OK, now with that sentimentally out of the way, let’s get down to business — who will be Edmonton’s next mayor?

At this moment, we have exactly one candidate, Kerry Diotte, who launched his campaign last week in a bold move to stake out his position before anyone else. But, judging from the comments from the mayor — who called Diotte irrelevant — and the subtle agreement from some city councillors that Diotte hasn’t carried his weight, Diotte may not be a particularly popular member of the team. If the retirement of Mandel wasn’t enough to get the tire kickers behind the wheel, the Diotte announcement will likely galvanize the maybe mayors into action.

Oddly, the Diotte decision may actually reduce the number of would-be councillors in the race. Here’s my thinking: if there are enough city councillors who throw up a little at the thought of Diotte being the mayor, the possible contenders might decide to rally around one of their own to prevent a multi-candidate dogfight that could allow Diotte to get enough of the disgruntled anti-progress, anti-tax vote to win out over a field of more progressive candidates. If that’s the case, I could see someone like Don Iveson, who is young with many years ahead of him on council if he chooses, to sit this one out and let someone else run, like almost-certain candidate Karen Leibovici.

Of course, I could be entirely off base here. There may be too much ambition on council for any two or three to get together behind a candidate. In either event, I would think that Leibovici is an almost lock to run, and I think she would immediately become the favorite. Iveson would be a real challenger; he’s young, social media savvy, and after just one term on council, still a fairly fresh face. He will no doubt take some encouragement from the remarkable success of Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, whose success three years ago was due in no small part to how well he utilized social media.

My guess is that Leibovici is 80 per cent sure to run, particularly now that Diotte is in the race. Iveson I would put at no more than 50/50; he’s still young enough to hang around for another term on council if he chooses.

Aside from the mayoralty, which will be a battle worth watching for the first time in years, there will a land rush of candidates into the non-incumbent wards. There could easily be a dozen or so candidates in Ward 11, where Diotte is leaving, Ward 5 if the unbeatable Leibovici takes a run at the mayoralty, and in Ward 10 where Iveson would be a shoe-in.

Maybe that’s the best thing about Mandel’s retirement. By stepping down, he has almost certainly given a boost to the public’s tragically low interest in civic politics. At least it will give us something to do in October.

By not waiting for Mandel to make his decision known, Diotte has thrown down the gauntlet, not just to the mayor but also to the would-be mayors: he announced today that running for mayor, whatever Mandel does. That’s a bold move, and a smart one. Diotte is saying that he’s not afraid of the incumbent, and that he’s not the kind of guy to sit back and coast to an easy win in his ward like all the other namby-pamby maybe mayors.

Diotte will likely take aim at the great mass of disgruntled Edmontonians. They’re angry that the city is spending millions on an arena for a hockey team, that we’ve got an administration whose first job seems to be to come up with multi-million dollar pie-in-the-sky spending ideas, that adds to its payroll at a rate that far exceeds the city’s growth — but we can’t keep our roads from crumbling. That’s a large constituency, just waiting to be courted.

The strategy, if that is indeed Diotte’s plan, is risky. There is always a chance of being perceived as an anti-everything kind of guy. While there will be many who will applaud Diotte’s stand on the arena (he consistently voted against the deal) and his almost line-by-line parsing of city budgets, many more will see him as small minded penny-pincher with no great vision for the city.  Remember Mike Nickel, all around troublemaker? Turfed by the voters, defeated by a young upstart named Don Iveson in 2007. Going much further back, alderman Ed Leger was a consistent negative force on council before the public finally got tired of his negativity and turfed him in 1986.

Mandel is no fan of Diotte’s, it appears. On the morning news shows today, he called Diotte “irrelevant”, said he “has done nothing to contribute to the success of the city”, has “no vision for the city” and spends council meetings tweeting. Those are the strongest, most personal words I’ve ever heard from a mayor about a councillor. His surprising broadside means either a) Mandel is running again, and he took the opportunity to blast a possible opponent; or b) isn’t running again, but can’t stand the idea of a perceived do-nothing like Diotte in the mayor’s chair.

