Going on a Bieber Hunt (not)

So my worst fears have been confirmed by CBC - Justin Bieber (and his monkey) won't be appearing in Regina for this year's Junos.  Bummer.

Don't worry - I'll still be going celeb spotting at the airport tonight.

Now I'll just have to take photos of everyone and then check my results against Google Images to see if I managed to see anyone famous.

Or maybe I'll just pick up Jeannette and call it a night.

And we wonder why people are confused

I love that by reading multiple headlines/news stories one may be more confused about the nature of a situation than if they had just read a single story.  I think a great example of that is in the midst of happening in Halifax presently.

It seems that Halifax's mayor, Peter Kelly, is on his way out as the executor of a long-contested estate.  The CBC's headline for their story conveying the details is:

Halifax Mayor to step down as estate executor

On the other hand, the Coast - the independent weekly that first pushed the story of the mayor's challenges as executor, has the following headline:

BREAKING NEWS: Peter Kelly removed as executor of the Mary Thibeault estate

The CBC's headline gives me the impression that Kelly had some choice in the matter while the Coast's headline seems to suggest that Kelly had no choice in the matter.  These differences seem significant to me, or am I reading more into the headline differences than I should?

A Few Quick Notes 574

-While today was beautiful, it was nothing like yesterday's mid-twenties masterpiece when we reached something approaching weather perfection.  It was a pleasure to have the chance to live through such a beautiful day.

-I guess I'm now 8 for 24 in this year's RUTRTW contest.  Unfortunately at least three of these wins have been for 'donuts,' and I have no idea what to do with the winning rims.   If someone wants them maybe I could mail them out all at once or one at a time depending on demand.  Anyway, if you think you might be interested in up to three free donut rims leave me a comment and I think about how to proceed.

-At least my record isn't 0 for 68, which how bad the RCMP's was when it came to picking Canadian politicians with connections to the USSR.  You can find the CBC's story on the topic here.

-The NDP leadership convention has not started.  And while I didn't pay too much attention to the first few months of the race, over the past few days I have been enjoying watching the final manoeuvres.  I will also be curious to see who is eventually selected to be the leader and how the preferential voting system ends up working out.

Today while thinking about convention coverage I thought to myself that I would 'watch it on Twitter,' and then realized that that is likely how I will follow the convention.  It's kind of amazing that reading a series of short updates is sufficiently engaging and informative that I would consider doing this.

Halifax sleep-watcher caught?

CBC Nova Scotia recently tweeted:

Barry Sinclair charged with five counts of voyeurism and two counts of break and enter in south-end Halifax. #cbcns

Does this mean what I think it means?  Have they finally caught the South End Halifax sleep watcher?

Unfortunately, they don't yet have a fully story relaying the significance of the tweet (and either confirming or refuting my assumptions).  I am hoping that they have one soon.  Whether or not this is sleep-watcher related I also hope that the whole sleep-watcher situation is resolved sooner rather than later.  It's hard to believe that the sleep-watcher thing has been going on for years without a satisfactory resolution.

Update: A story on the case from October, 2011 can be found here.

Update: An earlier tweet from the CBC reporter covering the police press conference seems to confirm my suspicion that they are dealing with the sleep-watcher issue:

Waiting for police chief Beazley to explain arrest of alleged sleep watcher. #cbcns

Cameron: 28
Neil: 0

I am not sure who's more to blame

I don't understand why some media outlets continually choose to cover non-stories and then insist on turning them into negative stories.

I currently disgusted with a CBC story that deals with student speculation about parking limitations at MUN even though a new 870 space parking structure that opened today.

Maybe the most troubling aspect of the story is that most of the student opinions are nothing more than speculation.  The students quoted in the story simply don't know if there will continue to be parking problems once the new structure opens or if it may actually alleviate parking congestion around campus because the facility just opened today.  And even if all parking problems aren't resolved with the addition of this structure, are things not better than they were yesterday?

The tone of the story is also troubling.  Instead of focusing on the fact that the university is actually trying to alleviate student and staff concerns about parking this story adopts a negative tone and doesn't even really acknowledge the improvement to the parking situation that will arise because of this structure, which one might have expected to be the primary focus of the story.

To some extent, the way the story is framed here it all feels a little circular.  Wouldn't the natural response to these student concerns be the construction of a few parking garage?

Oh, and another problem is reporting on a real story but omitting the context and the pertinent details so most people reading will think it's a non-story and miss the significance of the whole thing.

