HOORAY for the SUN!

somebody stop the presses - we're going to make it through another year! summer is here, not a moment too soon. i liked playing catch in the park and i wanna do it again. also, i got a little colour in my face while i waited for the boys :-)

extraordinary

i love shows at the cohn. the sound is always good, the seats are comfortable, and there's a atmosphere of hope and joy in the crowd that i rarely find in a bar. people are there to hear the music, and since they bought their tickets in advance, they have been anticipating it for a while. people dress nicely and cheer loudly. it is great.

joel gave us a really great show last night. he was relaxed and excited at the same time, with an almost flawless set list, funny gord downie style stage banter, amazing guitar work, and a wicked band. the way the band came out in the middle of a song, right at the perfect moment, was worth the price of the ticket in itself.

i loved anna plaskett's french horn, but i liked it even better when she and her dad played guitar with joel and the band. i liked pete elkas - he was subtle and effective. and he shaved his beard, so he looked handsome.

i started to write down the set list, but i lost my pen at intermission, and then i lost the cash register receipt that i had been writing on. i do know that he opened with a th song (before you leave) and then played a good mix of all the albums. i went to the bathroom during true patriot love.

intermission was a bit of crystal light (why didn't anyone believe us, clairey?) and then a walk up the street for a breath of fresh air.

then the show continued in a similarly excellent fashion. it reminded me why i love joel. he wasn't stiff or pre-programmed. he played guitar like he was having the time of his life doing something he loved, rather than getting the job done. we all loved it. it was flippin' great. you would have loved it.

afterwards, we wandered around the city getting sore feet. the poutine was the highlight. yes, poutine!

the world is a pretty complicated place

By Saul Landau
Progresso Weekly

26 May to 01 June 2005 Edition

"So what did you think of China's recent economic foray into Latin America," I asked a university student.

"Huh?" she replied.

"I read something about it," said another, "but I don't remember any details."

"Why not," said a third. "They make everything I buy at Wal-Mart. So why shouldn't they invest in other places?" He shrugged, indifferent to the news. Indeed, Washington warns China over any moves on Taiwan, but has barely responded to its world wide economic initiatives.

A century ago, students might have known as little as today's unscientific sampling, but US policy planners looked to a then weak and divided China as the answer to the country's future trade and economic problems. Anxious exporters implored President William McKinley to act because "the Chinese market rightfully belongs to us," a member of the Riverside NY Republican Club told Secretary of State William Hay. This low-wage labor source and vast potential market to the east would also supposedly solve the periodic depression problem, which in 1893, shook the country's economic structure and motivated the elite to think about how expansion eastward would resolve that issue.

"Under the stimulus of a narrowing marketplace at home and widening market opportunity of an awakening China," wrote historian Thomas McCormick, "America's leadership made a conscious, purposeful, integrated effort to solve the economic crisis at home by promoting the national interest abroad." It did so "by using America's most potent weapon, economic supremacy, to begin the open door conquest of the China market" (China Market, 1967, p.19).

Indeed, in 1898, President William McKinley "took the Philippines" (not just on God's command) because they made the ideal jumping off base for future China excursions. The US kept its naval base there for 100 years, when technology no longer required refueling stops. "East Asia is the prize for which all nations are grasping," wrote Brooks Adams, John Quincy Adams' grandson.

In 2005, the weak and vulnerable "prize" that feuding Europeans had carved up for imperial aspirations at the end of the 19th and early 20th Centuries now blankets all continents with its goods - and its capital. As the "made in China" label has become ubiquitous in US department stores and on the wings of commercial airplanes, Chinese investors also bought hundreds of billions in US paper. Perhaps, some farsighted Chinese planner back then thought that the United States would be China's "prize!" Indeed, in early March a US Embassy official confided to a visiting businessman that he believed that Chinese leaders viewed the United States as a declining superpower whose time had passed and will be forced to share world power with other powerful nations, including China. To demonstrate how China's strategic position has changed in the last two decades, the Embassy official explained that China not only captured the US consumer market, but has invaded the US's traditional Latin American sphere.

