At work we have a resource called the wrongful dismissal database. It is basically a collection of court decisions in cases of people who have been laid off or fired, and it gives examples how much notice and severance the person should receive depending on age, years of service, their position, etc. Once a lawyer asked me to run a couple of searches and was looking at the average notice at the end of each result. I asked him, "So that's what you're looking for, a certain average?" He replied, "Well, it depends what side we're on." I found that statement shockingly revealing because it's something I've often thought about that is a problem with the nature of the law. This was an admission that he's not looking to see what the law actually says about what should be done, but how he can manipulate it in an argument.

A lawyer's job is not to find the truth in a case, it is not to get to the bottom of what a law is really about to make sure that justice is done. Rather, it is to find a law that can be interpreted in a certain way that will enforce the rights of the client. It's no secret that people with money often get away with crimes the rest of us wouldn't because they can afford better legal help than the poor and other non-rich masses. But why is that? It's because when you hire a lawyer, right or wrong, you pay them to convince the judge or jury to interpret the law in a way that favours you. An ideal, which would never happen and, besides, is also open to abuse in pretty obvious ways, would be an independent committee of lawyers who decide each case based on an impartial study of the law. You can still leave room for appeals and complaints because there's always the possibility of a mistrial, but I just think this would be the only way to have equality before the law, rather than have 2 parties representing clients (who are normally paying them) to plead their case, with the result that the one who's more convincing wins. Of course, true impartiality is impossible and there's no reason to go into the reasons my idea won't ever come into existence, but it's an idea that's occurred to me that I thought I'd share in case anyone else (if anyone ever reads this) has an opinion on it.

Yet another serious world issue which is far too complicated, and far too divisive, for me to take a stand either way. I wonder if the residents of Lisbon would like to weigh in on this one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24386702/

Lambrou said the word lesbian has only been linked with gay women in the past few decades. "But we have been Lesbians for thousands of years," said Lambrou, who publishes a small magazine on ancient Greek religion and technology that frequently criticizes the Christian Church.

A really good article on the differences between American-style charity and the Canadian sense of the common good:

Oprah's Big Give began with 10 contestants, one eliminated each week for failing to pull in enough money for charity and the biggest winner receiving a surprise $1 million purse. Its philosophy is simple, and American: Philanthropy and the private sector, it suggests, can best provide services and solve problems, with the added bonus – and this is important – that they cause no loss of personal liberty.
....
In this country, Canadians still cling – under duress and escalating pressure – to the notion we can be a progressive society through our collective tax dollars. It's an idea being eroded as effectively as the Arctic ice cap and yet, together, we try to offer quality education and medical care, maintain the country's infrastructure and service the citizenry.
....
Although Canadian taxes, particularly corporate taxes, have fallen under both Liberal and Conservative governments, statistics still mark the differences. In 2006, OECD calculations pegged taxes as a portion of GDP at 33.6 per cent in Canada and 25.9 per cent in the U.S. Indices show you get what you pay for. Poverty rates are higher per capita in America, as is infant mortality, while the incomes of the elderly are lower and life expectancy is shorter, etc., etc.

Ya know, I really hate stereotypes. Not making stereotypes, of course. Using stereotypes is much quicker and easier than trying to get to know a whole group of people and judge them all individually. What I hate is when people live up to stereotypes, when you can look at a person and accurately say "you're a lesbian" or "your'e Italian" or something like that.

I don't know why I just thought of that....

Well, I guess we can get that gun now...

And I found this interesting as well:

In what could have been Heston's most audacious Jewish role, the FBI recruited the actor amid the 1993 Waco, Texas, standoff involving David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. Heston was to have played the Voice of God to facilitate negotiations with Koresh, however the plan was never used.

In the interest of killing the last 15 minutes of a Friday, I feel I should share the following story, which is all too true, and happened not so long ago:

So, I'm practically falling asleep at my desk and I decide to get up and go make myself a cup of tea. I go into the kitchen, where we have automated machines - just insert your packet and go - I mean, who's got time to boil water? But I digress. I reached into the drawer containing the English breakfast teas, put it in the machine and waited for 21st century technology bring me the taste of England, all at the touch of a button. As I waited I started to smell something foul, something offensive, something I should not have been smelling - something that I soon realized was nothing but my nemesis - Earl Grey, whose black heart (optimistically dubbed 'Grey' by his legion of supporters) has been marring tea drinking for centuries.

