Sharing from you to me that is...
- Things are going well here in the snow belt. I think we had more snow in the last 12 hours than in the last two winters. Good for the Christmassy feeling. We are not going totally insane with the shopping this year and all but one package to be mailed has been sent. I have bought less from the internet this year, all at amazon. Because we started early I wanted to actually have a human experience for the most part. Any tricks to share for the last week?
- The CBC gig has been interesting so far. It is particularly neat to see how change in a couple of elements of the structure changes your approach. There are no comments and posts are checked by an editor. That is quite fine - not so many spelling mistakes - but it means it is more like writing a short daily column than a chatting area like this space. Right now the site looks like it has been hacked but I think it is just getting some early morning maintenance. No massive bump in stats although the beer blog is up a bit.
- On a more serious note, it is shocking to read that the Iraqis had al-Zarqawi in its possession but let him go earlier this year.
Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn't know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday. Hussain Kamal confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who has a $25 million bounty on his head -- was in custody at some point last year, but he wouldn't provide further details.It sure was handy that Hitler had that funny moustache so people knew who he was. I suppose these things happen. On the upside, as Jay notes, yesterday was a great day of the Iraqis.
- And I watched a bit of the first debate last night but was stunned how dull the process was, no face-to-face argument, kinda what I think of when I think of the word "debate". Stephen Harper has now said he would not use the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of thge Charter to over-ride same sex marriage. He has also said he would allow those already married to remain so. This leave a really weird position where person "X" would supposedly have their rights recognized but person "Y"...or maybe "X2...would not depending on the date of application for a marriage license. Seeing as this is patently unconstitutional treatment - a discriminatory difference without a purpose - do not expect the courts to uphold it and, without use of the over-ride clause, expect it to fail. Are the socons that easily fooled? I would think this would be as offensive to them as the Tory spending spree would be to fiscal conservatives. No word yet from the neo-me-o-cons but they have a hard time breaking away from the mirror long enough to notice the real world.