Another Friday. They flow by like the days of the week. A week or so from spring and still there's feet of snow. That's not exactly helping. Morton's teetering and the Orange are gone. At least things are going better for me than they are for Eliot Spitzer. WFAN had an interview with his lady-friend's grade five teacher. This is a weird world sometimes.

• Update: Well said and RIP, hairy one:

  Mr. Ponticelli, who described war as "idiotic", had initially refused an offer of a state funeral made by former President Jacques Chirac, considering it would be an insult to the men who had died without commemoration. He relented after Mr. Cazenave's death, saying he would accept a simple ceremony "in homage to my comrades". President Nicolas Sarkozy paid tribute to Mr. Ponticelli and said a national commemoration of all of France's participants in the war would be held in the coming days.

  I had no idea that more than twice as many French soldiers were killed in WWI as there were total Canadian solders.
• Update: Bob Costas thinks you are a loser...or maybe it's just me that he thinks is a loser.
• Why can't we have a sense of humour? Why couldn't it be called Sinistre?
• What did the dolphin say? "Hey stupid whales! You don't see dolphins dead on the sand. Loser whales. I am out of here. Stay if you want."
• Further to the question of who exactly in what capacity is suing whom, please note this:

  Prime Minister Stephen Harper is following through on his threat to sue the federal Liberals because of accusations, posted on the Liberal party's website, that he knew of "Conservative bribery." The lawsuit — a statement of claim for $2.5 million was filed today in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice — is a response to the "defamatory" statements made by the Liberals, Harper spokesperson Sandra Buckler said. "He's doing what any other person with integrity would do to defend himself and his family," she said.

  While the claim itself carries some errors that are a bit embarrassing for anyone who got better than a "D" at law school - pleading evidence, are we? - it is what it is. But does the spokesperson for the Office of the Prime Minister represent him in all things? Is this a political court case or a personal one? I'd be a little more comfortable if someone not on the public payroll was his spokesperson on this one.

  Update: I may be speaking out of my digestive tract about pleading evidence and the "D" thing as a read of Ontario's Libel and Slander Act points out this dense bit of text:

  In an action for libel or slander, the plaintiff may aver that the words complained of were used in a defamatory sense, specifying the defamatory sense without any prefatory averment to show how the words were used in that sense, and the averment shall be put in issue by the denial of the alleged libel or slander, and, where the words set forth, with or without the alleged meaning, show a cause of action, the statement of claim is sufficient.

  I have not a clue but this may be the basis for an exception to the pleading evidence rule. See 1839's Boydell v. Jones on "prefatory averment".
• Craig inquires into the delicate question of ladies of the night on PEI.
• I have had the rewarding experience of being in a meeting with Senators Segle and was impressed by his dedication to local constituency work, something more in the nature of what you might expect from a senator under the US system. So I will not trot out my usual snark about monarchists on this point:

  Hugh Segal has introduced a motion in the Senate that would invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to prevent references to the Queen being dropped from the country's oath of citizenship. The Kingston senator's motion comes in response to a class-action lawsuit filed by Charles Roach, a Toronto lawyer born in Trinidad who never took a Canadian citizenship because he objects to the monarchy's connection to slavery and refuses to take the oath.

  Yet it is note worthy to record for posterity that I have never quite voiced certain words in certain oaths for reasons of the history of the clan:

  The clan supported Charles I in the Civil War, and some of them fought for Charles II at the Battle of Worcester (1651). After the Restoration in 1660, the MacLeods felt a major grievance that Charles II had not been sufficiently grateful for their exertions on his behalf, and they never supported the Stewart kings again. The MacLeods took no part in Claverhouse's campaign of 1688-89, nor in the first Jacobite rising of 1715.

  My feeling on the point is that if we are going to honour historical legacy, we ought to acknowledge the specific one.