Hey past and present Journal kids,

As you may already know, the Journal House is coming down this summer to make way for a massive student life centre. But those of us who defined >this place (as writers, editors, photographers, managers, and generally underfed, overtired shit-disturbers) know it won't be forgotten anytime soon. So... save the date for the Journal's official wrecking ball party!

Saturday, April 29 (that's the last day of exams, for those who are still here)

272 Earl, 9 pm-ish

BYOB

We'll put all our tech stuff in a locked room and devote the rest of the place to mayhem and nostalgia. The demolition date hasn't been set yet, but we'll work something out for people who want souvenir bricks. Can anyone bring a chisel?

Please circulate widely among Journal kids everywhere.

Jennifer MacMillan and Emily Sangster

Editors in Chief, Vol. 133

Which is why, Clinton says, he agreed to work on tsunami relief and Katrina hurricane relief with former President Bush.

"In the process of doing this, I spent more time around the current President Bush. And again, I never held it against him for being mad at me for beating his dad. I thought that was a good thing for a son to feel. And I never held it against him that he sees the world very differently than I do and we disagree on a whole raft of things," says Clinton.

Clinton says he doesn't miss the trappings of the presidency. Does he ever think about flying on board Air Force One in the capacity of first husband?

"Well, the answer to that is no," Clinton says, laughing. "I don’t think about that. And I have urged all of Hillary’s supporters not to think about that, because she’s got to run for re-election. And it’s a big hazard for anybody who’s up for re-election to think about anything but re-election."

There already is a woman president on TV, played by Geena Davis. Is America ready for a female commander in chief?

"I don’t know. My gut is, yes, that if a woman came across as strong and seasoned and well prepared, if you said the right things in the right way and you had a good record to back it up, my gut is, yes. But the hard truth is we won’t know until it happens," says Clinton.

It's interesting to listen to the causes and solutions suggested by community leaders, journalists, politicians, police officers, and talk-radio callers these past few days.

Gun control, of course, received a tremendous amount of attention, as did the typical cadre of movie violence, rap music, and video games. While none of those things, particularly guns, could be mistaken as objectively good, it's hard to believe any of them get at the issue at hand.

Exposed to the same music or violence or rap lyrics, none of the youths of Rosedale or Forest Hill don't own guns and shoot people, while a handful of youths in Scarborough do.

This is, and always has been, an issue of economics, of class, of family, of friends, and of race.

The problem is simple to diagnose, but complicated to fix --- build a city of fairness, opportunity, and equity for all, with supportive family and friends who stress education, a respect for life, and outrage over guns and violence that is quite literally killing us.

I have to phone them to get my credit limit, and have to calculate my own balance by working with the three less-useful numbers they provide - "Charges/Credit Advances" plus "Opening Balance" minus "Payments/Credits." Huh? Can't you just tell me my balance, instead?

After reading "Jays get help from old friend Ash", I was reminded of the famous "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Sure, comparing team payroll of the Ash and Ricciardi era is interesting, but I'm not sure what it proves when it's completely out of context with their division rivals and the rest of the league.

Using your same USA Today payroll tool, let's rank the Blue Jay payroll to the rest of the league:

Ash - league payroll ranking

1997: 9th

1998: 11th

1999: 14th

2000: 21st

2001: 10th

Ricciardi - league payroll ranking

2002: 11th

2003: 21st

2004: 21st

2005: 25th

Without taking into account the payrolls of competitors, it's not a whole lot different than comparing any two years of the Ricciardi regime to the 1992-1993 Blue Jays ($89MM spent, 191-133), and ask why he spent so much and got so little.

Heck, in 2002 Ricciardi spent only $12MM less than the 1992 *and* 1993 Blue Jays combined, but got 113 fewer wins! :)

The Liberal showing in pre-election polls shouldn't surprise anyone. This isn't about Canadians being ignorant (yes, scandal and corruption are both bad), or disinterested in politics, or not wanting a winter election, or not open to change.

In fact, the Liberal showing *today* is not unlike their strong showing for the last 100 years. Canadians are financially conservative and socially liberal. Liberals are financially conservative and socially liberal. The NDP are not. The Bloc, of course, are not. And the Conservatives? Well they're not, either. They are financially conservative and socially conservative.

Their policy on same-sex marriage, for one, is in the stone ages of human rights. 100 years from now, we'll look back, wondering "how did anyone really think that" the same way we look back at slavery or women's rights or many, many other things. The Conservatives do not speak for Canadians. Never have (for more than a term here or there), never will. Quite simply, if you do not speak for this country and its people, you will not lead this country and represent its people.

Oh, and my election prediction - Liberals rule, again. Conservatives lose, again. Harper is out. Mike Harris is in. If it's a Liberal minority, Martin foes will use Martin's own tactics against Chretien, stage a coup, and force a leadership race. And if it's a Liberal majority, Martin surives and steps aside just before the next election.