But right now, as of 3 p.m. on May 16^th, Diotte is the favourite to win the mayoralty, predominantly because no one else is running right now. However, now that Diotte has officially started the race, the pressure now builds on other potential candidates. How do the others rate?

If Leibovici decides to run, she will become the front-runner, I think. Iveson would likely become the favourite of Edmonton’s young, Facebooking, Tweeting, downtown crowd, who are sorely underrepresented on city council. The fact that he changed his vote on the arena deal — from consistently opposed to supportive on the final vote — shouldn’t do him any harm. Circumstances change, and so should politicians. Amarjeet Sohi, a decent councillor touted by some as a mayoralty candidate, should best just stick to his ward; he doesn’t have the experience, profile or charisma to be a legitimate mayoralty candidate.

However it shakes down, the race is now fully underway. Diotte is off and running, with everyone else — including the incumbent — still pondering if they want to join the fray. If nothing else, this should make the election a whole lot more interesting.

Of course, we all know that there is too much sugar, salt and fat in our diets, but just how much — and more importantly, how it got there and how hard it is to avoid — is revealed in this meticulously researched page-turner.

Moss has poured over thousands of pages of documents — some public, many confidential — and interviewed hundreds of food company executives past and present over three-and-a-half years to paint a picture of an industry whose goal has been to sell as much crap as possible to as many people as possible, without regard for the consequences.

But this is not an anti-big business screed. Moss just tells it like it is; the food industry is profit-driven, and the way they make their profits is by creating food we want, even crave. And boy, do they know how to do it. The processed food industry employs battalions of scientists, marketing experts, psychologists, and all manner of food alchemists to create foods that we might not have known we wanted, but now crave. For example, potato chip maker Frito-Lay has a facility that holds 500 chemists, psychologists and technicians that costs the company $30 million a year to operate, all to make chips even more alluring. (They even have a machine that replicates a human mouth so the company can determine how much pressure to apply to most comfortably snap a potato chip. It’s four pounds of pressure per square inch exactly, by the way.)

It’s no surprise that we crave salt, sugar and fat. Sugar, in particular, in insidiously delicious. The food industry has devised, through years of research, the exact amount of sugar that makes their sugary treats so irresistible; it’s called the bliss point, and it’s very carefully calculated. Fat is ubiquitous, and vital to making our food taste as delicious as it does. The most worrisome thing about fat is that, unlike sugar, there is no upper limit on it. While we can reject products with too much sugar, it appears there is no upper limit on fat. Our bodies can’t detect fat the way they do sugar and salt (Moss says “the brain sees fat as the body’s best friend”) so the food industry can just keep pumping fat into their products. The more, the tastier.

Americans eat 70 pounds of sugar a year (it’s everywhere; in Prego tomato sauces, the no. 2 ingredient is sugar) and 8,500 mg of salt (American food manufactures use 5 BILLION pounds of salt a year), double the recommended amount. (Salt, by the way, appears to be an acquired taste. While tests on babies show they immediately love sugar, they reject salt. It appears that children who grow up with the same salty foods their parents eat grow to love it, while children who grow up with a salt-reduced diet don’t develop a taste for it.) The results are horrifying, with obesity rates soaring, particularly amongst children.

Over 350 pages, Moss provides capsule histories of some of the most famous brands in the world, and investigates their corporate cultures. Coco-Cola, as you might expect, is absolutely ruthless in its desire to dominate not only the soft drink industry, but also the entire sphere of stuff that you drink. (Tellingly, a lot of the executives Moss spoke to don’t go near the stuff they produce, or in some cases, created.)

After reading Salt Sugar Fat, I felt like throwing in the towel in my admittedly half-assed efforts to eat healthy. After all, it’s just the lowly consumer against some of the biggest, most profitable, more brilliantly run companies in the world. How can I compete against that?

Moss doesn’t have a solution, other than being as vigilant as possible. Think of the grocery store as a battlefield, he concludes. If you know their tricks, if you know that they are reliant on salt, sugar and fat, and that can be empowering.

