phishtaper

The man is self-parodying.

the sad thing is that people dont see it. yep, gotta protect them poor, misuderstood and discrminated-against parliamentalarians from those evil equal-rights do-gooders.

ok, this just took a nasty turn ... wowza

... I suspect not voting was likely the only way for a delegate's first round ballot not to count.

they suggested on TV that some delegates did not vote intentionally. i seem to recall something about the commentators saying that the pres. of a local youth wing said that they were selected in their riding and sent to the convention to vote for Iggy, but they didnt vote on the first ballot because they didnt want to vote for him. maybe i heard it wrong.

so, do tell, how'd ya get out of it? nervous tick motion of the head to the left?

There's always Paris, mon ami.

i will be staying on sherbrooke close to st denis

definately a good area to be. check this out. there was an ethiopian restaurant near there we went to a couple years ago, was good.

I'm guessing the CPC conventions are fueled by oxycontin and SSRIs.

Gimme that z, o-l-o-f-t

Gimme a grip, make me love me

Pretend you are the managing editor of the Agenda Setting Times. you have the power to put any two new eco-socio-political issues on the front page, which would have the effect of dominating Canadian media for, say a month, and flushing out all sorts of discussion.

What two "new" issues would you push?

I'd go for ...

1) Hypocricy in the Church

2) Companies that screw you (like gas companies that manipulate prices, and Rogers setting bit torrent limits)

brain-storming only please. you cannot slam others' suggestions (see, Im already a controlling SOB )

give it a few more days. the couple has to leave the reception, get to the airport and arrive in hawaii before the honeymoon begins.

WOW was i hammered.

I hope you werent one of the two guys having a piss fight at the urinals ... collateral damage, man. collateral damage.

thanks very much for doing all of this, andrew. i know how much work it is! mad props, man. we bailed on taping, deciding to do sushi instead.

thanks as well to bradm for getting the ball rolling early and ensuring that taping would be hassle-free and for taping as well. surprisingly, security there was as easy-going as I have ever seen. was a great show, cant wait to hear the tapes. (ah, remember the good old days, when they actually were tapes? )

during the coverage, i heard some discussion about non-voting during the first ballot. im kinda curious as to how a delegate can say they are voting for X on the first ballot, and then either not vote for X, or abstain (perhaps some even voted for Y? dunno). isnt there an obligation to vote for X, if your riding has (s)elected you (at least partially) on the basis that you will vote for X?

it was actually kinda fun to watch some of the coverage. im nowhere near the political junkie i used to be, but this convention got my juices flowing.

dion in 4

what do I win?

pay up, sucka's

Not only are we going to Ontario ... we're going to PEI and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Nunavut, and we're going to Saskatchewan and Manitoba and BC! And we're going to Alberta and the Northwest Territories and Yukon and Quebec. And then we're going to Ottawa to take back 24 Sussex, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh

did it sound like this?

should stephen king receive a royalty everytime someone reads one of his books? rhetorical question, i know.

the more I read things about socan and this whole issue (and I have been greatly informed by many of the posts here ) the more I realize its a VERY complex issue. there are valid points of both sides of the debate. but (ir)regardless of which side you take, one has to tip their hat to whoever it was that had the kahoona's to actually set up the whole system in the first place and actually get people to pay for listening to music. the copyright board of canada sure does have some serious bureaucratic clout.

Without Socan artists copywirtes will ne3ve rbe honoured or paid. They are a nessesary service....

well, that raises a fundamental question then. why should artists, etc. be paid every time their music is played? what part of the game changed such that artists, etc. got paid over and above actual sales of the music? yes, radio pays royalties per spin, but Roller World? the circus? a dentist's office? socan is part of a larger international system that has managed to secure revenue for past product, unlike almost every other industry. and the methods they use would appear to be heavy-handed and inequitable. what justification can be offered for charging every single dentist in the country $94.51/year to play CDs THAT THEY ALREADY BOUGHT? sounds like having the cake and eating it too, if ya ask me. besides, socan will not open its books, so who knows what's going on.

