We don't need no stinking BADGERS!!!
While I was in middle of rejoicing that Howard can take Michael’s job at Portrait then abruptly Lynn senses I am on the verge of a snarkfest of For Better or For Worse with Howard, and slaps me down with this abrupt jump to the Howard Bunt trial verdict. It’s her loss really. The whole court scene was full of dramatic possibilities and she decided to ignore them all to focus on Liz and Anthony.
We had 2 days of Liz testimony and no days of any other testimony, just a lot of sitting around in the hall. Elly and John show up to support her at the courtroom, and their main point is that Paul Wright is not there and Anthony is, to show something has gone wrong with Liz and Paul Wright, an idea which never worked, and should have been rejected.
What Lynn Johnston should have done:
1. Liz is new back to town after 2 years of Mtigwaki and 4 years of school. The trial was the perfect opportunity for Liz to reconnect with other old friends, like Shawna-Marie or Candace and Rudy. Or even friends who support the Pattersons in general like Dennis North, the Mayes, the Enjos, the Poiriers, the Nichols, etc.
2. The trial in combination with Grandpa Jim’s stroke provided the perfect opportunity for the whole Patterson family to rally together and to get the readership rooting for the Pattersons again. When Mike’s book deal comes through, a properly-prepared readership would root for Mike’s success as a good thing finally happening to the poor beleaguered Pattersons. Even with the whole family in the same house, we have not had one strip with everyone there having dinner. Not one in 3 months.
3. Lawrence Poirier and Nicholas Browne should have been there as either support or testimony. They are so involved in the situation, it is astounding Lynn left them out.
4. We could see enough testimony so that we could get something to work with on hating Howard Bunt that would justify outrage at the 2-year sentence. Show us how sleezy his lawyer is, or how overprotective his parents are, or at least one other witness to show how scummy the guy is, or show him obviously faking remorse. Snidely Whiplash, tying Penelope Pitstop to the train tracks with the oncoming train, comes off as more wicked than Howard.
5. Scenes with Anthony and Liz actually bonding instead of all those creepy thought balloons.
I struggled with the trial situation today, because I am pretty sure that we have seen the last of Howard Bunt. He’s been in 2 strips total over the entire trial sequence, and Liz saying her “remorse” line probably amounts to her telling him off.
A few references for those that don’t know them
In the 1989 "Weird Al" Yankovic film UHF, the host of Raul's Wild Kingdom receives a shipment of badgers in error and says: "Badgers? Badgers?!? We don't need no stinking BADGERS!!!"
The original quotation comes from the 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre with Humphrey Bogart. In one of the scenes in the movie, a Mexican bandit leader (Gold Hat, played by Alfonso Bedoya) is trying to convince Fred C. Dobbs (played by Bogart) and company that they are the Federales. He says: "Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!" The line was taken from the book by the same name.
When I introduced the badgers to Thorvald McGuire’s scheme for breaking out Howard from prison, I had it in my mind to use that line. However, qnjones changed the animal to lemurs, for a reason I do not know, and so I was faced with how to deal with lemurs instead of badgers. Much to my surprise, the key pun word for the strip was remorse, which bears a resemblance to lemurs, if you pronounce the “l” like an “r”. I briefly considered pulling in a stereotypical Japanese character mispronouncing the “l”, but opted just to have Anthony mishearing it and insisting he was right. It’s far better to leave the offensive racial stereotyping to Lynn Johnston.
The Three Stooges' film Disorder in the Court has no badgers or instant pudding or skiing in it. It does however, have a scene involving parrots and a firehose.” I tried to find a prison break Three Stooges film, but I was unable to find one. I thought the idea that Thorvald McGuire would base his escape plan on the Three Stooges would be amusing, and when it failed it would also provide a means to get Howard into jail, where I could put him into the prison work program as an editor for Portrait Magazine. I thought the idea that Portrait Magazine would seek an incarcerated criminal to take Mike Patterson’s job was funny, and it would also provide a means by which I could keep Howard in prison but still active. If Invisible Morrie continues to be an active participant, there could be some interplay there if for example, both Howard and Morrie become senior editors.
On the other hand, I would love for qnjones to write up whatever crazy ideas she has for Thorvald to get Howard out of prison, particularly if Thorvald is not successful, at least not at first. In general, I am not too concerned about Howard in prison. There are 7 months left on the strip and it is my belief that the bulk of the remaining strips are going to focus on Liz and Michael, and that doesn’t leave a lot for Howard to do, even if he came out of prison and operated under an assumed name and some sort of disguise. The group-plotted stories which were Howard’s forté are not longer really done on April’s Real Blog and so Howard has been more providing the gay, cross-dressing perspective on things than anything like a story.