“They may have salt, sugar and fat on their side, but we, ultimately, have the power to make choices,” Moss concludes. “After all, we decide what we buy. We decide how much to eat.”

And you’ll be better prepared to navigate the battlefield of the supermarket if you read Salt Sugar Fat. It’s a must read if you eat food.

2. No Canadians made the list of most influential people in the world, not even Justin Beiber, with his 38 MILLION Twitter followers. Sadly, he is the only Canadian who comes to mind.

3. The average age of the 100 is 47. I’m 57. My chances of making the list anytime soon appear slim.

4. Of the 100, I’ve never heard of 69 of them, which probably reflects more on me than on Time.

5. Time attributes an inordinate amount of influence to artists and entertainers; there are 20, including both Jimmy Kimmel AND Jimmy Fallon. Seriously, two second-tier late night hosts are regarded as the most influential people IN THE WORLD. They’re not even the most influential people on late night TV. Also on the list is Shonda Rhimes, creator of the TV show Scandal. Her entry is written by Oprah Winfrey, who writes: “She gets us — all of us!” Sorry, I don’t get it. Then there’s actress Jennifer Lawrence, who, Jodi Foster writes, has a stare that “cuts a searing swath in your gut”. And I just thought she was kinda cute. Mindy Kaling of the middling comedy The Mindy Project is on the list, as is an R&B singer named Miguel.

6.  In the listing of Titans (how someone qualifies as a Titan is not mentioned) comes someone named Scooter Braun. Yes, Scooter. Apparently, he “discovered” Justin Beiber, Carly Rae Jepson and Psy. May I suggest that Scooter Braun be removed from the Titan list and moved to the Cultural Criminal list?

7. Best names on the list: Palaniappan Chidambaram, Yair Lapid, Omotola Jalade-Ekeinde, and someone called Barack Obama! I think they made that one up.

8. The creators of Minecraft are on the list. Not only have I never heard of them, I’ve never heard of Minecraft.

9. Fattest guy on the list is Chris Christie, morbidly obese governor of New Jersey.

10. Wayne LaPierre, head of the world’s most evil organization, the National Rifle Association, is lauded by rocker/gun nut Ted Nugent who compares LaPierre to the founders of the American republic. Nugent writes: “Wayne stands firm against the insidious tsunami of dangerous anticonstitutional furor that would further infringe on our sacred Second Amendment.” I guess I shouldn’t have expected anything subtle from Nugent.

11. Least worthy inclusion: Lindsey Vonn, American alpine skier. She is listed as an Icon. Really? To whom?

12. The best part of the issue was a column by Joel Stein, who looked back at the previous editions of the 100 Most Influential, and found such gems as Pippa Middleton, Ugly Betty actress American Ferrera, “comic” Dane Cook, and rarely used quarterback Tim Tebow. Good calls, Time!

First, is there such a thing as Canadian English? The answer is — and this is classically Canadian — yes, kind of.

Canadian English is a typically Canadian compromise between our British heritage and the inexorable pull of the Excited States of America. We mix and match our lexicon, sometimes using traditional British-isms (the superfluous ‘u’ in colour and neighbourhood, say, or the ‘re’ ending in ‘theatre’) with Americanisms (sometimes we use a ‘z’ instead of an ‘s’, as in ‘recognized’). Being Canadian, we naturally have not come up with universally used spellings, not unlike our mix-and-match use of the metric system (we use Celsius temperatures and metric measurements for distances, but height and weight are always in pounds, feet and inches).

Most Canadian English can be identified with our typically schizophrenic spellings, but there are a few uniquely Canadian words that have stood the test of time, and will always be with us. ‘Toque’ is perhaps the best Canadian word ever, French-sounding but common in English, uniquely Canadian and infinitely superior to the American ‘wool hat’. ‘Loonie’ and ‘toonie’ are 100 per cent Canuck, nice examples of how words can evolve naturally. And in my experience (at least in Western Canada) carbonated beverages are always called ‘pop’ and never the American ‘soda’.

