Hey, how'd ya like the baseball All-Star Game last night?
You didn't watch it? Forgot it was on? Don't give a flying fig regardless?
Join the club.
While I can't quote any statistics, and indeed this may be all in my mind, it seems that this is a game that is becoming more irrelevant by the year, if not less. Don't forget, a few years back this thing ended due to lack of interest - and relief players. So Bud Selig (anyone who was at the Expos' last game will remember the chant going around - "f#$% you Selig!), in his infinite wisdom decided the game would henceforth decide who had home field advantage in the world serious, er, series (not like it's becoming any more popular itself).
I don't know if it's working.
But I know I haven't watched the game since I can't remember when. And I don't miss it.
Sure, I enjoy reading about Canadians doing well (take a bow home run king Justin Morneau, not to mention Ryan Dempster and Russ Martin), or Blue Jays (a scoreless inning for Roy Halliday). But aside from that I don't care. I really can't, not since Selig, Jeffrey Loria and company stuck their knives in the back of the Expos (et tu, Bud?).
So now I sometimes check the scores, see what's in the sports section of the paper or on one of the sports networks. I like to see the Jays do well, and think it's great to have Cito back. I want J.P. Ricciardi to go away, and take his copy of Moneyball with him. I may go see a game or two this season (Belleville is two hours from Toronto).
But the reality is, when I check my feeds from TSN and Sportsnet, I'm looking forward to hockey and football news.
authentic. intelligent. conservative.
I posted this article, along with the following comment on Facebook.
My reasons for supporting this court decision I could not adequately explain here. If you're curious, please ask.
Since I was asked, here's my response:
I believe it makes sense for a few reasons. First, the man had joined the US Army voluntarily. He at no point expressed concern as a concientious objector, at least until he was to go to Iraq. While soldiers are free to hold whatever beliefs they wish on the nature and validity of various conflicts, enlistment means they have agreed to go where the government orders when, whether you are talking about the US, Canadian or British armies, to mention just a few all volunteer forces. It is all well and good to excuse such actions based on public attitude regarding this conflict, but to allow it would be to allow soldiers to pick and choose when they fight, and that is a job reserved in our system for the democratically elected government. Effectively, the choice to fight or not is made when the soldier enlists, and at no other time. For this reason, under US or Canadian law, the man is a deserter and, if he believes that strongly in his position, should be willing to stand in the shoes of Socrates and accept such punishment as the state has deemed appropriate, as opposed to fleeing.
Secondly, in regards to the specific court decision, to claim refugee status when fleeing from a dictatorship or other non-democratic government which ignores basic human rights is entirely reasonable. But the US, contrary to the silliness being spouted by some, is a democratic nation which strongly adheres to a Bill of Rights. No one forced this man to enlist, no threat has been made. He is seeking, rather, to avoid the lawful punishment merited by his breaking of the law in the United States. If he is allowed to stay to protect him from whatever punishment the US legal system may administer, precedent would be set to allow any person fleeing punishment for breaking the law to claim refugee status, and even if they were to eventually fail (no guarantees there, as precedent would be set, for any defense lawyer willing to use it), the process would be a waste for an immigration system which has precious little free time to deal with legitimate refugees.
Those are my basic reasons, if that answers the question.