Yes, you heard me, somebody had put packets containing this foul, putrid weed where the English breakfast tea should be. And because both packets are green, I didn't notice until it was, alas too late - for the cup, at least, though thank heavens I managed to stop this horrible process before accidentally tasting the vile drink.

Right now you're probably thinking, "But Michael, how on earth did you resolve the situation? And did you ever get the tea you wanted?" Yes, yes, I managed to survive this scrape with Earl Grey, and I even managed to escape with a cup of English breakfast tea, but that story will have to wait for another day, as writing this has already taken me sufficiently close to five o'clock.

Oww. I mean, how does a person survive this?

And on a slighly related note, there was a big NATO meeting in Romania this week. President Bush gave a speech that honoured the Romanian troops fighting in Iraq for naming their base camp with the necessary symbolism to bring to the forefront the morality of the mission they're currently fighting:

At this moment, 10 NATO nations have forces supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom -- including the "Black Wolves" of Romania's 151st Infantry. This battalion has given their base in Iraq a fearsome name: "Camp Dracula."

I guess this is the kind of image he wants to get across to the Iraqis:

No word yet on how the Germans' camp Hitler is progressing in Afghanistan.

Police on trail of 'fat bandit'

Although victims initially suspected that a man who robbed three banks within 90 minutes yesterday was wearing a fat suit as a disguise, police today say the man really is fat guy.

"We don't believe it's a fat suit," Det. Russ Rairey told thestar.com today.
"We just think he is fat."

Early reports indicated the robber must have been wearing a "fat suit" to disguise his identity.
But police now believe the robber is about 5-foot-9 and 300 pounds. His beard, however, is a fake.

The three robberies are not connected to the violent bank robbery on Sheppard Ave. later in which police shot a suspect.

Police can't say yet how the chubby bandit was able to get around so quickly in order to pull off the three robberies within a five-mile radius.

"He was seen leaving the bank on foot, but he's got to have some mode of transportation," the detective said.

His first stop was a TD Bank at Bayview and Moore Aves., then another bank on Glencairn Ave. and finally a third on Marlee Ave., all in the midtown area.
Police believe the "fat bandit" has pulled more than the three bank heists and the violence has been escalating.

He produced a gun in all three holdups yesterday and staff were all quite shaken.
Police are working with the Canadian Bankers Association on coming up with a reward. They hope to make an announcement sometime next week.

Iraq war botched and illegal

Linda McQuaig offers a succinct and dead-on analysis of what passes for an "anti-war" position on the American occupation of Iraq. It's encouraging to see some discussion of the fact that 'criticism' of the war in most mainstream media outlets never goes beyond lamenting the loss of American lives and dollars. It really is sad that there is no prominent serious discussion of whether or not it's right to invade another country - just whether or not they can get away with it.

Sure, there's lots of criticism of the Bush administration for poor war planning, and for squandering U.S. lives and "treasure."
All this is true, but it skirts a more fundamental problem – one that was barely mentioned in all the fifth-year anniversary commentaries last week – that the invasion was a war of aggression carried out in defiance of international law.
This is not a mere technicality. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, set up by the Allies after World War II: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime."

There was an interesting post about the possibility of a Walmart moving into the city of Buffalo. Personally, I think it's inevitable as a continuing part of the recent suburbanizatin of Buffalo. By this I don't mean that more and more people are moving to the suburbs - I mean the city itself is becoming more suburban. All of the recent development in North Buffalo - along Elmwood just south of Hertel (Home Depot, etc.), along Delaware around Hertel (from IHOP to Target) - there have been more chains, strip malls and parking lots appearing, making these major arteries feel more like Niagara Falls Blvd. or Sheridan than urban strips.

All of this is a shame, too, because if you look at Hertel in the past 10 years, it's really been developing nicely into a pleasant urban village - lots of walkable shopping and restaurants. Sure, it's always had these things, but in the past few years it's been improving quite a bit. There's also been a recent spurt of both new apartments & condos downtown (600-700 block of Main St.), as well as restoration of older buildings that have been borded up for as long as I can remember (Oak St., I think). If the city wants to grow and improve itself, these are the sorts of areas and projects it needs to push, and stop selling land to strip mall developers who will continue to make any kind of positive urban landscape to develop.