One of the few “chiefly Canadian” terms that has not only survived, but thrived, is “double-double”, an extremely popular way for Canadians who go to Tim Hortons (basically any Canadian) to order their coffee, i.e. two creams, two sugars. Double-double, which is a coffee order for people who don’t particularly like coffee, is disgusting in my estimation, but at least it’s Canadian. (An aside: according to an article in Canadian Business, eight of every 10 cups of coffee bought in Canada are bought at Tim Hortons. Our national infatuation with this chain borders on the pathological.)

The other new edition to the Canadian lexicon is poutine, which has gone from a purely Quebec culinary oddity to being so ubiquitous, you can find it in fast-food restaurants.

But elsewhere, some Canadian words and pronunciations are vanishing.

When was the last time you heard anyone in Canada use the word chesterfield? In England, a chesterfield is defined by Oxford as  “a sofa with padded arms and back of the same height and curved outwards at the top”. But Oxford also lists a Canadian definition, which is “any sofa”. In the U.S., the word was virtually unheard of, unless you were referring to a brand of cigarettes of the same name. By default, chesterfield became a Canadian word, but today it is almost never used, except in the lyrics of the Barenaked Ladies song If I Had A Million Dollars, in which the Ladies sing that they would buy “a nice chesterfield or an ottoman” if they won the titular million dollars.

One of the great semi-Canadian words (OK, technically not a word) is the pronunciation of the last letter of the alphabet. We are taught, correctly, that the pronunciation is ‘zed’. Americans are alone in the world in using ‘zee’. (Another aside: Americans use ‘zee’ thanks in large part to Noah Webster of dictionary fame, who in his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) wrote: “Z … It is pronounced zee.”)

We are taught in school that ‘zed’ is correct, but thanks to the influence of American media — and Sesame Street — more and more Canadian young people are using zee. If you really want to get me angry, and I know you do, all you have to do is use ‘zee’. I have no problem with correcting any traitor who uses the American term.

There are two other instances of fading Canadianisms. First is the spelling of ‘cheque’, when referring to the nearly antiquated piece of paper used instead of cash. Americans, again, use ‘check’. We, again correctly, use ‘cheque’, but I’ve noticed ‘check’ creeping in. This must be stopped, or it will overtake our language like an invasive species.

Finally, my hypersensitive hearing has detected a change in the pronunciation of ‘mom’. I, and most Canadians of a certain age, have always used the British ‘mum’, even though we spell it ‘mom’. Americans universally pronounce it the way it is spelled, like ‘mawm’. But in my meetings with young Canadians (roughly 18-30, which is young to me), I have detected the American pronunciation has gained ground. In fact, I would say most young Canadians use the American pronunciation.

I’m sorry, but this disturbs me. I’m not Anglophile, but I’m a big believer in Canadians doing everything we can to differentiate ourselves from Americans.  And we can achieve that goal by pushing back against creeping Americanisms. The next time you hear a Canadian use ‘zee’, feel free to berate him mercilessly. You might get a punch in the face, but it’s the least you can do for your country.

This is a yearly phenomenon in Edmonton that arrives as surely as the first snows of October, and the last snows of April … or May. It’s all part of the rich fabric of life that is being an Edmontonian.

Up until today, I thought all the griping was just typical Edmonton bitchiness. I mean, potholes are a universal problem. And if you think we have it bad, check out the Winnipeg Free Press “pothole cam” of one particularly bad street. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/multimedia/video/local/pothole-cam-highlight-reel-200280681.html

Even after last week, when my son got a flat tire and lost a hubcap on a particularly cavernous pothole — driving MY car — I wasn’t convinced that this year was any worse than any other.

But today, in my brief drives around town, I have to agree with my fellow Edmontonians — our roads are a disgrace to a so-called ‘major’ city.