He referred to two high level visits. In November 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao signed 39 commercial agreements with five Latin American nations. Chinese investments in Argentina alone totaled some $20 billion. He then made an investment trip to the Caribbean as well.

In January and February, Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong followed his boss's visit with his own entourage of officials and top business executives. During these two aggressive trips to pursue investment in strategic areas, China stepped into potentially contentious turf when they signed an accord with Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez for future Venezuelan oil and gas exploration. Zeng also offered Venezuela a $700 million credit line for new housing construction to help reduce Venezuelan poverty, ignoring US whining over Chavez's "authoritarianism."

Chavez, who won three free and fair elections in the last six years, gets stuck with the "authoritarian" label while his pro-US opponents who staged a 2002 military coup, merit the "democratic" badge. This labeling mystifies those who continue to think logically.

But Beijing's real poke in Washington's mostly blind eye came with the announcement that it would give credits to Cuba. In the globalization era, Cuba remains the exception to all rules. The Bush Administration's Latin American policy targets the "containment" of Chavez or the "punishing" of Fidel Castro, who holds the Guinness World Record for "Most Years of Disobedience." Inside sources in Cuba insist that despite forty six plus years of castigation, Fidel has yet to miss a meal or a conjugal opportunity.

Since China did not officially attach specific political language to its economic policies, official Washington ignored - or denied - the significance of China's Latin America strategy. Indeed, as the Miami Herald's Andres Oppenheimer observed, "President Hu Jintao spent more time in Latin America last year than President Bush." (February 2, 2005) "And China's vice president, Zeng Qinghong, spent more time in the region last month than his US counterpart, Vice President Dick Cheney, over the past four years."

While Bush and Cheney asked Congress to increase US indebtedness with its additional $81 billion to maintain forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, China offered more than $50 billion in investment and credits to countries inside the traditional Monroe Doctrine's shield. That sum surpasses Kennedy's highly-publicized $20 billion for a decade of the Alliance for Progress in the 1960s.

Promoting specific kinds of trade with Latin America will help meet China's wildly expanding energy demands. In 2007, the CIA estimated, China will import 50 percent of its oil. China also needs primary resources and food as it moves into the number two spot in world economy sizing.

When Chinese leaders showed up in capital-hungry Latin America with billions in their suitcases, it showed that they had thought about their country's future even as US imperial officials trivialize their crises to justify drilling for oil in the Alaska wilderness or show their concern for future human life by force feeding a brain dead woman in Florida.

As US dependency on foreign oil grows and the price of crude hovers in the mid $50s, the Chinese might maneuver themselves into a position to actually sell some of that viscous substance to the United States - long before the Alaska drilling results in a drop of crude prices, China's new investments have targeted oil, gas and minerals, signs that the Chinese pursue strategic and market rather than simple profit designs.

China already operates two Venezuelan oil fields and after signing a January agreement in Caracas, China will also begin developing other fields - seemingly in decline - in eastern Venezuela. China also agreed to buy 120,000 barrels of oil a month and build an additional fuel producing facility. Venezuelan officials announced that they expect trade with China to reach $3 billion in 2005, more than double 2004. And - hold onto your hats, Castro haters in the Bush Administration - a huge Chinese oil company will begin searching for potential oil fields off the Cuban coast.

Why did Chinese leaders choose late 2004 and early 2005 to make their whirlwind spending tour of several Latin American nations? First, they may well have noticed that Latin American governments no longer race to sign onto the US-backed Free Trade of the Americas agreement as they did previously to NAFTA in the 1990s. Because the free-trade-free-market model failed to perform as predicted - in Argentina it led to bankruptcy - governments that question Washington's economic model now sit in Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba; Bolivia and Ecuador may be next. Indeed, if the radical populist Mexico City Mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador succeeds in winning the 2006 Mexican presidential election - he is currently the leading contender - US-sponsored trade agreements may all be doomed.

Second, the petroleum mavens don't expect supply to rise above demand in the near future. So, given this climate, China's gaining access to oil and gas sources in the US backyard has flustered the Bushies, who remain preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran and their religious commitment to change social security, execute underage murderers, stop legal abortion and rescue the brain dead. Is it hard for the Bushies to see the world strategic big picture while they mobilize around family values and religious issues?

