It turns out your vote is worth $1.75/year. That, according to yesterday's Toronto Star, is the amount a political party receives in annual public funding per vote cast for them in a federal election. The point of the article was that if the Liberals get blown out on Monday they will be in serious financial trouble, since they have borrowed some $34 million in the last year or so and will be significantly limited in pursuing corporate donations, their traditional route to funding, due to caps on personal and corporate contributions put in place a few years ago by former PM Jean Chretien - a Liberal. But for me the interesting part of the article was that $1.75. While it makes it seem like your vote has little value, it actually reinforces the notion that no vote is ever truly wasted. If you want to vote Green but are hesitant since there is no chance of your candidate winning his or her riding, you can take solace in the fact that that vote puts $1.75 into Green Party coffers for every year that the newly-elected government can hold power. Over the usual lifespan of a government, that's seven bucks. Seven bucks that may help the Green Party become a force politically, if one takes the long view on this. I'm not being sarcastic. I genuinely believe in voting for the party whose platform you believe in, and you should be prepared to accept short-term defeat in exchange for long-term growth and, inevitably, change. Without that attitude, we are doomed to the likes of Paul Martin, a great finance minister with no clue how to be an even competent Prime Minister. Count my $1.75 a year for change.

* * * * *

My wife is putting serious pressure on me to tell her who I voted for. She has grave doubts about Harper, and is considering voting NDP due to their reputation as a friend of the worker. She wants to know what I did and why so that she can consider that when deciding how to cast her vote. I am concerned about her voting the same way as me for no reason other than her avoiding making a decision. On the other hand, there is that $1.75 to consider.

* * * * *

I am helping an acquaintance move this weekend - voluntarily, I might add. I happen to get great enjoyment out of the process of packing and unpacking a truck. I have a special sense when it comes to knowing how to pack things so as to get maximum value out of the space available. It's a gift, really, and it's a shame that there is no real economic value to it. I also enjoy the physical workout part of it, since my exercise regime is woefully inadequate. As long as I don't have to pack and unpack boxes, I love moving day.

The problem is that I don't know this woman very well, and thus have no way to assess her knowledge of basic moving day etiquette. There is, after all, a simple rule when it comes to volunteer movers - they must be paid in beer and pizza, and, if moving very heavy objects or a large volume of material, chicken must also be included. I have followed this rule my last two moves, with no unsatisfied labourers. I pray she has read the manual.

Last night, Maxine got a call from her union. I should have known better than to answer, but did because I thought it might be work related. Of course, it was election-related, as they were polling the membership to find out who people intended to vote for. It sounded like the polling was on behalf of our local NDP candidate, since the man on the other end described her as a "friend" of the union. Anyway, Maxine told him she was undecided between the Conservatives and the NDP. I called her on this as soon as she hung up, since she was adamant last Saturday when I was voting that she was supporting the Conservatives. It turns out this was just a ruse. She had merely taken a pro Conservative position to offer strong opposition to any intention I might have to do my usual and vote Liberal. Now that my vote is cast, she feels free to consider the alternatives. In the end, her actions didn't influence my vote in any way. But I'm still completely creeped out by how she tried to maneuvre this. Women are dangerous.

By the way, have you ever heard how a group of women living together will inevitably over time start having their periods simultaneously? My wife assures me that this is exactly what happened with her and three roommates in college. All I know is that, as the lone male living with three females, I need to find a hobby in the next few years that takes me out of the house for three to five days every month. Fishing, anyone?

* * * * *

After everyone else was in bed last night, I watched the Bela Lugosi "DracuIa", which I had PVRed yesterday afternoon off Scream, and now I'm trying to figure out if audiences today are jaded or if audiences back then were just wimps. I was certainly entertained by the story, and the use of lighting to create mood was impressive. Lugosi was splendid, a picture of calm evil, and frankly it is vastly superior to Coppola's version of the same story. But the Coppola made me jump a few times, while I calmly took in the original. Maybe we've become so accustomed to the bizarre makeup and effects, to say nothing of the gore, that accompany the modern scare film that a classic version simply can't goose us. Or it may be that I am simply so familiar with the story that it isn't possible to surprise me in that context. I wish now I hadn't deleted it, since I'd be curious to see how Brittany would respond. Today I'm recording the Claude Rains "Invisible Man", and I think I'll let her watch this one. I suspect a few more thrills will occur just from her presence in the room.

