There seems to be a bit of a gender divide with comedies these days. Between sticky-sweet romantic comedies and the 'American Pie' genre, rarely will one find a man and a woman in a theatre together without one or the other groaning and squirming and wishing it was all over.
'I Love You, Man' may have managed to bridge that gap by presenting a male version of the typical "finding a man for your single girlfriend/daughter/sister" chick-flick plot. The gender twist is actually quite clever, and offers more insight into male relationships than most 'frathouse' comedies. It helps that the two male leads are wonderfully funny and appealing - especially Jason Segel, who proved to be a very pleasant surprise after the abysmal 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'.
'I Love You, Man' may still be a little too relationship-oriented for some guys, but all in all it just might be the perfect date movie. Three and a half stars.
(Murray, of course, liked it even more.)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Lazy Easter Weekend Blogging: Jon Stewart
A must-see if you missed it, a cheerful reminder if you didn't:
Seriously, I'd feel a lot better about these paranoid nutjobs if they didn't have their very own TV network.
Seriously, I'd feel a lot better about these paranoid nutjobs if they didn't have their very own TV network.
I've Been Nominated for an F-Word! (blush)
Wow! I've been nominated for an F-Word Award as Best Feminist Political Blog. And I didn't even nominate myself! (thanks, James!)
I've never really considered myself a feminist. I've always just assumed that I had the right and the ability to do pretty much whatever I wanted, and that being female had nothing to do with it. So when someone does something asinine - like assuming the power tools belong to my husband, or looking at me funny when I pull out my firearms license for I.D. - it tends to really piss me off.
Yeah, ok - I guess that's a feminist thing.
Anyway, feel free to go vote for me. And thanks!
I've never really considered myself a feminist. I've always just assumed that I had the right and the ability to do pretty much whatever I wanted, and that being female had nothing to do with it. So when someone does something asinine - like assuming the power tools belong to my husband, or looking at me funny when I pull out my firearms license for I.D. - it tends to really piss me off.
Yeah, ok - I guess that's a feminist thing.
Anyway, feel free to go vote for me. And thanks!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Let Me Get This Straight...
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney - the most successful and popular Conservative Prime minister in the history of this country - has, with his wife Mila, donated nearly FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS to the Conservative Party over the past five years...
... and they want him to cough up another lousy TEN BUCKS to keep his Party membership current?!?
You know, I never liked Brian Mulroney. I protested NAFTA back in the day, and the whole 'Irish Eyes' incident still turns my stomach whenever I think of it. But fer fuck sakes, people! Show a little goddamned respect!
... and they want him to cough up another lousy TEN BUCKS to keep his Party membership current?!?
Defence Minister Peter MacKay called the party boss last week and asked him to issue a public statement clarifying whether, as a former two-term prime minister, Mulroney could be a Conservative member for life.
That conversation with party president Don Plett was brief and unproductive: the Conservative Party of Canada does not offer lifetime memberships and wouldn't make an exception for Mulroney.
Plett refused to confirm the conversation. But he did not deny refusing such an entreaty.
"The Conservative Party of Canada has no lifetime members," Plett told The Canadian Press in an interview.
"The present prime minister is a paid-up member -- and he paid for his membership, as did I and as did every other member in our party . . . .
"In the past, Mr. Mulroney has been buying memberships. So obviously, at some point, somebody was aware that memberships needed to be purchased."
You know, I never liked Brian Mulroney. I protested NAFTA back in the day, and the whole 'Irish Eyes' incident still turns my stomach whenever I think of it. But fer fuck sakes, people! Show a little goddamned respect!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Pedestrian Fail
As seen on Mary Street by the new Milton Town Hall expansion in February:
moar funny pictures
There's still no sidewalk on the other side, nor apparently any plans for one.
moar funny pictures
There's still no sidewalk on the other side, nor apparently any plans for one.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
James Travers' Lament For a Nation
Go. Read. Mourn. And then bloody well DO something about it.
UPDATE: Commenters suggest a couple of ways to do something. Go wander over to Senator Elaine McCoy's place, or check out Rural's newest project,
And if I might also recommend, pick up a copy of Al Gore's 'The Assault on Reason'. Different system. Same issues.
UPDATE: Commenters suggest a couple of ways to do something. Go wander over to Senator Elaine McCoy's place, or check out Rural's newest project,
And if I might also recommend, pick up a copy of Al Gore's 'The Assault on Reason'. Different system. Same issues.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
As a Hunter and Gun Owner...
I strongly object to Stephen Harper's efforts to abolish the long gun registry.
As a responsible, law-abiding citizen, I was perfectly happy to register my firearms, just as I am perfectly happy to register my car. Why wouldn't I be? And yet from day one, certain factions have desperately tried to paint the long gun registry as an intolerable government intrusion into their lives, a trampling of their rights, and/or the prelude to some sort of totalitarian regime. Such notions sound more like the paranoid rantings of American militiamen than anything I would have imagined coming from the mouths of my fellow Canadians.