For more than a century, US policy planners have produced wonderful schemes for informal empire. Just as the China star shined in the eyes of late 19th Century policy intellectuals, a group of late twentieth century, mostly Jewish neo cons and anti-Semitic Soldiers of God decided to restructure the Middle East in the name of God, Israel and the free market. One group used the concept of advancing freedom, the other of advancing Rapture.

This kind of ethereally based transcendent thinking, however, often falls short of details - as the invasion of Iraq has shown. Neither the neo cons nor their strange Christian bedfellows have evinced much concern about the approximately 100,000-plus Iraqi civilians who have died in the post March 2003 US invasion. But the 1,600 US and British soldiers who have also perished causes serious political fallout. Iraq was destroyed. The Iraqi oil profits that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank president to be) predicted would pay for the whole invasion have not materialized. No one in the Bush Administration seemed overly upset over the destruction of a country or over their calculated devastation of international law and the UN.

Ironically, US planners casually discarded the very order and law they had imposed on the world sixty years earlier. Bush's invasion of Iraq nullified both the Nuremberg laws that outlawed aggressive or pre-emptive war and, by bypassing the United Nations Security Council, the UN's important function: the exclusive right to make war.

The neo cons and their Christian counterparts wanted US leaders to take unqualified command again, as they did in 1945. They dismissed as inconsequential the massive changes that had occurred during the six intervening decades. In those heady post war days, the United States possessed 55% of the world's manufacturing capacity, a wildly growing economy and a monopoly over atomic weapons. The disastrous war had sapped the juice from the other imperial nations. The Soviet Union didn't loom as a threat. Victorious on the battlefield, the Soviets were also deeply crippled: fifty plus million dead and wounded, 200 cities destroyed, no food, no boots for the soldiers.

US planners also projected that their corrupt, puppet regime of Chang Kai Shek could hold out against the encroaching red armies of Mao Tse Tung. By October 1949, Chiang had lost his ability to attract even the support of dishonest. So much for planning!

Washington told its cooperating allies - including the newly vanquished Germany and Japan - that they should prosper as good albeit junior trading partners and sources and sites of investment, but not to the point of becoming rivals. For nations emerging from colonial rule, the US had no realistic plans. But the crippled Soviets kept preaching "revolution," a word that gained resonance in the countries that came to be known as the third world. And movements in those emerging nations threatened to disturb the new order that US leaders had placed upon the world.

The problem with their plans derived from their inability to predict the dynamism of third world anti colonialism. Instead of supporting de-colonization, the United States played an ambiguous role, supporting the idea but not the practice of "free nations." For example, by not recognizing the Ho Chi Minh-led Republic of Vietnam - which declared independence in August 1945 - Washington helped France retake its former colony.

The most important revolution, however, occurred in China. In 1949, the Chinese Communists led their people to overthrow western colonialism, tossing the United States out of the very place that 19th Century planners had staked their hopes for the future.

Now, China apparently sees its future in the US market and in its previously shielded sphere of Latin America. Thirty five years ago, China remained "unrecognized" by the United States and most of its lackey governments in Latin America. In 1975, Chinese trade with the region amounted to $200 million; in 2004, over $40 billion. China has become one of the foremost players in the era of globalization, which US leaders promoted without considering that China might avail itself of this opportunity to move into previously sacrosanct US spheres - like Latin America.

While government leaders silently wring their hands in frustration over China's capital moves into "our backyard," some journalists spoke directly about the meaning of China's investment invasion of US clients. China is "nurturing alliances with many developing countries to solidify its position in the World Trade Organization, flex its muscles on the world stage and act as a counterbalance to US power," opined Gary Marx (Chicago Tribune December 20, 2004).

Caribbean Council director David Jessop (Week In Europe, February 6) said the Chinese moves into Latin American "suggest the emergence of a global order in which the countries of the South begin to forge new alliances based on a very different perception of the world."