As for the outcome of the trial, no surprises. The Liz letters picked 2 years for Howard back in October, 2005, and the strip rarely varies from that kind of detail. There is so little known about the details of the trial, it is very difficult to say it was fair or not. It doesn’t really matter, since the main purpose was to make Liz feel as though she owed Anthony her life, or at least her virginity.
The most surprising part about the whole situation was the overall negative theme that Lynn Johnston took on the legal process. She complained the trial took too long to start, too long to finish, robbed innocent people of their time without respect to their careers, and now has actually complained that justice was not served. Then over and above that Constable Paul Wright, who is a First Nations member of the Ontario Provincial Police is shown to be a cheater. When he first appeared, I had viewed his job and his ethnicity as being like a double-whammy of FOOBie goodness in favour of Paul. Maybe Lynn Johnston is like so many in the First Nations, who believe their people should serve only in the First Nations Police Force. Maybe I should have understood this meant Paul in the OPP is bad. Clearly Lynn like the police and lawyers and the court system, quite a bit less than she likes firefighters. Now that I think about it, the other appearances of the police in For Better or For Worse were occasions where one of the Pattersons gets a speeding ticket, or in the Lilliputs’ robbery, the appearance of Brad Luggsworth (former villain). Could it be that Lynn thinks the police are bad?
You can’t really take this sort of stuff for granted with Lynn. After the Gym Jam storyline, I came to realize that Lynn Johnston expected us to equate Jeremy Jones with evil, even though he appeared to be distinctly not evil in his last appearance in the strip. We were supposed to say, “Look! Becky’s new roadie / sound guy is Jeremy. This is a clear sign Becky is taking the wrong path. He will betray her.” I didn’t make the association until the Gym Jam story occurred. Having made that association with Jeremy Jones (school bully), it makes me wonder if associating Brad Luggsworth (school bully) with the police, is supposed to give me a similar opinion. For example, if Officer Luggsworth had done his job properly, Kortney Krelbutz would have been discovered as a criminal during his initial investigation, instead of forcing Elly, April and Moira through the trauma of having to uncover her misdeeds. The more I analyze this strip, the more I realize Lynn Johnston and I do not think alike.
We had 2 days of Liz testimony and no days of any other testimony, just a lot of sitting around in the hall. Elly and John show up to support her at the courtroom, and their main point is that Paul Wright is not there and Anthony is, to show something has gone wrong with Liz and Paul Wright, an idea which never worked, and should have been rejected.
What Lynn Johnston should have done:
1. Liz is new back to town after 2 years of Mtigwaki and 4 years of school. The trial was the perfect opportunity for Liz to reconnect with other old friends, like Shawna-Marie or Candace and Rudy. Or even friends who support the Pattersons in general like Dennis North, the Mayes, the Enjos, the Poiriers, the Nichols, etc.
2. The trial in combination with Grandpa Jim’s stroke provided the perfect opportunity for the whole Patterson family to rally together and to get the readership rooting for the Pattersons again. When Mike’s book deal comes through, a properly-prepared readership would root for Mike’s success as a good thing finally happening to the poor beleaguered Pattersons. Even with the whole family in the same house, we have not had one strip with everyone there having dinner. Not one in 3 months.
3. Lawrence Poirier and Nicholas Browne should have been there as either support or testimony. They are so involved in the situation, it is astounding Lynn left them out.
4. We could see enough testimony so that we could get something to work with on hating Howard Bunt that would justify outrage at the 2-year sentence. Show us how sleezy his lawyer is, or how overprotective his parents are, or at least one other witness to show how scummy the guy is, or show him obviously faking remorse. Snidely Whiplash, tying Penelope Pitstop to the train tracks with the oncoming train, comes off as more wicked than Howard.
5. Scenes with Anthony and Liz actually bonding instead of all those creepy thought balloons.
I struggled with the trial situation today, because I am pretty sure that we have seen the last of Howard Bunt. He’s been in 2 strips total over the entire trial sequence, and Liz saying her “remorse” line probably amounts to her telling him off.
A few references for those that don’t know them
In the 1989 "Weird Al" Yankovic film UHF, the host of Raul's Wild Kingdom receives a shipment of badgers in error and says: "Badgers? Badgers?!? We don't need no stinking BADGERS!!!"
The original quotation comes from the 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre with Humphrey Bogart. In one of the scenes in the movie, a Mexican bandit leader (Gold Hat, played by Alfonso Bedoya) is trying to convince Fred C. Dobbs (played by Bogart) and company that they are the Federales. He says: "Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!" The line was taken from the book by the same name.
When I introduced the badgers to Thorvald McGuire’s scheme for breaking out Howard from prison, I had it in my mind to use that line. However, qnjones changed the animal to lemurs, for a reason I do not know, and so I was faced with how to deal with lemurs instead of badgers. Much to my surprise, the key pun word for the strip was remorse, which bears a resemblance to lemurs, if you pronounce the “l” like an “r”. I briefly considered pulling in a stereotypical Japanese character mispronouncing the “l”, but opted just to have Anthony mishearing it and insisting he was right. It’s far better to leave the offensive racial stereotyping to Lynn Johnston.
The Three Stooges' film Disorder in the Court has no badgers or instant pudding or skiing in it. It does however, have a scene involving parrots and a firehose.” I tried to find a prison break Three Stooges film, but I was unable to find one. I thought the idea that Thorvald McGuire would base his escape plan on the Three Stooges would be amusing, and when it failed it would also provide a means to get Howard into jail, where I could put him into the prison work program as an editor for Portrait Magazine. I thought the idea that Portrait Magazine would seek an incarcerated criminal to take Mike Patterson’s job was funny, and it would also provide a means by which I could keep Howard in prison but still active. If Invisible Morrie continues to be an active participant, there could be some interplay there if for example, both Howard and Morrie become senior editors.
On the other hand, I would love for qnjones to write up whatever crazy ideas she has for Thorvald to get Howard out of prison, particularly if Thorvald is not successful, at least not at first. In general, I am not too concerned about Howard in prison. There are 7 months left on the strip and it is my belief that the bulk of the remaining strips are going to focus on Liz and Michael, and that doesn’t leave a lot for Howard to do, even if he came out of prison and operated under an assumed name and some sort of disguise. The group-plotted stories which were Howard’s forté are not longer really done on April’s Real Blog and so Howard has been more providing the gay, cross-dressing perspective on things than anything like a story.
As for the outcome of the trial, no surprises. The Liz letters picked 2 years for Howard back in October, 2005, and the strip rarely varies from that kind of detail. There is so little known about the details of the trial, it is very difficult to say it was fair or not. It doesn’t really matter, since the main purpose was to make Liz feel as though she owed Anthony her life, or at least her virginity.
The most surprising part about the whole situation was the overall negative theme that Lynn Johnston took on the legal process. She complained the trial took too long to start, too long to finish, robbed innocent people of their time without respect to their careers, and now has actually complained that justice was not served. Then over and above that Constable Paul Wright, who is a First Nations member of the Ontario Provincial Police is shown to be a cheater. When he first appeared, I had viewed his job and his ethnicity as being like a double-whammy of FOOBie goodness in favour of Paul. Maybe Lynn Johnston is like so many in the First Nations, who believe their people should serve only in the First Nations Police Force. Maybe I should have understood this meant Paul in the OPP is bad. Clearly Lynn like the police and lawyers and the court system, quite a bit less than she likes firefighters. Now that I think about it, the other appearances of the police in For Better or For Worse were occasions where one of the Pattersons gets a speeding ticket, or in the Lilliputs’ robbery, the appearance of Brad Luggsworth (former villain). Could it be that Lynn thinks the police are bad?
You can’t really take this sort of stuff for granted with Lynn. After the Gym Jam storyline, I came to realize that Lynn Johnston expected us to equate Jeremy Jones with evil, even though he appeared to be distinctly not evil in his last appearance in the strip. We were supposed to say, “Look! Becky’s new roadie / sound guy is Jeremy. This is a clear sign Becky is taking the wrong path. He will betray her.” I didn’t make the association until the Gym Jam story occurred. Having made that association with Jeremy Jones (school bully), it makes me wonder if associating Brad Luggsworth (school bully) with the police, is supposed to give me a similar opinion. For example, if Officer Luggsworth had done his job properly, Kortney Krelbutz would have been discovered as a criminal during his initial investigation, instead of forcing Elly, April and Moira through the trauma of having to uncover her misdeeds. The more I analyze this strip, the more I realize Lynn Johnston and I do not think alike.
posted by howard at 5:59 PM
12 Comments:
More evidence that Lynn should have hired you to do her plotting. And I agree--she seems to have a bizarre perspective on, well, just about everything.
Hello, Howard. I am so unpumped. I did not see the verdict coming this week, and since I'm currently in a place where I have to travel 30 km to find the closest publicly accessible Internet connection, I couldn't comment until today. I have a time limit on this connection, so I'll do a series of small posts in case I get booted off without notice.