There are streets in this city — heavily used, major arteries — that are perilously close to being unnavigable. A prime example is 112^th Avenue, which sees thousands of vehicles a day, which is more rut than road. Parts of 69^th Avenue are nearing collapse.  There’s a pothole in a road near my son’s house that has gone beyond being a mere hole to being a chasm.

I would hate to be squiring a visitor around Edmonton today; it’s actually embarrassing.

City officials and apologists offer up the same explanations: Edmonton is a northern city, we have freeze-and-thaw cycles, our ground is sandy, blah blah blah. Well, sorry, I don’t buy it anymore.

I think it’s time Edmonton commissioned an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive, from the ground up review of how we build our roads. Do we have the right approach? Are we using the right building materials? Is there anything that we should be doing that we aren’t doing? Are we using cutting edge technologies (if there are cutting edge technologies) in road building? Can we spend more money on roads that last longer? Are we better off, or worse off, than other similar cities? Maybe it’s time we took some of the millions we spend on massive construction projects every summer and just turned that money over to rebuilding some of our decaying roads.

I hate to sound like one of those old goats who write letters to the editor or gripe on open line radio, but we should not contemplate spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a shiny new hockey arena if we can’t even keep our roads in passable shape.

Not too long ago — in fact, anytime before the 2011 breakthrough election — the NDP would have had no problem staking out a position on the pipeline. Mulcair would have been loudly opposed to the pipeline based on the environmental concerns alone. The no-pipeline position would have appealed to the NDP’s, base, the broad coalition of the disaffected and the sanctimonious.  And it wouldn’t have mattered what the NDP had to say, really, since nobody really cared about a party that had no chance of being government.

But thanks to the freakish results of 2011, Mulcair and his New Democrats have drunk the Kool-Aid and have convinced themselves that they can actually win the next election. For the first time in the party’s history what the New Democrats say now actually matters. And therein lies the conundrum.

Mulcair has to be opposed to the pipeline to keep the base happy. But opposing a project that has long-term implications for the Canadian economy is political suicide. All Canadians, not just Albertans, need to get that glop out of the ground and shipped out. So, Mulcair has had to come up with a way to oppose the pipeline, but in a way that satisfies potential voters and long-time supporters. His solution is to oppose the pipeline based not on environmental concerns, but on the basis that bitumen should be refined here, to supply Canadians with jobs and long-term energy future.

I agree with Mulcair on this issue. We should be refining here, and not shipping jobs down a pipeline. I’ve never understood why we don’t do this; I can only assume the economic case for shipping bitumen to the U.S is stronger than refining it all here. But Mulcair is slinging it when he uses economics as the reason for opposing Keystone. Keystone is not an all-or-nothing proposition; Keystone can be built, as can the proposed west-east pipeline. Arguing against Keystone based solely on Canadian energy concerns is utterly bogus, and Mulcair certainly knows it.

After Mulcair met with Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, Pelosi said: “Canadians don’t want the pipeline in their own country.” On CTV’s Question Period, Mulcair denied that he gave Pelosi that impression (apparently, she came up with that idea all by herself), but when asked where he stands on the pipeline, he ducked and weaved and dodged the question (Watch the interview at http://www.ctvnews.ca/qp/).  But what kind of message would Mulcair has brought to the Americans? That the New Democrats were opposed to the pipeline because Canadians want to refine the bitumen for themselves? Why would Pelosi give a rat’s ass about Canadian energy needs?

Mulcair’s position on Keystone is purely political, and not based on the real reason for opposition to the pipeline, which is almost entirely environmental. I’m sure he would love to take the environmental stand, but he can’t if he wants to become prime minister.

Yes, the little New Democrats are all grown up now, compromising their core beliefs in hopes of attaining power, just like the big boys.

How’s that, you say?

Well, the bad news part is easy. Justin Trudeau’s way to an easy, resounding, first ballot coronation has been cleared with his only remotely possible challenger now stepping down. The party should just save itself a bundle, cancel the convention, and hand Justin what’s left of the Liberal crown (tin foil wrapped around a coat hanger with a Canadian flag and a fleur de lis on either side). This is bad because a party in such bad shape as the federal Liberals needs a robust, idea-filled debate. But alas, the party is opting for a Hail Mary pass, instead of grinding it out for slow and steady yardage.