"Beijing is attempting to throw an economic spear into the heart of the Monroe Doctrine," commented Anthony Gancarski (FrontPageMagazine.com, January 20, 2005). He warned that "Failure to do something about that will be interpreted as a sign of America's loss of mettle - and of vulnerability."

Indeed, China has succeeded in forcing an Open Door policy on the United States, one similar to that fashioned in 1898 by Secretary of State Hay. China's leaders now say implicitly to Washington what Acting Secretary of State Edwin Uhl wrote to the US Minister in China in 1895: "This country will expect equal and liberal trading advantages..."

Now China expects the United States to offer it "equal and liberal trading advantages," even with governments that Washington has placed on the official black hat list. Senator Richard Lugar (R- IN), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, worried about the contradictions that arose from Venezuela's new deals with China. Like other prudent and truly conservative Republicans, Lugar wonders whether Bush's aggressive anti-Chavez rhetoric and actions might lead Venezuela to retaliate and cut the US off from its oil supply. After all, China will pick up the purchase slack!

"For years and years, the hemisphere has been a low priority for the US," said an aide to Lugar, "and the Chinese are taking advantage of it. They're taking advantage of the fact that we don't care as much as we should about Latin America." (New York Times, March 1, 2005)

Likewise, China has undercut Washington's policy of starving Cuba from resources. Chinese leaders pledged large investment credits for Cuban nickel.

Beijing thus befriends US enemies, Chavez and Castro, as US prestige slips in its own "backyard." It has used the "open door" ploy against the United States in Latin America as the US once used it against Europe to get at Chinese resources and labor. Hey, doesn't globalization mean that all's fair in the game of trade?

Landau teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University and is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

press: um, hello, white house? you win.

how good are the media handlers at the white house? it blows my mind how they keep journalists in line. it is impressive! there is no such thing as a negative story and if one slips by, it gets retracted! even if it's true! i bet the pr dudes work pretty long hours, and have a few grey hairs but still, they should be very proud. they are very very good at their jobs. they really get their message out there.

*small criticism*
i just wish that they could just work a little harder at getting rid of the seams in their work. when the seams are visible, i see them, and it bugs me. if they'd just work a little harder at this, maybe i could believe them and i'd sleep a lot better.

i am not for sale. (rent negotiable)

i am so tired of being broke. i know that i am wealthy compared to most people but that is relativist, and i am not in the mood for relativity. the guy at the bank said he was worried about my net worth. really? me too! i want to fix it, but i don't know how to do it without changing my life. i like my life and don't want to change it for money. the thought of it makes me feel cheap and sad.

why am i broke? i'm bad with money. i like to give money away. it makes me feel good. i also like spending money, especially on food and travel and books and clothes. the food and travel are nonpermanent, and the books and clothes are semipermanent. i don't care. it's what i like. i also like parties and presents and music and booze. i am a grasshopper.

i've read that if you are bad with money, it means that you don't respect money. yup, that's me. i think that people who love money are tools and that people who sock their money away in investments to get wealthy are greedy and desperate. there is something ghoulish/predatory about wealth building that makes me feel very superior about my lack of rrsps. that being said, i have a horrible symbiotic relationship with the investor class. i need these people to put their money in the bank so that i can borrow it and spend it and pay it back with interest in a never ending cycle.

so i will always be broke unless i earn a barrel of money.

i know. i said that i didn't want to change my life for money. well, i'm in the process of changing my life and i'm not doing it for money. (one of the side effects of my choice is a good paycheck.) i will be an indentured servant for a while. i have almost reconciled myself to this loss of freedom. i'm doing this because i am through with second guessing myself. it is something i can do, and so i'm doing it. the door was open for a long time. now it's closed. there're a lot of doors in the world, and i'm finally ready to explore something other than my own belly button. and i won't lie. the paycheck will be nice.

okay, mr. banker. you are worried about my net worth. right now i am a bad bet, i agree. but what about my future? i am not completely incompetent. i have a plan. i am only 30. i am going into a three year program that will make me a valuable employee. i have two school age children and don't plan on ever taking maternity leave again. i'm just going to work hard at a pretty lucrative career. my husband already has a good job. also, i bought a house when i was 24, and it has more than doubled in value. don't be a short-sighted wanker. invest in me! get in on the ground floor of something good.