The fact is, Canadians do not have the right to bear arms. Never have. In this country, gun ownership is a privilege, and one that comes with profound responsibilities. We are required to undergo training to learn how to operate a firearm safely. We are required to store and transport our firearms securely in a locked safe or case. We are required to keep our licenses updated, and we are required to register our firearms so that a) they can be traced if stolen, and b) the police can have valuable information when entering into a volatile situation.
For a responsible gun owner, none of these things should be unreasonable or even particularly onerous. And in fact, I have met very few gun owners who particularly object to any of them. The ones who do seem to be those who own guns for very different reasons than I do. For me, a gun is a tool. A means to an end. For them, guns seem to have an emotional and symbolic resonance that I apparently fail to understand.
The biggest complaint about the registry is that it became incredibly expensive. What few seem to remember is that the original costing of the registry was based on having registration fees of (if I recall correctly) about $100 per gun. But some gun owners bitched and whined - mostly the ones who owned half a dozen firearms - and the fees were reduced. Then reduced again. Then eliminated altogether, leaving all taxpayers to foot the entire bill. That wasn't the entire reason for the cost overrun, but it was the most significant.
In addition, the efficacy of the long gun registry has been severely hampered by repeated amnesties. Resistant gun owners have been able to put off registering their firearms almost indefinitely as the government keeps the registry in political limbo. The result has been very spotty compliance and a total lack of enforcement, which in turn allows critics to condemn the registry as ineffective.
Instead of looking for ways to make the gun registry work in the way it was intended, successive governments have tried to dilute it or kill it by making concession after concession to those who claim to speak for all gun owners, hobbling the registry's effectiveness and in many ways making things more dangerous for the law enforcement officers it was designed to protect.
Those who view gun ownership as a right or as some sort of symbol of freedom or manhood do NOT speak for me, and I don't believe they speak for the majority of responsible gun owners. I therefore urge the government to commit to the long gun registry by a) re-instituting at least nominal registration fees to help cover administration costs, and b) ending the amnesty and instructing the Ministry and law enforcement to begin consistently enforcing compliance.
(forwarded to the Office of Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources)
As a responsible, law-abiding citizen, I was perfectly happy to register my firearms, just as I am perfectly happy to register my car. Why wouldn't I be? And yet from day one, certain factions have desperately tried to paint the long gun registry as an intolerable government intrusion into their lives, a trampling of their rights, and/or the prelude to some sort of totalitarian regime. Such notions sound more like the paranoid rantings of American militiamen than anything I would have imagined coming from the mouths of my fellow Canadians.
The fact is, Canadians do not have the right to bear arms. Never have. In this country, gun ownership is a privilege, and one that comes with profound responsibilities. We are required to undergo training to learn how to operate a firearm safely. We are required to store and transport our firearms securely in a locked safe or case. We are required to keep our licenses updated, and we are required to register our firearms so that a) they can be traced if stolen, and b) the police can have valuable information when entering into a volatile situation.
For a responsible gun owner, none of these things should be unreasonable or even particularly onerous. And in fact, I have met very few gun owners who particularly object to any of them. The ones who do seem to be those who own guns for very different reasons than I do. For me, a gun is a tool. A means to an end. For them, guns seem to have an emotional and symbolic resonance that I apparently fail to understand.
The biggest complaint about the registry is that it became incredibly expensive. What few seem to remember is that the original costing of the registry was based on having registration fees of (if I recall correctly) about $100 per gun. But some gun owners bitched and whined - mostly the ones who owned half a dozen firearms - and the fees were reduced. Then reduced again. Then eliminated altogether, leaving all taxpayers to foot the entire bill. That wasn't the entire reason for the cost overrun, but it was the most significant.
In addition, the efficacy of the long gun registry has been severely hampered by repeated amnesties. Resistant gun owners have been able to put off registering their firearms almost indefinitely as the government keeps the registry in political limbo. The result has been very spotty compliance and a total lack of enforcement, which in turn allows critics to condemn the registry as ineffective.
Instead of looking for ways to make the gun registry work in the way it was intended, successive governments have tried to dilute it or kill it by making concession after concession to those who claim to speak for all gun owners, hobbling the registry's effectiveness and in many ways making things more dangerous for the law enforcement officers it was designed to protect.
Those who view gun ownership as a right or as some sort of symbol of freedom or manhood do NOT speak for me, and I don't believe they speak for the majority of responsible gun owners. I therefore urge the government to commit to the long gun registry by a) re-instituting at least nominal registration fees to help cover administration costs, and b) ending the amnesty and instructing the Ministry and law enforcement to begin consistently enforcing compliance.
(forwarded to the Office of Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)