About these ads

Tag Archive: 2010


The Seattle Seahawks have just defeated the St Louis Rams to win the comical NFC West this year, with a losing record of 7-9. Yet, by existing NFL rules, they will get to host a playoff game next week. Should this rule be changed?

My personal feeling is yes, it should. However, I have an appreciation for “business” to involve teams from all parts of the country to maintain a true “national” interest in the game, so I propose a compromise.

Division winners should get in as they currently do. However, Division winners without a winning record (so .500 won’t cut it) should not be allowed to host a playoff game.

You still keep the national interest this way because the team is still in. Their fans will just have to travel or watch it on TV.

I think that’s just sick that Seattle got in with a 7-9 record and gets to host a playoff game. I want to see a competitive playoff game, not a butt kicking. Furthermore, it’s an absolute insult to all the good teams in the NFC with better records than the Seahawks.

You know, I thought football was a man’s game. Alas, if it were, the Seahawks should man up and let someone else in the NFC get in, or offer to travel to New Orleans to take on the Saints. But maybe it’ll be appropriate that their fans will get to see the Saints kick their butts as a lasting momento to end the season.

But to be a man, I’ll congratulate the Seahawks on making the playoffs and stepping up when they needed to and win a do or die game. I will thoroughly enjoy their annihilation next week.

What do you think of this rule about automatic playoff hosting for division winners?

About these ads

Most people do not hear most of the songs they know for the first time in the year the song was released. If anyone did, I would feel very sorry for them for missing out on all the great songs of the past from before they were born, or even great songs each year they lived they would have missed.

What most people don’t do is reflect each year on the best songs they heard for the first time that year. I’ve blogged some of mine, but not all so this is my entire collection for 2010 which could fit on a CD if I made one.

After several years of discovering a ton of jazz and older music, then tunes from musicals, so that they made up most of the songs in my list for recent years , I am back with an eclectic set that reflects my true musical tastes and philanderings across genres. I even have not only one song from the current year, but two! A song from the year of the list was something I didn’t have for several years. I did find newly released songs I liked a lot in those years, but they didn’t compare to a variety of jazz and musicals standards I discovered in those years.

But before I share my list, let me ask you the same question as I answered to write this post. What were the best songs you heard for the first time in 2010?

I’d love to know so please do leave a comment. I can add the links to videos so people can hear what you’re talking about, if you would like. But if you don’t want to do it here, maybe write a blog post like this if you have a blog, or a Facebook note or something like that on a social media platform account you have. It might just be one of the more thoughtful notes to your friends all year.

Here is my list, in no particular order of preference, with videos streaming the songs. You will need to click on the YouTube link for some videos with some weird copyright condition that only allow them to be viewed on YouTube. I hate that’s become a wussie and lost all its edge.

Happy New Year!
View full article »

A Canadian Supreme Court ruling came down today that limits access to lawyers for people being questioned by police regarding a criminal case.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person questioned by police in connection with a criminal case does not have the right to have a lawyer present during the interview. The Supreme Court also said a suspect doesn’t have the right to re-consult with a lawyer midway through an interview, unless the situation in the interview has changed significantly. Finally, the court said a suspect does not have the absolute right to consult with a specific lawyer if that attorney can’t be reached within a reasonable time.
.
- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC, Oct 8 2010)

.

I’m no lawyer, but in the spirit of free speech, I’ll throw in an opinion.

I’m siding with the decision here. I do think suspects have too much access and counsel to “prepare” themselves for questioning by police. Really, if you’re innocent, a little preparation to make sure you say what you need to properly, which isn’t necessarily the “right” thing to say, is all you need. Extensive counseling from lawyers so you don’t incriminate yourself basically alludes just that, even if you’re presumed innocent till proven guilty. That’s an ideal, and we all know humans aren’t ideal people, as much as we strive for it.

But I write this post because I have a practical piece of advice to those worried about this split 5-4 ruling.

Try harder NOT to get arrested.

This ruling will then have no direct significance to them. If they worry about it affecting them indirectly through those they know and/or love, advise them of the same thing. More common sense in the world means less legal system.

I’m not encouraging people to be better criminal while in Canada so as not to get caught. I’m encouraging people to stay within the law in Canada.

Save the tax system some money. Save the yourself some hassle. Save the lawyers some income.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 7.5

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 189 other followers

%d bloggers like this: