April and I went out to catch a movie last night. For some reason, I've had a bizarre urge to see The Dukes of Hazzard. Don't ask me to explain it; it might have something to do with my having been heartily exposed to the television series in my youth. Maybe I just needed some dumb entertainment. Maybe I was fascinated by the fact that they got Wonder Woman and Willie Nelson to play a role in it; or that Jay Chandrasekhar (who happens to share a last name with one of the more brilliant physicists in recent history), who directed Super Troopers directed it. Whatever the reason, I had the strange urge to see it.
If you're going to this movie expecting a masterpiece, you're likely to be disappointed.
Scratch that; you're going to be disappointed.
If, on the other hand, you're going to the movie in the mood for blatant escapism; if you want nothing but mindless entertainment for two hours, this is actually a pretty good movie. I was even, believe it or not, able to overlook the fact that it co-stars Jessica Simpson. Apparently wearing low-cut bodices and acting slutty is something she can do pretty well.
Willie Nelson playing a drunken hillbilly... definitely one of his more tailor-made roles....
In short, this is not a good movie, but I enjoyed it anyway.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Still breathing....
Well, April and I made it back from our little jaunt along the West Coast Trail. 75 kilometers of rough terrain designed, I'm confident, to utterly drain those hikers brave (or foolhardy) enough to attempt it.
Suffice it to say, we had a blast.
We hiked all 75 km in about six days (the last day was a real push; we had to go 12 km before 1:00 pm), hiking an average of 12 and a half kilometers a day. That becomes a little more impressive when you realize that there were some days in there that we only managed to hike about 6 km.
Once you get past the first 22 kilometers, though, the trail gets a lot easier... except for the fact that there are still 53 kilometers to hike. We averaged about 1 km/hour for the first 22 km. We averaged well over 3 for the last 53; just to give some perspective.
Suffice it to say that we had a wonderful week, and I firmly believe that the West Coast Trail is something everyone should do at least once before they die.
April and I are already starting to toy with the idea of doing it again in the not-too-terribly-distant future. Probably next year. We figured we'd pack lighter (there were a lot of things in our packs this time that we simply didn't need), and take more time (there were a few days that were more than a little rushed; we figured we'd take nine days instead of six next time).
Still, it was an adventure, and one I'd really like to repeat someday.
Suffice it to say, we had a blast.
We hiked all 75 km in about six days (the last day was a real push; we had to go 12 km before 1:00 pm), hiking an average of 12 and a half kilometers a day. That becomes a little more impressive when you realize that there were some days in there that we only managed to hike about 6 km.
Once you get past the first 22 kilometers, though, the trail gets a lot easier... except for the fact that there are still 53 kilometers to hike. We averaged about 1 km/hour for the first 22 km. We averaged well over 3 for the last 53; just to give some perspective.
Suffice it to say that we had a wonderful week, and I firmly believe that the West Coast Trail is something everyone should do at least once before they die.
April and I are already starting to toy with the idea of doing it again in the not-too-terribly-distant future. Probably next year. We figured we'd pack lighter (there were a lot of things in our packs this time that we simply didn't need), and take more time (there were a few days that were more than a little rushed; we figured we'd take nine days instead of six next time).
Still, it was an adventure, and one I'd really like to repeat someday.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Activist Judges
There's been a lot of talk lately, both in Canada and the US about what people call Activist Judges. People of all political and social slants seem pretty much in agreement that Activist Judges are a bad thing. Where they're somewhat less certain is exactly what an Activist Judge is.
To the best of my ability to determine, an Activist Judge is defined as "any Judge who makes a judgment that you, personally, disagree with." More precisely, an Activist Judge is any judge who makes a decision contrary to the personal opinion of those with the loudest voices.
Nowadays, you barely hear of any court case where someone wasn't accusing the judge who made the ruling of "judicial activism," or "legislating from the bench."
Let's consider this for a moment. Webster's defines "legislate" as: "To make or enact laws."
Okay. That officially makes "legislating from the bench" impossible. No court in the United States (or Canada, for that matter), including the supreme court, has the power to create laws. They can overturn laws, based upon the facts presented before them, but they cannot create them.