Why is this good news for the Conservatives? After all, some polls have suggested that a Trudeau-led Liberal party could win an election. You’d think that the dauphin Justin would be the Tory’s greatest fear. But no! With Garneau gone and Trudeau a forgone conclusion, the Harper election machine — the only election machine in Canadian history that runs 24/7, 365 days a year, election or no election — can begin the destruction of Justin Trudeau in earnest.

Remember Stephane Dion? The Tories devised attack ads designed to destroy his image before Canadians even got to know him. Remember Michael Ignatief? Same deal: he was “just visiting”, not interested in Canada, etc. No party in Canadian history has run attack ads in a non-election year, but it worked. Dion and Ignatief were dead in the water before they even started to swim.

For the Tories, Marc Garneau as leader would have been a real challenge. The guy’s record was impeccable: educated, former military, an engineer … he was an ASTRONAUT, for God’s sake. How do you attack that?

“Marc Garneau has spent hours in space … Canada not good enough for him? “

“Marc Garneau: we need a leader with his feet on the ground, not his head in the clouds.”

See? You can’t touch that guy. At any other time, Garneau would have been an ideal Liberal candidate, immune to the slings and arrows of a Tory negative ad campaign.

But Justin? I can guarantee that within hours of Justin Trudeau taking the Liberal leadership — probably even during commercial breaks of the convention TV coverage — the Tories will begin to define Justin Trudeau. And it’s almost too easy.

NEGATIVE AD NO.1:

Ominous music plays. Begin with an extreme close-up, black-and-white photo of Pierre Trudeau, emphasizing the pockmarks, looking at his most intellectually condescending.

Narration: Remember this guy? How could we forget? He nearly drove the economy into the ground. He told westerners “why should I sell your wheat?” He brought us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that have paralyzed our courts. Yeah, that guy.

Image of Pierre Trudeau slowly morphs into a black-and-white picture of Justin Trudeau (note: may be difficult to find an unflattering photo).

Narration: Well, he’s back. Canada can’t afford more Trudeau government. Justin Trudeau … like father, like son.

NEGATIVE AD NO. 2:

Happy music plays. The opening graphic is a colourful scene of cartoon children playing in a classroom. It’s noisy and not very orderly. Enter cartoon figure of Justin Trudeau, bobble-head style.

Narration: Justin Trudeau was a school teacher before he entered politics. Now he thinks he can lead Canada.

Switch to cartoon of angry men and women in business suits screaming at each other. Phones are ringing, papers are flying, clearly decisions have to be made.

Narration: Is teaching school kids enough preparation for leading a country, where real world decisions, with real world consequences, have to be made? We think not. Justin Trudeau: it’s elementary… he’s not ready.

NEGATIVE AD NO. 3:

Ominous music. In black-and-white and in slow motion, a clip of Justin Trudeau, speaking in French, is shown. The translation on the screen translates Justin as saying: “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work.”

Narration: Justin Trudeau says only Quebecers should be allowed to run the country.

Switch to black-and-white, close up photos of Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.

Narration: Really, Justin? How did that work out for us? Justin Trudeau: new hair, old school thinking.

Poor Justin. This branding is going to be painful.

On Saturday morning, I thought I would join my sons in their weekly viewing of English Premier League soccer. They record a game or two and have breakfast together while watching the games. I don’t normally go, but I had nothing to do on Saturday morning, so I though I’d join them.

So, I’m on my way to my son’s place, cruising down the Anthony Henday in my 1997 Lumina. The Lumina has lately been showing every one of its 210,000 km; its rust spots have rust, the muffler does very little muffling, the windshield is cracked like thin ice on a pond after you step on it, heat is a hit-or-miss affair (more miss than hit), it leaks a wide range of fluids, the transmission light is always on, the signal lights take a very specific, quite delicate maneuver to operate, etc. Those of you who have driven cars past their best-before date can relate.