I'm a bit rushed this week, so I'll be waiting until the weekend to offer my full comments on "24". One thing of interest that I do want to note is the performance of the "stars" added to the cast this year. Stars - especially of TV shows - come with baggage, with audience expectations as to what their characters will and will not do. With a show like "24", which thrives on the unexpected, this is a serious detriment. With Dennis Hopper as the head villain in season one there was no surprise element because, after years of Hopper's life and work, nothing he does can catch you off guard. I think this is one reason for the presence of so many Canadian actors on the show (along with the producers' familiarity with Canuck talent after several years making "Nikita" here). Since they are less familiar or completely unknown to American audiences, they are clean slates and their characters can do pretty much anything or have it done to them without disrupting the viewer's comfort zone. It's one thing to see Lothaire Bluteau dying from a hideous virus released in a hotel (in season three). Now imagine the same thing happening to David Schwimmer. (You wish!)

This year's stars are Jean Smart and Sean Astin. Maxine and I agree that we love Smart as the first lady. She's crazy, but not too crazy, and looks like she'll be the linchpin of the intrigue inside the President's world this year. As for Astin, he seems completely out of place in CTU. But maybe it's the character, a boy scout with a machine gun, slicing through everyone he meets. We certainly cheered him when he figured out what Jack was up to, but even then he played hardball in making sure Jack was taken into custody. Maybe I just miss the big furry feet.

One other thing. If there is any question as to how important Derek and his mother have become to Jack during his 18 months as a dead man, it was answered when he gave himself up to save the boy. Jack is a "needs of the many" kind of guy. In season three, he personally executed Ryan Chappelle and was on the verge of killing the bad guy's daughter so he could save thousands. In season two, he was prepared to give up his own life to detonate the nuke in the desert. So to see Jack risk the mission and the many innocents in the airport to save one life, you know that he loves this kid like a son. I am certain that this will haunt him in the hours to come as the enemy tries to use it against him.

* * * * *

Today is one of those days where I feel like changing jobs. It will probably pass, but I realized there are clerks in this office who answer to one partner and possibly that partner's junior(s). My department has three partners and six associates, all of whom give me work to varying degrees, plus there are two other partners and two associates who at one time or another in the past six months I have done work for. I feel a little overwhelmed right now, with assignments backing up and everyone thinking their work is paramount on my agenda. Most of the time I like it here, but today I just wish I had one boss.

* * * * *

The NFL has admitted that the ref blew the call in the Pittsburgh-Indianapolis game. I wonder if they would show such integrity if Indy had won?

I saw the "Can you spare some change?" lady the other day (no signs of Disney were evident), and it seems her pitch is getting even worse than I thought. This time, she said "Could you spare some change?" People use "can" and "could" interchangeably, and I'm certainly no expert on the language, but this somehow came off as just wrong. So I looked both words up and, sure enough, "could" is the past form of "can" (something I probably knew during my school days when grammar was something studied and not merely used - or misused). So now, instead of asking for money at this moment, she's actually asking if at some point in the past I could have lent her money. The answer is still no, just because I'm built that way, but she is opening herself up to some wiseacre saying, "I could have yesterday when I had some extra money in my pocket, but you're out of luck today." Trust me, it's going to happen.

I don't mean to pick on this woman, who may have very legitimate reasons for begging. I happen to think she doesn't, since she is certainly more than capable of getting up each morning and coming downtown to work. She has neither the look nor aroma of the legitimate article, unlike yellow coat man. The few words I've heard beyond her pitch on occasions suggest a not inarticulate person. Add it all up and it reeks of a con to me, and she therefore deserves none of my sympathy, and in fact is worthy of being targeted. For shame!

* * * * *

In film class last night we watched "The Great Train Robbery" and a 20-minute section of "The Birth of a Nation". Before "Birth", the teacher asked if anyone had ever seen a D.W. Griffith film. I reported having seen "Broken Blossoms" over 20 years ago, and then mentioned that it had been on TV the day before. There were a few gasps from people who, it appears, would have moved their worlds around to watch it, which quickly turned to silence when I said it had been on Silver Screen Classics. I've had this channel since November 2004, but don;t think I watched a single movie from it in all that time. Then, in our first class the teacher commented on how we all probably know a lot about recent movies but nothing about older films, and that this was one reason why film students should take a course in the history of cinema. I know for myself this is true, since I probably have only seen 20 films from before 1950, and maybe half of those were from my film class at Brock University over 20 years ago. Once I had the PVR, I resolved to keep an eye on the channel and record any films that are considered classics which I have not seen. Already, I have saved three movies since Sunday: Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe" (1941), Jean Renoir's "The Southerner" (1945) and "Rain" (I believe it's the 1932 version directed by Lewis Milestone, but I can't get on their website right now to confirm). I am hoping to start watching one or two of these a week.