for my part i will try hard to see you as a tragic wish-i-was-a-dancer cog in the machine, rather than a grim and scheming dollar hungry creep.

yup, that's right.

fueling america

FUELING AMERICA/China moves fast to claim oil sands /Although Chinese holdings in Alberta are still small, they are a foothold on the North American continent as the U.S. rival seeks to develop energy sources worldwide to boost its rapidly growing economy
- Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, May 22, 2005

Calgary, Alberta -- If Americans think the oil sands bonanza in their northern backyard will solely benefit the United States, they may be surprised. Chinese officials are making fast inroads into Alberta, snapping up petroleum deals with the skill of Texas oilmen.

While the deals involved are still relatively small, analysts say China's booming, oil-starved economy could eventually become a significant player in the oil sands.

Last month, two Chinese oil companies announced deals for Alberta oil sands.

China National Offshore Oil Corp. bought a $150 million share in oil sands producer MEG Energy Corp. And PetroChina Co. signed a memorandum of understanding with Enbridge Inc. for half of the supply on the proposed $2 billion Gateway pipeline, which will move 400,000 barrels per day from Alberta to the port at Prince Rupert in British Columbia.

Hou Hongbin, a vice president of Sinopec, predicted his company would soon announce a "much bigger" deal for oil sands.

China's interest in the oil sands comes only a few months after China National Offshore Oil lost a close bidding race with Chevron Corp. to acquire Unocal Corp.

"The Chinese have come to nearly every skyscraper in Calgary, and they ask very probing, intelligent questions," said Roland George, an analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Calgary. "They are in this for the long haul."

Hou, the Sinopec executive, said that Canada is a key link in China's attempts to diversify its oil supplies. "The more sources of import, the more safe" those supplies are, he said during a recent visit to Calgary, Canada's oil industry capital.

"We are looking for profitable projects," which could include everything from minority stakes to full ownership of oil sands companies, he added.

The Bush administration, which has tried to curb Chinese influence around the globe, is concerned about China's inroads in Canada.

"I've had a number of calls from U.S. officials, who assumed that the next 3 billion barrels per day will go to the United States," said Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

"They ask me, 'What's going on? Should we be concerned?' And I tell them they shouldn't worry, but their concern is understandable."

Canadian officials play down China's potential role. "The market itself, not politics, will determine the future of the oil sands," said George Anderson, deputy minister of natural resources. "And market conditions -- including transportation costs and the proximity to the United States -- mean Canada will continue to be a major U.S. supplier."

Some analysts in Washington say the administration needs to act to prevent China from grabbing up the oil sands.

"The oil sands are a huge part of our energy future, but we can't take them for granted," said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. "The Chinese are scouring the globe for oil, and we need to make sure that we don't lose the race in our own backyard."

The Canadian press has been somewhat gleefully saying that Americans may be getting their comeuppance for paying Canada insufficient attention.

"There is a chess game going on involving the oil sands between the Chinese and the Americans -- with the Americans yet to make a move beyond what they already have in place," Deborah Yedlin, a business columnist for the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest-circulation daily newspaper, wrote recently.

"The Chinese, on the other hand, appear to be methodically staking out their territory."

dammit, i'm still a veggie. (the chicken just tasted so good!)

The Essay
Where's the Beef?
The author might have forgotten why she's a vegetarian—but don't ask her to quit now
by Sloane Crosley
May 23rd, 2005 3:55 PM

I am not a very good vegetarian anymore. There, I said it. Sure, I still like to veg out. Be still like vegetables. Lay like broccoli. But I used to be an exemplary vegetarian. A few years ago The New Yorker ran a cartoon of one woman explaining to another during a meal: "I started my vegetarianism for health reasons, then it became a moral choice, and now it's just to annoy people." Four people sent me that cartoon, including my parents. Who faxed it to me. At work. I grew to accept that my refusal to eat anything that once had the will to crap was funny for others. As part of my acceptance, I had to laugh at veggie jokes that were never very funny. The upside was I got to have (vegetable) stock answers prepared for queries about my diet.
For example: Most of your shoes are made of leather or suede. Why is that?