But for all of the problems it has, the Lumina always, somehow, runs. It starts, it gets me to where I want to go (which isn’t far), and it gets me back. But lately, the engine has been balky. It has been losing power and a sounding lot like a pack-a-day smoker in the morning.  Still, I figure, once I get it running, it runs.

So, off I went for my soccer breakfast with the boys. Halfway to my son’s place, on the Henday just past the Cameron Heights turnoff, it starts to make some very bad noises. My usual solution — turn up the radio to drown out the noise — doesn’t work. Worse yet, it’s really starting to lose power. I try to encourage it to go, but it won’t. I pull over to the shoulder, where it dies. I bring all of my mechanical knowledge to bear (which is none), to no effect. I am screwed.

Oh, did I mention I don’t have a phone, neither smart nor cell? I have one, but I let my wife use it in case of emergencies. Funny, I never pictured myself as the emergency victim.

Assessing the situation, with cars whizzing by me at 100 km/h, my only option appears to be to walk back home. Trudging back on the side of the Henday, with hundreds of vehicles screaming past me, each one leaving behind a little whirlwind of cold air, I see the sign that reads: Callingwood Road 4.5 km. And I’d already been walking for about 20 minutes. And after getting to Callingwood Road, it’s at least another 20 minutes to home.

Oh. My. God. I am in no shape for a multi-km walk along side a noisy, dirty highway. But my options are limited.

Cursing my fate — and I do mean cursing — I notice a car pull over to the side of the road ahead of me. My first thought is, “some poor sap has the same problem I have”. But it wasn’t some poor sap, but a Good Samaritan. This is where my bad day suddenly turned pretty good.

The Good Sam was a guy named Scott, who works at a plant in Leduc. He was on his way home from work (which started at something like 4 am) when he saw my disabled Lumina on the side of the road in the opposite direction. Carrying on, he saw this forlorn figure (that would be me, looking forlorn) on the other side of the road. Now, Scott could have just carried on to his home after a long day at work, but no. He took the next overpass, turned around, and picked me up. Not only that, he drove me all the way to my house.

What prompts someone to go to that kind of effort to help a stranger? Well, as Scott told me, he has a good experience with a stalled vehicle. As I recall (my details may be a little fuzzy here, so apologies to Scott), the story goes that Scott was out quading or four-by-fouring or some sort of recreational vehicle pastime with some friends, when his vehicle broke down. He has to walk a ways back, accompanied by a girl who he turned out to have a lot in common with. The walk-and-talk went so well, they eventually married! So, I guess some good can come from a broken down car.

As Scott said, he believes in karma, and the whole ‘pay it forward’ idea that you should do a good deed for someone in the hopes that they will do a good deed for someone else. His good deed was to go out of his way to pick up a complete stranger and drive him to his house. As a thank you to this guy I’d never met, I will return the favor — or some sort of favor — to some poor shlub in a bind.

So thank you, Scott, for helping to turn a terrible day into one that was slightly less terrible. Oh, and the Lumina? A broken camshaft, or something like that, so it’s finished. I’m now stuck with a useless pile of metal and the prospect of getting another car. Normally, I would say ‘this sucks’, which it does. But the kindness of a stranger made this miserable day a little less sucky.

(PS: Anybody know  good place that takes away dead cars, and/or anyone who has a good used car for sale?)

I’ve seen (courtesy of the kindness of strangers who download movies) most of the best picture nominees, and basically all of the nominees I want to see, and pronounce myself singularly unimpressed. It’s not that there are bad movies on the list; some years, there are legitimately lousy or entirely forgettable movies that sneak in. (The Help? Seriously? And does anyone remember a film called Finding Neverland? Or how about Dead Poets Society? The Towering Inferno? The list goes on.) This year, however, all of the movies are, in my view, either flawed or, worse yet, boring.  Still, this IS the Academy Awards, and it demands attention. And predictions.