To me, a good legal decision is defined as one where, upon reading it, you cannot tell what the judge's political leanings are. If you can read a judgment, and you have no idea upon reading it whether the judge is a conservative or a liberal, democrat or rebublican; that's a sign of a well-crafted judgment.
Take the Canadian Supreme Court decision which led to Bill C-38 for example. That, in my view, was a good judgment. They made very clear that Bill C-38 could be passed by the federal government, provided that freedom of religion was protected.
Take the recent idiocy of the Terri Schiavo affair in the United States. A Florida Judge announced that it was the right of the husband to make decsions regarding the health of his spouse. Congress didn't much care for that decision (particularly since it would piss off the Republicans' Pro-Life base), and immediately passed a bill of attainder such that the federal courts could act, if they so chose, in this one specific instance, for this one specific person. Ignoring, for the moment, that bills of attainder aimed at one specific person are specifically prohibited by the American constitution; the federal courts basically said: "it's not our affair," and sent it back to the state level. Nice to know my tax dollars are being well spent by congress.
In both cases, the judgments were, in my view, sound. And in both cases, someone rose up to scream that Activist Judges were "legislating from the bench."
Well, in the interest of historical perspective, I offer here a few other cases where judges have been accused of Judicial Activism:
Roe v. Wade
Loving v. State of Virginia
Brown v. Board of Education
I'll let you look those up yourself; but when you do, consider the fact that these, cases, too, brought forth accusations of judicial activism. The unelected judges are legislating from the bench, people insisted. The Supreme Court is filled, they insisted, with Activist Judges.
If we define "progress" to be equivalent to "activism," maybe they're right. If and if we can agree that progress really isn't a bad thing, maybe we can agree that judicial activism maybe isn't such a bad thing after all.
To the best of my ability to determine, an Activist Judge is defined as "any Judge who makes a judgment that you, personally, disagree with." More precisely, an Activist Judge is any judge who makes a decision contrary to the personal opinion of those with the loudest voices.
Nowadays, you barely hear of any court case where someone wasn't accusing the judge who made the ruling of "judicial activism," or "legislating from the bench."
Let's consider this for a moment. Webster's defines "legislate" as: "To make or enact laws."
Okay. That officially makes "legislating from the bench" impossible. No court in the United States (or Canada, for that matter), including the supreme court, has the power to create laws. They can overturn laws, based upon the facts presented before them, but they cannot create them.
To me, a good legal decision is defined as one where, upon reading it, you cannot tell what the judge's political leanings are. If you can read a judgment, and you have no idea upon reading it whether the judge is a conservative or a liberal, democrat or rebublican; that's a sign of a well-crafted judgment.
Take the Canadian Supreme Court decision which led to Bill C-38 for example. That, in my view, was a good judgment. They made very clear that Bill C-38 could be passed by the federal government, provided that freedom of religion was protected.
Take the recent idiocy of the Terri Schiavo affair in the United States. A Florida Judge announced that it was the right of the husband to make decsions regarding the health of his spouse. Congress didn't much care for that decision (particularly since it would piss off the Republicans' Pro-Life base), and immediately passed a bill of attainder such that the federal courts could act, if they so chose, in this one specific instance, for this one specific person. Ignoring, for the moment, that bills of attainder aimed at one specific person are specifically prohibited by the American constitution; the federal courts basically said: "it's not our affair," and sent it back to the state level. Nice to know my tax dollars are being well spent by congress.
In both cases, the judgments were, in my view, sound. And in both cases, someone rose up to scream that Activist Judges were "legislating from the bench."
Well, in the interest of historical perspective, I offer here a few other cases where judges have been accused of Judicial Activism:
Roe v. Wade
Loving v. State of Virginia
Brown v. Board of Education
I'll let you look those up yourself; but when you do, consider the fact that these, cases, too, brought forth accusations of judicial activism. The unelected judges are legislating from the bench, people insisted. The Supreme Court is filled, they insisted, with Activist Judges.
If we define "progress" to be equivalent to "activism," maybe they're right. If and if we can agree that progress really isn't a bad thing, maybe we can agree that judicial activism maybe isn't such a bad thing after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