Recent CBC coverage of the Labrador City housing shortage has done a great job of this.  Today's story about changes to the social housing eligibility income cap does a particularly great job of painting only a partial picture of the situation.

A story yesterday about bus accidents in Halifax was infuriating because they went so far as to request information about each Metro Transit bus accidents but then failed to put the numbers in a context that would allow one to reasonably judge whether or not the accident rate was reasonable or not.  With just a little more work this could have been a great story, instead it was likely more harmful than helpful as it sowed seeds of confusion rather than seeds of clarity.

Free parking in Halifax

As I have recently mentioned a few times, I just listened to the entire episode archive of the 99% Invisible podcast.  One of the first episodes of this show (but one of the last that I listened to) dealt with a new parking initiative that was being implemented in San Francisco.


99% Invisible-08- 99% Free Parking by Roman Mars

[Embedded audio]

The general parking scheme to be implemented in San Francisco, at least as described in the podcast, was to create a system that encouraged a more efficient use of available parking space (their goal is to always have one free space per block).  A key component of creating such an outcome is to have dynamic pricing that reflects usage.  Higher prices in high demand areas and lower prices in low demand areas.  Furthermore, such prices would change regularly to reflect changing usage patterns. (You can read more about the system at the SFPark.org site.)

Anyway, I was reminded of these concepts and ideas as I read a recent CBC article about planned changes to parking rules in Halifax.  Instead of dealing with parking congestion problems with an approach reminiscent San Francisco's, Halifax seems interested only interested in implementing a course permitting scheme that will be of the most benefit to homeowners on residential streets (who are currently complaining about the lack of available parking space on their streets).

Maybe I should take a second to step back and describe the parking situation as it exists on the non-campus streets near Dal, the province's largest university and an institution with a relatively well documented parking shortage.  What is immediately striking about parking near Dal is not that there are no available spaces, but that there are many near-empty streets with available on-street parking.  These streets have almost no cars because complicated no parking schedules (things like two hour maximums or absolutely no parking between certain hours) make them difficult to use for most people with commitments at Dal.  Of course, I should also note that the few completely unencumbered parking places are almost always taken.

So getting back to the new proposal, if streets in Halifax are uniformly converted from free parking to permitted parking a few problems may arise.  Firstly, streets that are now almost completely empty may fill up with newly permitted cars (making some aspects of the problem worse).  Secondly, homeowners will now have to pay for the privilege to park near their homes (though they will have reduced rates).  Thirdly, those with irregular commitments in areas impacted by the changes may have a harder time parking as they won't have a parking permit for the area in question (this is the change that really bothers me as it will likely impact me when I am trying to go to Dal).

But that brings us to a few questions: Do we have an inherent right to free on-street parking? and Do homeowners have an inherent right to street parking in front of their property?  I guess my initial response to both of these questions is 'no.'

Lets deal with the first question first.  As much as I like free on-street parking and as much as I think it is a reasonable thing municipality to decide to provide, I think one can make a pretty convincing argument that as streets that are wide enough to allow for on-street more parking cost more to build that such costs should be recouped from those using the service rather than the entire tax base.  Similar approaches are taken with regards to things like gas taxes or bridge tolls.  Thus a pay-for-parking approach isn't completely outside the norm in most North American contexts.

Now on to the second question.  Though homeowners in residential area might like to be able to park in front of their homes I'm not really sure that they really have much an argument beyond that.  If we look at cases of property ownership in areas of dense development we often see that there isn't enough room for all owners to take advantage of on-street parking, options other than parking in front of one's building must be found.  Thus I don't see that the home owners in Halifax should really have much of a claim to the on-street parking in front of their homes (particularly during business hours).  It should also be noted that as a property owner you can both choose how to allocate your property (such as how much of your property is dedicated to parking) and decide whether or not you own a car.  Expecting to also have some claim to street space for which you have not paid and that is not equally available to all property owners or residents seems a bit much to me.

Of course, the other part of the equation that has been seemingly completely ignored, at least if we use this CBC article as our only source, is that attempts could be made to reduce the number of individuals interested in parking in Halifax.  Maybe a better bus system or efforts to decrease sprawl might also help with parking problems.

I guess, in the end, I think that this policy is missing the point.  People parking on the street is fine, there is nothing inherently wrong with it (though a few parking garages and a more effective pricing scheme might not be completely uncalled for).  Furthermore, if you don't provide alternatives to street parking (either parking-wise or alternatives to driving) you won't really solve the problem, you might just shift it further afield.  And I suspect that in the best case scenario that is all this policy will do as they fundamentally haven't done anything to reduce the need for parking.

