker, or supported a decision someone else made.
Hunter Tootoo
Scott Andrews
Massimo Pacetti
Patrick Brown
Erin Weir
Christine Moore
Kent Hehr
Like Sheila Copps, Justin Trudeau would be expected to hold himself to the same standard he has imposed on others. It would be very difficult for Trudeau to try to split hairs and say his misconduct is further in the past, combined with lesser enough degree, along with not a public figure at that time, to say he should avoid the fate he imposed on others for broadly similar alleged misdeeds. When Parliament resumes Trudeau would likely face the Copps treatment, a loud chorus of calls to resign every time he rises and speaks in Parliament.
Now Trudeau does have an option as Prime Minister. He can dissolve Parliament and just call an election. Thus like Sheila, get credit for taking ownership and stepping down, without having to really back down or give up much. The polls aren't that bad for the Liberals right now. The NDP especially seems weak. Others have noted the removal of unpopular Kathleen Wynne in Ontario is actually a benefit as she was dragging all Liberals down. There was going to be an election next year anyway so it's just one year early. It would then close the matter, Trudeau gets credit for "resigning", allows everyone to move forward. Perhaps after the election if he wins there may be some rethinking of what is the appropriate response to these types of non-criminal, often anonymous, often years in the past, allegations.
--
The whole Trudeau thing reminds me of something that some Twitter user posted
isn't it ironic. the worlds greatest male feminist. the self appointed leader of listen and believe. well well well.
normally on it's own this is a non-issue. some minor matter from long ago that was resolved with an unenthusiastic, next-day, perhaps hung over, arrogant, insincere, possibly forced or requested, apology. police weren't called, no evidence that any crime was committed. but then again were the cops called in any of the cases above? but alas Trudeau took a rigid stance and made it an issue. now its an issue. oh well let it be his Robespierre moment.
Today Justin Trudeau finds himself painted into a corner. Facing credible allegations that he groped a reporter in Creston B.C. in August 2000 at a festival. The exact details are unclear at this time but Trudeau, then 28 and not in politics, did apologize to the reporter the next day over something. Now the problem isn't as much the allegation, but the well established precedent established and enforced by Trudeau around misconduct. These people have all lost their jobs in politics due to usually anonymous allegations of some kind of sexual misconduct. In these cases Trudeau either was the final decision maker, or supported a decision someone else made.
Hunter Tootoo
Scott Andrews
Massimo Pacetti
Patrick Brown
Erin Weir
Kent Hehr
Like Sheila Copps, Justin Trudeau would be expected to hold himself to the same standard he has imposed on others. It would be very difficult for Trudeau to try to split hairs and say his misconduct is further in the past, combined with lesser enough degree, along with not a public figure at that time, to say he should avoid the fate he imposed on others for broadly similar alleged misdeeds. When Parliament resumes Trudeau would likely face the Copps treatment, a loud chorus of calls to resign every time he rises and speaks in Parliament.
Now Trudeau does have an option as Prime Minister. He can dissolve Parliament and just call an election. Thus like Sheila, get credit for taking ownership and stepping down, without having to really back down or give up much. The polls aren't that bad for the Liberals right now. The NDP especially seems weak. Others have noted the removal of unpopular Kathleen Wynne in Ontario is actually a benefit as she was dragging all Liberals down. There was going to be an election next year anyway so it's just one year early. It would then close the matter, Trudeau gets credit for "resigning", allows everyone to move forward. Perhaps after the election if he wins there may be some rethinking of what is the appropriate response to these types of non-criminal, often anonymous, often years in the past, allegations.
--
The whole Trudeau thing reminds me of something that some Twitter user posted
the male feminist— Rob Grandy (@tookalito) January 4, 2018
in public acts like Bill Clinton
in private acts like Bill Clinton
isn't it ironic. the worlds greatest male feminist. the self appointed leader of listen and believe. well well well.
normally on it's own this is a non-issue. some minor matter from long ago that was resolved with an unenthusiastic, next-day, perhaps hung over, arrogant, insincere, possibly forced or requested, apology. police weren't called, no evidence that any crime was committed. but then again were the cops called in any of the cases above? but alas Trudeau took a rigid stance and made it an issue. now its an issue. oh well let it be his Robespierre moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)