One of the great things about older movies is that I can watch them with the girls, since they have no swearing, nudity or graphic violence. Hopefully, they'll be interested in the movies I pick. They are certainly interested in my decision to go to film school and, ultimately, make a movie. I have been working on a screenplay in which one of my protagonists is a nine-year-old girl. Brittany knows she is too old for this, but Nicole has tried numerous times, including this morning, to stake a claim on this part in my unfinished script. I told her that it wasn't my intention to make that film myself, but rather to try and sell it once completed, since it requires things beyond my budget to do it justice, including two big weddings, one at the beginning and one at the end of the story. She accepts this, but has now started pitching story ideas to me, all of which ultimately involve her in a princess dress and tiara. I then explained that one of the first principles of DIY filmmaking is to use what you have, and what I have at this time is two photogenic young girls, my home and everything in it (specifically, and most interesting to me at the moment, a karaoke machine), and possibly access to a school full of dancers. From this will likely come my first film. The challenge I have given the girls is to help me figure out what that film will be. I can't wait to see what they come up with. I may not use it, but it's exciting to involve them in my interests. More bonding, I guess. Plus, if this is going to tie up huge chunks of my time, I want my family there with me, for better or worse.

* * * * *

Have you ever done a sudoku puzzle? I did my first on Sunday past, and I am hooked. Gotta get one in before lunch is over.

A few quick thoughts during a very busy day. . .

I don't recall ever seeing such a horrible call by a game official as in yesterday's Pittsburgh-Indianapolis NFL game, when a sure interception was turned into an incomplete pass by the referee's creative interpretation of the rules. Even the game announcers were stunned, holding their tongues to prevent stating what was obvious to everyone but the ref in question. Thankfully, it did not alter the outcome of the game. For a brief moment, I believed the league wanted Indy in the Super Bowl and would break the rules to get them there. Ah, the demented paranoia of the sports fan.

Last night's "24" premiere was amazing, one twist after another. It's been a long time since something on TV rocked me like the opening scenes. As expected as it was - inevitable, perhaps - I was still shocked, a reminder of why this is the best hour on television week in, week out. two more hours tonight, although they are being PVRed for a Tuesday night viewing with the Mrs. Unless she's awake when I get home from school and we can't wait another night. A full appreciation will follow after I watch both.

After voting on Saturday, I saw a lot of political ads yesterday while spending my day in front of the TV. Paul Martin looks old and dirty, Jack Layton like a used-car salesman (as in the Kurt Russell-starring classic "Used Cars") and Stephen Harper the most prime-ministerial, but with an evil gleam in his eye and a smirk on his lips. I don't like any of them. Our nation's leaders are in dire need of some charisma.

I'm pretty busy today not doing much of anything. This morning was laundry, dishes and ironing. This afternoon, thanks to the wonder of my PVR, it's simultaneously watching the Pittsburgh-Indianapolis football game (14-3 Pittsburgh late in the third - go Steelers!) and the Toronto-New York basketball game (103-82 Toronto early in the fourth - yay Raptors!), while reading "A Short History of the Movies" (I'm at page 44 and have to reach 102 by tomorrow night) during breaks. After the girls return from dance class, it's homework with Brittany, dinner and cleanup, then a game of "Kim Possible". At 8:00, our world stops for the "24" season premiere.

It doesn't leave much time to blog, so today is a perfect day to throw out my list of the 10 best movies I saw last year. 2005 was a year in which I started catching up with the films I have missed since becoming a father. There are no individuals comments and no ranking, just the list. This includes all films I saw last year, not just 2005 releases. They are, in chronological order by year of release:

Beautiful Girls (1996)
Billy Elliot (2000)
Ghost World (2000)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Infernal Affairs (2002)
The Pianist (2002)
Capturing the Friedmans (2003)
Matchstick Men (2003)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
A History of Violence (2005)

My 2005 viewings were pretty slim - only 27 releases so far. In the next few months, I hope to see, either in theatre or on DVD/TMN, such films as "Crash", "Sin City", "The Squid and the Whale" and "Capote", and will put together a list of my favorite 2005 releases once I fill in some of the blanks. As for the films I saw last year, the top two were "Eternal Sunshine . . ." and "Capturing the Friedmans". In different ways, these movies left me questioning what I saw and believed, and forced me to think deeply about what the filmmakers were saying. Plus, they were fabulous stories told well. What more can one ask of a movie?