Information they don't post in Newfoundland

A few days ago I noticed a CBC story about Newfoundland and Labrador not posting restaurant inspection results for the public to see, and not having any plans to do so in the near future.

At the time my thought was that the implementation of such a scheme would likely be relatively straightforward, particularly because the data already exists (and probably in a relatively accessible way).  Basically all the province would need to do is release it to the public.

Moments ago I happened to be browsing through New Brunswick related web-content and found their restaurant inspection depository.  From what I can tell from this site, it looks as though this process is just about as easy as thought it would be.  I imagine that they have a database that then feeds the site so that the most current reports are displayed and restaurant profiles automatically updated.  Presumably they would have such a database even if they weren't actively providing the information to the public, the internal management of the data would require such a structure.

Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the location being inspected seem to pass quite easily.  Though I was surprised to see some of the infractions.  In particular I was surprised to see infractions that I just wouldn't have really thought likely.

For instance, in at least one case a location was cited or not having refrigerators with thermometers.  Such an infraction immediately raises at least two questions.  Firstly, if fridge thermometers are required wouldn't you expect them to come with fridges?  Secondly, given that these inspections seem to be somewhat regular, how could such an infraction arise in a place that is not new to the food service industry?  Shouldn't such an infraction have been caught almost immediately?

If you examine the inspection report I just linked to you might also see that there seems to sometimes be inconsistency between the broad information provided about the report and the details contained within.  Notably, the report itself suggests that the last inspection was on November 22, 2011 and that the follow-up should be on December 6, 2011.  The higher level information suggests that the last inspection was on November 22, 2011 but that the follow-up inspection should be on January 16, 2012.

One final thing that I found interesting about these New Brunswick restaurant inspection reports is that they seem to either be done in English or French, not in both languages.  Furthermore, one has to open the report to see in which language the report was prepared.

No, not all skiers

So the bill about requiring ski helmets in Nova Scotia that I mentioned yesterday has now been posted online. As you may recall, I was interested in whether or not the requirement would actually apply to all skiers, as was reported in the CBC article, or if it would specifically apply to downhill skiers.

It turns out that this very issue is dealt with in s. 2 of the bill.

The purpose of this Act is to protect the health of Nova Scotians by requiring people to wear protective helmets while downhill skiing or snowboarding at ski hills where people pay to ski or snowboard.

Of course, I guess this means that if you are just out in the woods or at an abandoned ski hill there would be no requirement to wear a helmet.

There are also sections of the act that seem to provide the potential for abuse.

7 (1) For the purpose of enforcing this Act and the regulations, an enforcement officer may, without a warrant,
(a)investigate any complaint of a contravention of this Act or the regulations and examine any person to determine if a contravention has occurred;
(b) from time to time and at all reasonable times, enter the property or premises of an owner or any other person if it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to determine whether or not this Act and the regulations are being complied with;
(c) request that a person remove the person's helmet and provide it for inspection;
(d) require a person to provide the person's name and address or proof of identity; and
(e) do any other thing necessary for the purpose of enforcing this Act and the regulations.

Is it really necessary to allow enforcement officers to be able to request ID and proof of address if there is no suspicion of wrong-doing? Or that people must submit to helmet inspections? What about s. 8 of the Charter?

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Can this invasion really be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"?

Yesterday, while looking for a copy of the bill, I happened to come across the press release issued to announce the impending introduction of this bill. Something that caught my eye in the press release was the claim that "The Snowsport Helmet Act will be the first legislation of its kind in the world." Could this really be true? Had no other jurisdiction tried to implement a mandatory helmet law?

Well, after a few minutes of searching I came to the conclusion that the claim may not be entirely accurate (it likely depends on your definition of 'first of its kind'). It seems that in California legislation was introduced, and passed by both houses of the legislature, that would have required those under sixteen to wear helmets while downhill skiing. Though the bill had legislative support it was eventually vetoed by California first post-Schwarzenegger governor.

So if you take 'first of its kind' to mean 'bill requiring some segment of the population to wear helmets while skiing' it is clear that this bill is not the first of its kind. On the other hand, if you take 'first of its kind' to mean 'bill requiring all downhill skiers to wear helmets while skiing' then the claim may hold water, though I can't claim to have done a particularly extensive search.

All skiers? Really?

CBC Nova Scotia has just reported that "The Nova Scotia government plans to pass a law requiring all skiers to wear helmets." Not surprisingly, the story doesn't have too many details on the proposed legislation.