"Because I'm not going to eat my boots, that's why. There's a big difference between stepping on something and making it a part of you. I'm not going to eat sidewalk either."

What do you mean "no meat"? No chicken? No lobster?

"Just venison."

The problem now is I'm not sure I have the right to slyly defend myself in this manner, not anymore. What follows is a roughage exposé, if you will.

The first thing to understand is that being a vegetarian is actually a pretty private matter. I am still taken aback by the question "Then what do you eat?" and am embarrassed as I struggle to produce the week's food diary. It's not that I'm ashamed of what I eat, but it's none of anyone's business. I imagine I would have a similar feeling counting up how many pairs of underwear I went through in a week (OK, nine). It's strange to be interested in something so basic that I barely register it as an activity. The only reason opening someone's refrigerator is more socially acceptable than opening someone's medicine cabinet is that people keep beer in their refrigerator. (And what's really socially unacceptable is drinking alone.)

In this way—something once between a select few now coming out of the freezer—being a vegetarian in this city is not unlike being gay. Vegetarian restaurants and options abound. I have the same number of veggie friends as I do gay friends. Because it's so common and sometimes even hip to be a vegetarian, it's become socially acceptable to poke fun of us. Being a vegan, of course, is more like the dietary equivalent of being a transsexual. Acceptance isn't quite as contagious as it should be.

I tried being a vegan once. Six months of tempeh and kale and I cracked like a rice cake and inhaled an entire box of fluorescent mac and cheese. It was just too hard for me to keep up the charade of a dairy-free existence. The surprising part was how easy veganism was to enter into. You read enough books that make The Jungle Book look like Goodnight, Moon and you wake up one day to find yourself a recycled-paper-card-carrying member of the tofu mafia. And I knew which books to read, all right.

My own private Idaho potato went like this: When I was a teenager a renowned South African acupuncturist moved in next door to my parents. He and his wife (who pronounces lime like lamb, thus leading to the infamous pie recipe debacle) are still the hippest couple my parents know and single-handedly responsible for introducing them to Whole Foods and the Fugees. One day I told the acupuncturist I wanted to be a vegetarian. I wish I could remember why I wanted to stop eating meat, but this was high school and I also wish I could remember my motivation for drinking Zima and wearing flannel in public. I met with a nutritionist in the acupuncturist's office on Fifth Avenue. She took my whim far more seriously than I did. She talked about tahini, how to cook vegetables properly, and the semi-apocalyptic idea that you could soak almonds for days to make "milk." That I never tried. But I did buy a cookbook called The Single Vegan, not because I was single at the time but because this was the only vegan cookbook available. Looking back, I should have taken it as a cosmic hint to be less of a high-maintenance eater—the soy cheese always stands alone. Instead I saw myself as this nutritionist woman saw me: a power vegan. I juiced things. Lots of things.

For a while anyway. Damn you, delicious powdered cheese.

So that's my story of how I became a veggie—because I couldn't hack it as a vegan. Except the problem now is I can't hack it as a vegetarian either. What can I say? New York is sushi city, and sushi is the one thing I've consistently craved over the past decade (besides the secret craving of every vegetarian: bacon). My education about the moral and environmental impact of eating meat is thorough, but my response to all the statistics has developed a major fissure called "sashimi." At first I started with gateway fish: salmon and tuna. I think it's because when I pictured them, they were in massive schools where, going against the current of every crunchy article I had ever believed in, I reasoned: Would they really miss just one? Probably more convenient with one less car on the road. And wham: Now I'll eat eel.

In my lame defense, it's very hard to be a girl and say you won't eat something. Refuse one plate of bacon-wrapped pork rinds and you're an anorexic. Accept them and you're on Atkins. Excuse yourself to go to the bathroom and you're bulimic. Best to keep perfectly still and bring an IV of fluids with you to dinner.