They have to pay as perhaps some of the music that is being played by these "international artists" is Canadian written, canadian produced or the performance rights may have been sold to a Canadian holder.

sure, but the ambiguity of cancon aside ... perhaps? shouldn't they only have to pay when it is ? (and admittedly, yes, this would then indeed require socan police)

Bottom line is the artists have to get paid and SOCAN represents them in a perfomance capacity...

i dont think anyone is gonna argue with the intent here, but it seems that they are trying to justify charging everyone for everything that could even potentially be what they would legitimately be entitled to. what possible justification would socan have to try to collect from a performance that is clearly 100% non-cancon? say the Kiev Dance Ensemble came to perform in a local church basement (and bought their own tapes). can socan charge for that? is the assumption that there will be some canadian music played at every musical event and therefore apply a blanket charge? my ski lodge example would seem to suggest that this is the case.

so, it just becomes a performance tax.

Court assailed over role in home-sale fraud

Panel accused of botching ruling on case where woman unaware house was sold

KIRK MAKIN

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

A lawyer for an Ontario homeowner whose residence was fraudulently sold without her knowledge accused the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday of creating the very problem that entrapped his client.

Facing down a panel of five Court of Appeal judges, lawyer Morris Cooper said that by botching a 2005 real estate ruling, the court opened the door to fraudsters who specialize in selling homes from under the unsuspecting feet of those who owned them.

Mr. Cooper urged the court to rectify its gaffe in light of the fact that the best the Ontario Legislature has been able to do is produce a bill limiting the damage to innocent homeowners.

"It is plugging a hole in the dike without recognizing the fact that the flood waters are rising," Mr. Cooper said.

The court ruling flew in the face of 400 years of common law and statutes, Mr. Cooper added. "The Land Titles Act has been overruled by the law of unintended consequences."

However, Mr. Cooper was given a rough ride by several of the judges, who were not keen on his idea that any fraud should undo a sale -- even if it is not discovered until years or decades after the sale is registered. Mr. Justice James MacPherson accused Mr. Cooper of adopting an "exceptionally absolutist position" that would turn land title procedures upside down. He said it would force lawyers for purchasers to trace and verify numerous transactions going back into the foggy past -- simply to deal with a "one-minute problem."

"It will cost tens of thousands of dollars for the simplest property transactions," Judge MacPherson predicted.

The gist of the 2005 ruling -- Household Realty v Liu -- was that a fraudulent home sale is nonetheless valid once the land title has been registered. The Liu case involved a woman who sold the family home without the consent or knowledge of her husband.

Mr. Cooper said the Household Realty judgment has opened the door to an unknown number of fraudulent sales where homeowners were left paying off a huge mortgage and attempting to win compensation from their home insurers or a provincial compensation fund.

"A number of cases are awaiting the outcome of your decision," he told the court. "It seems to me that they are circling the airport waiting to see whether the plane lands or crashes," he said.

Outside the courtroom, Mr. Cooper told reporters that it is "almost unprecedented" for a court to be asked to reverse a ruling so soon after issuing it -- which is the reason an unusually large panel of judges was assigned to the appeal.

Mr. Cooper represents Toronto homeowner Susan Lawrence, who discovered in January that her home had been ''sold'' three months earlier by a fictitious owner who obtained a mortgage from Maple Trust.

The fraudster was able to obtain the mortgage and register the sale using bogus employment documents, a driver's licence and social insurance card in the name of Thomas Wright.

Ms. Lawrence claims that under no circumstances should she be expected to pay a fraudulent mortgage.

However, Maple Trust is equally adamant that it is every bit as much a victim of the fraud, and that the Household Realty ruling quite sensibly concluded that banks and other mortgage lenders should not be on the hook when a fraud occurs.