I can't help but wonder if it is really necessary to require cross country skiers to wear helmets as they majestically make their way through the countryside at sub-10 KPH speeds. Requiring cross-country skiers to wear helmets is practically like requiring a walking/running helmet. Until I get to see the text of the bill I won't know if this really is the intent of the legislation, or if this is just another instance of sloppiness in the original media report.

A quick end for the new Occupy NS site?

It seems that since my last post the police were called to the Occupy NS site to make sure that the occupiers vacated Victoria Park. Based on the photo accompanying the CBC story it looks as though the removal was really happening quite quickly.

This surprise tactic, at least in the short-run, seems to have worked for the city. They seem to have removed the occupiers from the city parks. Of course, I suspect that we will have to wait a few days to see if this all fades away quietly or if the protestors mount some form of rebuttal.

I am also curious to see if the protestors question the validity of the eviction notice and claim that they were given permission by the city. Unfortunately, as the news stories thus far seem to be focusing on the position of the city officials I don't really have a sense of how the protestors are responding to these developments, though I don't get the sense that there has been much of a fight so far (though I guess it's still early).

Hopefully more news will make it out shortly.

Update: Based on Twitter reports I gather that there have been a number of arrests during the eviction process. I guess we'll have to wait a little longer to see exactly how many there are in total.

A turn towards the absurd

A few days ago I heard about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's negative reaction to Mary Walsh's ambush-style interview at his Toronto home. It was also reported that shortly after the ambush took place he had called 911.

After seeing the relatively tame footage of the event I assumed that the suggestion that hadn't actually dialled 911 was probably true. Who would call the police when a prominent Canadian TV show, busily doing the thing for which they are most famous, was busy doing their thing (even if you might make a reasonable argument that their behaviour was inappropriate)? As one can see in the video, they don't have any interest in hiding who they are or what they are doing.

Well it seems that the suggestion that Rob Ford didn't call the police was completely wrong. Apparently he called the police not once, but twice. It is now being reported that the second call was laced with expletives. Apparently there have now been complaints filled by the dispatchers on the receiving end of these calls.

Mary Walsh, the 22 Minutes correspondent involved in the incident, spoke to a St. John's CBC show about the incident. If you are interested, you can listen to the interview here.

Finally a story that deals with challenges to Occupy Nova Scotia

Much of the relatively sparse media attention devoted to the Occupy Nova Scotia/Halifax event has been relatively devoid of coverage of how non-occupiers feel about the Occupation. This struck me as quite noticeable.

Didn't Haligonians working in the downtown core have opinions on the Occupy protest? Didn't the city have an opinion on the appearance of a tent city in on of its parks? Or were they all in favour of the Occupy Nova Scotia encampment? These questions and many more went unanswered.

And even though the fact that the the municipal government has issued an 'eviction' notice to the protestors prompted another story from CBC, issues surrounding the community's response are completely absent.

It seems that another component that was absent from the CBC story, but that was included in Halifax Media Co-op coverage, is that while the city has requested that the protestors leave the Grand Parade they have suggested an alternate location for the protest to continue. So the city isn't really shutting the protest down, just suggesting a change of venue. Of course, it's possible that this less prominent location, if agreed to by the protestors, will have a negative impact on the visibility of the protestors.

Anyway, the notice to leave the Grand Parade will likely lead to another round of media attention, though I can't help but wonder how comprehensive the resulting coverage will be. Certainly what we have seen so far, at least as far as I am concerned, is lacking in depth and breadth and has left the public with a very incomplete sense of the encampment as it currently exists in downtown Halifax.

Apparently there was an Occupy Halifax event

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to learn that there was, in fact, an Occupy Halifax event, and that it was conducted with the support of the Occupy Wolfville crowd (which explains the weak showing on the Occupy Wolfville front).

And while I would have guessed that such an event would take place in Cornwallis Park I guess it makes a little more sense that it took place on the Grand Parade.

What seems to set this protest apart from the original is that long-term occupation doesn't seem to be the goal. Instead of occupying the Grand Parade for close to a month the Occupiers seem to plan to head back again in a week.

I can't help but wonder if such a protest wouldn't have more of an impact both in actual and media terms if it were to be held on a business day?

This is even more shocking

A few days ago I posted justifications Kathy Dunderdale gave for not opening the House of Assembly until the spring.

It seems that since that post she has given even more ridiculous statements about nature of the House that really indicate that she doesn't understand the role of the legislature.