I tell other vegetarians that I started eating sushi because I developed an iron deficiency. This is a total lie. But it's a lie that works. Contrary to popular belief, vegetarians aren't holistic Nazis or New Yorker cartoons. They will accept medical betrayal. What they won't accept is that I got lazy, that I decided fish were yummy and didn't have nervous systems complex enough to register pain, that Edward Furlong is a freak for trying to free the lobsters and David Foster Wallace thinks too hard about our aquaintances of the sea.

So what's to become of me now? Like anything that begins on the fringe, vegetarianism is dominated by older adherents who will kick you out of the veggie club faster than you can say "grilled vegetable terrine." With raw and organic food available in every zip code, we have it easy compared to them. Back in their day they had to walk five miles, uphill both ways, until their Birkenstocks were bloody, just to get a slice of polenta. They are quick to judge and would rather break bread with a veal eater than a nouveau fad vegetarian. I eat with the fishes so life is easy for me all of a sudden. Thus I have kept my mouth shut about my dirty sushi secret until now.

The truth is I'm not particularly sure why I don't eat meat anymore. Any well-educated carnivore could easily thrash me in a debate on the subject—but not dissuade me. Meat (cows, pigs, Bambi) is the final frontier and I can't bring myself to cross it. Alas, I will continue to attend weddings where I have to politely pull the waiter aside and explain my situation. Without fail the exact same plate returns 10 minutes later—a couple of string beans rolling in the juicy outline of a steak. Yes, my proclivity for the chickpea has staying power. And why? Habit. Habit and a penchant for snarky anti-carnivore comebacks.

Except now I have to be careful not to make them in the company of hardcore vegetarians. I still consider myself a vegetarian, but after this little confession the tofu mafia will cast me out. It's more acceptable to tailor your own religion (see this first-date classic: "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in something bigger than 'us' ") than it is to tailor your own vegetarianism. My one hope is that if vegetarianism really is some urban faith, this is me throwing my hearts and my palms together and renewing my vows to vegetables. The words are secondary to the sentiment. Praise be to wheatgrass. Artichoke me with okra and baptize me in beet juice. Juices saves.

That's what counts, right? It better be . . . or else my fellow vegetarians will eat me alive for it.

greetings

greetings, originally uploaded by slo___mo.

several sheets to the wind

thank ypu paul and dirty darryl for starting the night off right
thank you pete for the smokes and mfor moving to ns - you better call me, because i forget to get your #
thank you benn for the tequila and for the wicked dancing
thank you jess for the gin and for the laughs
thank you jon epworth for the tunes that made me so 'appy and the ggood times encores although they led me astray

and thank you dillie for being born and for letting me celebrate with you -




good times, and more to come.

happy birthday, big boy!

1104_vader, originally uploaded by slo___mo.

i used to be insecure because i thought that you loved playing with your toys more than you loved playing with me...

it's apples and oranges, though, isn't it?

although the world is more complicated than the dark side vs. the light side, i know that it's still sometimes fun/comforting/whatever to pretend there's no such thing as grey. oh, and you're awesome. and i love you. and (just because i love you) MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.

Don't Blame Newsweek

Don't Blame Newsweek
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on May 17, 2005, Printed on May 18, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22026/

As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

The reports kept coming: Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ... " said the released prisoner.

On Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.

"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.

"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.

"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."

The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."

So where does all this leave us? With a story that is not only true, but previously reported numerous times. So let's drop the "Lynch Newsweek" bull. Seventeen people have died in these riots. They didn't die because of anything Newsweek did -- the riots were caused by what our government has done.

Get your minds around it. Our country is guilty of torture. To quote myself once more: "What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own this country, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elected to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them."

Molly Ivins is a best-selling author and columnist who writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

my very own lawn sign

lawnsign, originally uploaded by slo___mo.

courtesy of:
http://www.katewerk.com/sign/lawnsign.html
+and+
http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?t=27503

WHEN AM I GOING TO DIE? now i know.

WHEN AM I GOING TO DIE?

According to our calculations, your estimated life span is:

85.76 years


Please note that we are not fortune tellers and can't look into your future. However, certain factors such as smoking, drinking, exercise and the foods you eat have been proven to have a negative or positive impact on life expectancy.

If you are unhappy with your results, try the tool again and think about the lifestyle changes you may need to make in order to live a long and healthy life.