LJ once again demonstrates that she knows nothing about Canadian criminal law and can't be bothered to do even rudimentary research. The only thing that made sense to me was the sentence of "two years less a day". That's a fairly common sentence, as that's the maximum length of a reformatory sentence: if you're sentenced to two years or more, you're sent to a penitentary.
The rest of it is ridiculous.
In no particular order:
1. Howard would not have been sentenced on the same day that he was convicted: while it's theoretically possible, it simply wouldn't happen in this type of case. Howard should have been remanded -- probably out of custody -- for a period of approximately 90 days for a presentence report to be prepared to assist the judge in sentencing.
2. The length of the sentence itself is absurd, given the facts we know. I've commented on that point before, so I'll move on.
3. The judge has no power to order psychiatric treatment for Howard while he is in custody.
4. Here's the best part: it's impossible for Howard to get psychiatric treatment while in custody because he's been given a reformatory sentence and there aren't any psychiatric, educational, addiction treatment or other services available to inmates in reformatories. True story: a guy was once sentenced to two years less a day, and asked the judge to increase his sentence by one day so that he would be sent to a penitentary where he could take steps to reform himself.
5. The judge has no power to recommend no parole -- he's usurping the function of the parole board. If Howard had psychiatric services available to him -- which he doesn't -- he would be well advised to accept them, if for no other reason than to make a favourable impression on the parole board. Bottom line: if Howard is a model inmate, he'll be granted parole after he's served 1/3 of his sentence, i.e. in about 8 months.
6. Was Howard ever in custody in the strip? If so, every day spent in custody before he was convicted would be counted as 2-for-1, e.g. if he was in custody for 2 months, he'd be granted a 4 month credit towards time served.
Sorry if any of this is redundant. I don't have time to spell check, let alone read previous posts. I'll be back on Sunday or Monday.
I'm back, briefly. I just took another look at the strip. Looks like Howard is in a prison jumpsuit, so he must have been in custody.
Even if he was in custody, he would have been permitted to wear his own clothing during the trial.
And all the people muttering in the Courtroom while Howard's being led away? Yeah, right. You can't get away with that sort of conduct in an Ontario courtroom while the judge is presiding, and the judge is still presiding at this point. The judge would have warned the spectators to make no verbal or non-verbal reaction to his verdict/sentence before he gave his verdict/sentence. Anyone who disregarded this warning, would, if he/she were lucky, be ejected from the courtroom. If he/she were unlucky, he/she might be cited for contempt of court.
Anon, I'm so glad that you had a chance to comment on this latest development. I thought of you when the judge characterized the sentence as "lenient," since it seemed to be on the high end of a range you'd cited in an earlier post.
anonymous,
Thanks for all the great information. I have two questions, if you will indulge me.
1. Would Howard most likely be placed in the Ontario Reformatory in Guelph? I see there is a Toronto East Detention Centre, but I don’t know if it would be considered like a Reformatory.
2. Given the things you have pointed out (sentenced on same day as verdict, improper parole recommendation, improper psychiatric recommendation, improper conduct while Howard is being led away), would these be grounds for an appeal based on a generally improperly run trial? In other words, would a lawyer even recommend an appeal if Howard could get out of the reformatory in 8 months for good behaviour?
One important correction to what I posted yesterday: reformatories in Ontario are now called "correctional centres".
Your answers:
1. I think Guelph is closed, but I don't have time to research that right now. The idea is to keep the prisoner as close to home as possible, but he'll end up wherever there's space. There are correctional centres in Toronto (it's called Mimico), Brampton, Milton (two burbs to the west of Toronto) and Hamilton (near Burlington.) If you don't like Mimico, I can give you another name. Toronto East and Toronto West are detention centres, where accused are held prior to trial if they aren't granted bail. Sometimes prisoners serve very short sentences in detention centres, but Howard's sentence is hardly very short.
2. There are so many things wrong with the trial and sentencing that Howard should appeal. Even the most junior of lawyers could win the appeal for him. He'd almost certainly be granted bail pending the hearing of the appeal. (The conduct of the spectators wouldn't be grounds for appeal, but would be grounds for a complaint against the judge.)
Something I forgot to mention: the federal government has sole jurisdiction over criminal law, so that criminal law is uniform across Canada. The government of Canada also has sole jurisdiction over penitentiaries. At some point, the Canadian government delegated power over the "reformatories" to the provinces. Howard is therefore a guest of the Province of Ontario, and his parole board would also be provincial, rather than federal. The Government of Ontario website would probably be a good place to poke around for more information, if I am unable to post again for awhile.
Post a Comment
<< Home