CBC is reporting that Dunderdale suggested that:

If the house of assembly was just about question period, where most of the accountability takes place, then we could go and do that in a month's time

First of all, though it is probably already obvious, most of the 'accountability' does not take in question period. It's my opinion that question period could be completely eliminated with out having a significant impact on the ability of the members of the legislature to hold the government to account.

The members of the House have a much greater ability to hold the government to account through things like the Public Accounts Committee and the estimates committee. Of course, whether or not these mechanisms are used effectively or not is another matter altogether.

And maybe most importantly the legislature is the place where the government of the day has to introduce, defend, and justify its legislative and budgetary proposals. The members of the House, whether they are government or opposition, have the responsibility to examine these proposals and engage in a public discussion of their merits.

If anything, the existence of Question Period allows all parties to act as though it is the important function of the House, that it is where accountability takes place. And they can do this because the quotes and fast-paced exchanges that take place in Question Period are what make the news. Sadly, Question Period is nothing more than a facade of accountability that distracts from what most members, opposition and government, aren't doing, which is effectively holding the government of the day to account through the various means available to them.

The worst part of this is that most people probably don't know how unimportant question period is in the scheme of things. They also probably don't know that Ms. Dunderdale's comments betray a shocking lack of knowledge regarding the proper functioning of a parliamentary government. And comments like this won't help them have a better sense of how a legislature can best hold the government of the day to account.

Let's hope she's alone on this one

As some of you may know, on Tuesday elections for the House of Assembly were held in Newfoundland. As you may also know, the House of Assembly is Newfoundland's provincial legislature. Another way of getting at the issue is that Tuesday's election dealt with selecting legislators, or people to sit in the House of Assembly and conduct the work of the legislature.

So, given this back story, I thought it was a little funny to see that newly re-elected MHA Kathy Dunderdale has been quoted by CBC when talking about the re-opening of the legislature as saying "I don't find it a place for a very healthy, open, constructive debate to start with." All of this was to justify her decision not to open the House again until the spring.

If she isn't interested in doing this part of her job can we expect her to be declining the approximately $100 000 pay cheque that accompanies the post?

Election Day in Newfoundland

Wow, I am not even in Newfoundland (though I am still a resident) and I am incredibly excited about tonight's election outcomes. I am even a little more excited now that a CBC reporter has just confirmed that CBC's TV coverage will be streaming live.

Oh man, I can't wait to watch the coverage and see how things turn out.

(I wonder how many more of these non-posts/election anticipation posts I will post before the polls close tonight?)

More details required

A story that I just read on CBC's website really left me wanting more details and a little clarification and again reminded me that much media content should be consumed with a critical eye.

First of all, while the story is primarily dealing with the appearance of caffeine in non-cola carbonated beverages it does not mention the precise dates on which changes were made to allow caffeine in non-cola beverages (according to Health Canada it was March 2010), nor does it even address all relevant changes to policies relating to caffeine in non-cola beverages. All that the article mentioned is that "Health Canada extended the use of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks last year." Part of the problem I have with this lack of information is that this date doesn't jive with my memory of their availability. In particular, they make reference to IRN-BRU being unavailable until this change, though I am sure that I purchased I purchased IRN-BRU in Canada before March 2010. If I had to guess I would have said that my impression was that it has been regularly available in specialty food shops/sections for the past five or six years.

Additionally, in their discussion of this change they completely neglected to mention the regulatory changes a few years ago that allowed for the sale of energy drinks, a type of product that for some time had been unavailable in Canada even while they were widely available in Europe and the US. When did this change happen and isn't it relevant in a discussion of the increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages? Why would they later mention the sale of energy drinks and their availability to children if the changes are unrelated to those relating to the sale of non-cola carbonated beverages?

The CBC story also does not mention the fact that while caffeine may not be added to non-cola soft drinks these drinks have a lower maximum level of caffeine.

It should also be noted that even though the CBC story suggests that only colas could have caffeine before this change I am pretty sure that the rule was a little less precise (at times Health Canada uses the term 'cola-type' while in other instances they use the term 'cola'). My understanding of the rule was that it had to do with the brownness of the beverage, which is why your Dr. Pepper's and Barq's of the world were allowed to be sold as caffeinated beverages in Canada before this rule change. The more I think about it, this confusion is likely due to the unclear terminology used by Health Canada in their discussion of caffeinated carbonated beverages.

Maybe what surprised me the most about this story was that the general angle that they took was to confront the potential negative health impacts increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages might have on children. What these impacts might be weren't discussed. And of course figures suggesting increases in caffeine consumption among children as a result of the rule change were not provided, nor was the discussion separated from the energy drink issue, which actually seems to be the core of the issue.