But Mr. Cooper said that Maple Trust was lax in researching the mortgage application from the fictitious Mr. Wright. "Contrast my client's innocence with Maple Trust, who was ready, willing and extremely happy to lend $250,000 to a non-existent person who had non-existent employment. . . ." he said.

Late yesterday, Ronald Carr -- a lawyer for the Ontario government -- told the court that Mr. Cooper's solution to the fraudster problem is unworkable.

At the same time, he said, Maple Trust showed insufficient diligence in the case.

The province is clearly moving toward a land title procedure that puts more onus on mortgage lenders to ascertain whether a sale is valid, Mr. Carr said.

"We do not want to reward the fraudster," Mr. Carr said. He said that if the court concludes that the Land Titles Act is ambiguous, it can make alterations to it in the name of restoring "equity."

wow

very true, Stoned. its hardly a well crafted, or defensible, document. what is "dancing"? "where music is enjoyed"? says who? overall, its a small amount, so people just pay it, i guess.

that all said, SOCAN does seem to have actually convinced the lodge to charge people, so ...

friends got married at a ski lodge a couple of months ago, and I saw the rental agreement online.

Additional Charges

SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada)

Up to 100 guests - with dancing $41.13, without dancing $20.56

Over 100 guests - with dancing $59.17, without dancing $29.56

Fees apply to all events where music is enjoyed.

I thought this was pretty odd. I can understand the charges if some Canadian music is played, but how would they know? In the case of the ACC, that just seems even odder because a) they are going after the rental venue, not the promoter, etc., and can they lay claim when its an international artist, etc, and no Canadian music is played?

hmmm, no wonder they banned the decoration. look closely at the window. pure evil.

the PC Police banned it for a couple of years, but just as long as I get my Starbucks Christmas Blend, im happy.

which is better? coke or pepsi? the difference between XM and Sirius is a matter of personal taste really. my guess is that most people go with one or the other depending on what type of professional sport they most enjoy listening to. XM has MLB, Nascar and some NHL. Sirius has NBA, NFL and some NHL. i've had sirius for almost a year, and got it primarily for howard stern. XM has oprah.

both provide over 100 channels of various types of commercial-free() music. talk stations do have limited commercials (presumably for pee breaks). go to their websites and check out their channel listings, and popular artists played. i like sirius for its various rock format channels, including JamOn (dead, sci, moe, phish, etc.); FirstWave (80's new wave); LeftofCenter (college indie) as well as 3 different jazz channels. XM is supposed to have a similar set of channels. the two complaints I have heard are that the new wave station on XM is better, and the rock variety on sirius is better.

technologically and price-wise, both are pretty well the same. each has 3 sat's (XM stationary; Sirius in geo-synch figure-8 orbit) as well as land transmitters for large cities. each has pathetic customer service in Canada (so consider getting a grey-market subscription via the US - its easy). both provide online listening capabilities, and both have decent selection of units.

in a car you have two choices of set-up. one is a hard wired unit, often put in by the car maker or after market. that unit will work in your car ONLY. so, you pay the $15/mth to listen in your car. the other type is called plug and play and involves a unit that can be taken from your car (docked in a cradle to run) into your house (docked in another cradle to run). we have two PnP's and find they work great. it allows us to always be able to listen at home if the other car is out (also listening) and we pay for 2 subscriptions ($15, plus $6 for 2nd) - but with a PnP, you'd only have to pay for one subscription to be able to listen in car OR at home (but not both). for both XM and Sirius, getting the antenna set up can be a bit of an issue at home sometimes, and may require the purchase of a special outdoor antenna.

I would suggest you go to the two websites and check out what sort of musical selection each offers. that's basically what it will come down to. I prefer Sirius, but i cannot argue with someone who prefers XM.

after you've had it for a month, i guarantee you will never listen to regular fm radio again, and you will surely not miss the 32 minutes of commercials every hour.

dion in 4

what do I win?

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too."

Damn, we just wasted a lot of money on some new surround speakers then. Um, can they watch from outside? Technically, we wouldnt have invited them over. This is hilarious.