Anyway, one of the commentors there mentioned the idea of Walmart inserting itself as part of a normal city block instead of a big box suburban outlet surrounded by thousands of parking spaces. This is obviously more appealing and could be a sort of catalyst for other development (depending on where it goes) but let's not ignore the fact that it's still Walmart. These are still going to be minimum wage retail jobs, and it's still going to push a lot of local shops out of business. So I'm still opposed. It's just good to see people are thinking about these things. The posts on Buffalo Rising often lead to interesting and intelligent discussions on the city's future.

Will Buffalo be hurt by the big retail giants? Well yes and no so let me explain. Buffalo is an incredibly poor, shrinking and relatively stupid/uneducated/illiterate/non-techology focused city even compared to Rochester one hour east.
The only reason Buffalo has the Airport handling 6 million visitors, and the retail and many other businesses is due to the patronage of the canadians who find it cheaper and believe it or not more convenient. Without the canadians Buffalo wouldnt even have the population or the wealth to attract the walmarts and k-marts that it has now much less higher end retail....and without the canadians Buffalo would have higher fairs than Rochester no doubt.
Now after saying this why did I have to put Buffalo down by saying its "relatively stupid/uneducated/illiterate/non-techology focused" because when people think of small business in Buffalo they think restaurants, retail and hair dressers. In other words low capital and low education.
Buffalonians need to think of small business in terms of high technology, high education, high value services across wide swaths of industry and business. The fact that we Buffalonians think in terms of the lowest intelligence/lowest skill/lowest education/lowest value/lowest technology possible says why we are continuing to fail as a 21st century city.
--------------------------
However...there is opportunity for something different. The front of a Wal-Mart supercenter tends to be shops anyway. The doctor's office, the eye glass store, a Subway, a photo shop, the grocery store, etc. Although, they're all contained behind blank walls. If you put the store basically on a city block you could arrange it so that the front of the store has windows for each individual shop to give it a retail-storefront appearance. Basically make the Wal-Mart an urban retail block in and of itself. The only skin off Wal-Mart's back is that it looks slightly different than all their other stores. But innovation is supposed to be what they're good at. Plus, in my mind, this could fulfill the need for a grocery store in an underserved area, which is a big deal.
Now, having said that, I fully understand that this might squash whatever existing locally owned businesses were trying to germinate in whatever area this thing goes. And that is very bad. But, if its going to happen anyway (as Wal-Mart has a history of doing whatever they want), the city might as well try to make the store part of an urban fabric with built-in potential for adaptive reuse. This would be a small victory in what would otherwise be an unmitigated disaster.

http://buffalorising.com/story/how_will_the_retail_climate_ch#sca

Well, if you moustache such a question....

There is currently an interesting discussion of the beard and society going on at Maltirish, and it has moved me to reflect on my own beard growing experiences. I've grown two beards in my lifetime, neither time for more than a month or two. Anyway, the way I see it, there are two main aspects to the beard - physical and social.

The physical aspect concerns things like grooming and itchiness. A beard can be convenient because it eliminates all that time normally spent shaving. Of course, for those of us with he luxury of only shaving once a week (more out of laziness than a mere lack of facial hair), the time spent trimming a beard isn't really all that much of an improvement. It also becomes necessary because of things like neck itchiness and hairs hanging over the lip from the moustache.

The social aspect of a beard is basically how people see you and react to your beard. Everyone who knew you before the beard will inevitably have questions about why you're doing it and comments on how well (or badly) it's coming in. But people who meet you for the first time are more likely to keep their judgments silent, andmay think you're a hippy, a communist, a Muslim, or a 19th century politician. Of course, once you shave the beard the same people will have a whole new round of questions for you, and perhaps even new-found honesty like finally telling you they never liked your old girlfriend anyway. This is all just something you have to be prepared to deal with.

Obviously, there's more to say on this, but I'm at work right now and can't really offer this subject the attention and depth it deserves. But hopefully the discussion will continue. Also, in the meantime, for those with the luxury of a surplus of facial hair who can choose what style of beard to grow, Wikipedia has a useful and brilliantly-illustrated guide.