I also thought that it was funny that non-cola beverages were being presented as some now kind of non-caffeinated safe haven, now long gone, for parents who don't want their kids to over-consume caffeine. I couldn't help but wondering if a relatively easy way to avoid accidentally providing a kid with a caffeinated beverage would be to either provide a non-pop drink or read the ingredients.

Oh, and maybe the most egregious aspect of the whole story was that it was suggested that the regulatory change came about "because it was good for trade." Of course no evidence other than the fact that some foreign soft-drink manufacturers wanted such a change was provided to support this claim. How this position made its way from the international trade types to the Food and Drug Regulations people is not explained. More importantly, they even note that the official Health Canada position is that "Health Canada's decision to permit the addition of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks was based solely on health and safety considerations."

While it is possible that the change occurred for the reasons they suggested, a little more evidence should have been provided for the story to have real credibility. As the story currently stands it is nothing more than an incoherent mish-mash of decontextualized comments about caffeine in beverages in Canada.

Where's the CanCon?

I recently noticed that a CBC story about the impending arrival of Tropical Storm Maria in Atlantic Canada was supported with two different graphics from the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, even though they talked to someone from the Canadian Hurricane Center about the storm for the story. And I should make it clear that it is not the case that the Canadian Hurricane Center doesn't have visualizations of the storm projections. They do and they are available to the public through their website.

At first I couldn't quite figure out why the American images were used. And while I still don't have a conclusive answer I wonder if it may have something to do with copyright and that the images produced by the US government are easier to use than those produced by the Canadian government?

This seems like a plausible justification for the occurrence as materials produced by the US government are not copyrighted in the traditional sense. They can be, and frequently are, reproduced by others at no charge and without the need to clear such reproductions. Canadian government content, on the other hand, is not so easily reproducible. The Canadian government retains copyright and more actively controls the reproduction of the content that it produces.

So might this more restrictive approach to government information have lead to the CBC, a public entity funded by the same government that funds the Canadian Hurricane Center, to favour foreign content over domestic content?

How ironic that this might be the case in a country such as Canada that places such emphasis on the creation of domestic media content.

Another problem with the current electoral system in Newfoundland

A few posts ago I mentioned the seemingly absurd situation in Newfoundland that allows people to vote weeks before the election has even officially been called or candidates are recognized as candidates

A recent news story about one candidate breaking fundraising rules has brought another aspect of this situation to my attention. For over a month voters are voting but candidates are not allowed to raised funds and engage in a full-fledged campaign. This seems a little less than ideal.

Though it is unlikely, one could theoretically lose the election before they are even nominated or allowed to raise a dollar.

This sounds like a great system. It's like buying a lottery ticket after the numbers have been drawn.

This voting before candidates are nominated or officially fully functioning candidates thing has to stop. It just isn't reasonable to allow this type of situation to exist. Not only does it give a huge advantage to the incumbent (particularly if they are a minister), but it creates a situation where there is a huge incentive to break the rules and begin campaigning early.

A Few Quick Notes 547

-For the past few days we have been in the midst of something that feels quite a bit like a heatwave. Even now, just before 9:00 PM, it is still over 25 degrees and quite hot. Of course, I know that what we are going through is nothing as bad as people in big cities are dealing with, but it is nonetheless quite unpleasant.

-Tonight I took a trip to the grocery store. As I was approaching the store's entrance I noticed a Jaguar with the vanity license plate "MYY JAG." I couldn't help but thinking "JAG OFF" might have been more appropriate.

-It seems that in the past few hours there have been a series of attacks in Norway that have resulted in the deaths of more than 90 people. In the same timeframe British singer Amy Winehouse also died. The CBC has sent me four email alerts about the former story and two about the latter. Is it just me, but does the Amy Winehouse thing really even deserve a first such alert, and on a day when their is meritorious of an alert? Interestingly, the CBC Alerts Twitter feed seems to be have provided many more Norway updates than those they sent via email and has not really provided much more news about the Winehouse death (as sad and unnecessary as it may be).

-Over the past few days we have been able to harvest about 2 dozen beans. And while this may now sound like much, it does mean that we have now harvested more beans than we have bean plants (at least of a particular variety of bean plant). Jeannette was also able to harvest enough lettuce for a salad earlier today. If things keep up like this we may actually get our money's worth out of this year's seeds (though I think that that might be a little ambitious).