BEST PICTURE

Let’s begin with the No Chance category:

• Amour. The French won last year’s Oscar for The Artist, which is better by far than anything on this year’s list. No chance Hollywood would let those Frenchies win two in a row. It will, however, win best foreign language film.

• Beasts of the Southern Wild: Low budget, low box office numbers, low interest. I got about a half-hour into this thing, and quit.

Now, the Remote Chance category:

• Life of Pi. Amazing film technically, but man is it boring. From what I heard, the 3D is wonderful, but a lot of Oscar voters would have seen it on DVD (or, in my case, DL), which would take away the film’s best reason to see it.

• Les Miserables: Critically panned, but it’s a Big Movie, which the academy (predominantly older voters) loves. But the film has so few fans, chances are minimal at best.

Outside chance:

• Django Unchained: Quentin Tarantino not an academy favorite, but if there’s going to be an upset, this is it. But don’t bet on it, although of the nominated films I’ve seen, this was one of the best. Too long, as usual for Tarantino, and it got stupid and typically blood-soaked at the end, but it wasn’t dull.

The winner will come from these four:

• Zero Dark Thirty: Solid war drama, but less-than patriotic with its depiction of U.S. torture. Also, a lot of it is really, really boring, and director Kathryn Bigelow won just a few years ago for The Hurt Locker. Who does she think she is, Stephen Spielberg? Speaking of which …

• Lincoln: Handsome production, historically impeccable, Stephen Spielberg directed… this is Oscar catnip. One problem: it’s incredible dull. Honestly, I didn’t make it through the whole film. I know how it ends, anyway.

• Silver Linings Playbook: Decent film, but awfully small for a best picture winner. Oscar needs something much bigger. Which leads us to our winner, or least objectionable film…

•  Argo: Entertaining as hell, but historically questionable. I liked it, but I hated the way it belittled the Canadian contribution. I hope it loses for that reason alone, but it won’t. In an extremely weak year for Oscar nominees, without a single really outstanding film, Argo will win by default.

BEST ACTOR

Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln. Don’t even have to run down the other nominees because this one’s a lock. If there’s going to be an upset — and there won’t — it would be Denzel Washington for Flight, another pretty mediocre film. But it’s Daniel Day Lewis for sure. (There was one name missing from this year’s list: Jack Black for Bernie. Seriously, Jack Black. He’s terrific in an sadly overlooked film, and both he and the film deserved Oscar nominations. Check it out.)

BEST ACTRESS

This is the best, most open, most interesting contest of the night. Only Quvenzhane Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild has no chance of winning, mainly because she’s a child who isn’t acting, just reacting to whatever the director says. You can’t possibly give the Oscar for acting to someone who knows zero about acting. Everyone else — Jessica Chastain for Zero Dark Thirty, Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook, Emmanuelle Riva for Amour, and Naomi Watts for The Impossible — could win. But, I’ll go with Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook, with the outside chance of the aged Emmanuelle Riva (the academy loves oldsters).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Also wide open. All the nominees are previous winners, so that takes away the ‘lifetime achievement award’ benefit. I think it will be Robert De Niro for Silver Linings Playbook, because he was a) very good, b) hasn’t won in years, c) he’s not playing someone named Fokker, and d) it’s Robert Freakin’ De Niro. Alternative winner: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is always nominated.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Another lock. Anne Hathaway, from what I’ve heard, emotes like crazy in Les Miserables. Alternative winner: Sally Field, but I don’t think the academy really, really likes her all that much for Lincoln. Category also contains the worst nomination of the year: Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook. I had to ask myself if this was actually the woman nominated for the Oscar, the part is so inconsequential.

DIRECTOR

Very strange category. Ben Affleck won the Director’s Guild Award, but wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. So by default, I guess, go with Spielberg for Lincoln. But David O. Russell, director of Silver Linings Playbook, directed FOUR Oscar nominated performances, so that has to count for something, doesn’t it.

FINAL PREDICTION

The show will run long, Seth McFarlane will say something incredibly crude, Skyfall will win for best song, and Best Achievement in Sound Mixing will see the largest collective bathroom break.