Take me to the next tool:
You need money to live comfortably.How much will I need?

do i really want to be an investor?

Plato's Republic, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and Socially Responsible Investing

by Doug Hudson

In Plato's Republic, there is the story of Gyges, a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia, who discovered a ring that made him invisible. He arranged to become a messenger to the King, and using his invisible ring, seduced the queen, murdered the king and seized the throne.

So the argument ensued amongst Plato's followers about the nature of man. Would a normally just man, given the opportunity, do what Gyges did? Glaucon, one of Plato's students argued this " For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice....."

Is Glaucon right? Let's look at more recent history:

Take for example a recent case where an automobile manufacturer knew of a deadly design flaw in one of their models. This flaw would have cost several hundred dollars to correct, but the company chose not to do so. They ended up paying one of the largest fines awarded by an American court as a result of a lawsuit brought against them by their victim's families.
A sports shoe manufacturer was accused of using child labour to make their shoes. A company can pay Michael Jordan millions of dollars to wear their shoes but if the general public discovers that his shoes were manufactured by children who should be in school, what happens to the corporate image?
What about the tobacco companies adding nicotine to cigarettes in order to make them more addictive? Consider the lawsuits that are being brought against the tobacco companies by many states and some provinces. Many of these companies, realizing that tobacco may not be the cash cow that it once was, are moving into more profitable sectors of the economy.
These are examples of where corporations have attempted to act like Plato's Gyges, got found out, and had a hefty bill to pay in terms of fines, loss of revenue, and loss of reputation. Men may believe in their hearts that injustice is more profitable than justice, but when justice finally catches up - ooh what a price to pay!

I don't think that the hearts of men have changed one bit since Plato's time. There have always been those who are incorruptible, those who are motivated by an insatiable thirst for greed and power, and the majority who are somewhere in between. I would wager that we are no better nor worse than society back then. It's just harder to be invisible.

There is one thing that has changed, we certainly are economically better off than most people were 2,000 years ago. Being economically better off, we are afforded the luxury of expanding in different directions. It's at this time that I would like to introduce Dr. Abraham Maslow who is no stranger to students of psychology.

Dr. Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) was a well-known psychologist, professor, and author whose research into the field of human motivation led to what is known as "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs". Many consider him to be the founder of modern humanistic psychology.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

1) Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.;
2) Safety/security: out of danger;
3) Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and
4) Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.

These needs can be summarized into two categories: 1) deficiency needs, and 2) growth needs. Essentially, according to Maslow, it is only when our deficiency needs are satisfied, that we can then begin to look at our growth needs.

For many of us, a comfortable retirement means firstly, looking after ourselves physically, and having enough money set aside so that we won't starve, freeze, or have to live off the general public. This is very important and has to be addressed by each and every one of us. As for items 3 and 4 on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I'm not sure that money can buy you love and acceptance, but I'm convinced that the lack of money might cause some misery.

Investing means giving up current consumption for supposedly greater future consumption. We hope that by putting aside some money that might otherwise go into creature comforts today, we might just be in a position to look after ourselves at a later point in life.

As investors we find ourselves in a dilemma. As children we were told that the good guy always wins. As adults, we have seen too many cases where the opposite was true. Our experience tells us that Glaucon is right - ' injustice is more profitable than justice'. For many years, the most profitable corporations were the ones that acted like Plato's Gyges.

On the other hand, this little thing inside us called a conscience starts to itch. You tie up your runners to go for your morning jog and you can't help wondering what tiny little hands, so much like your own children's, may have stitched these shoes together. Or you think about Uncle Joe, who tried so hard all of his life to quit smoking and who died of respiratory problems.

Then you open up your mutual fund financial statements, only to see that companies involved in child labour, the tobacco industry, the arms trade, etc., all figure predominantly in the top ten fund holdings.

What do you do?

Well the good news is that it is getting harder and harder for corporations to act irresponsibly with regards to the environment, working conditions and other areas of social concern. The corporate ring of invisibility doesn't work any more. Corporate directors are being hauled into court and in some cases thrown in jail for things that they could have gotten away with 30 years ago.

Many investors want to look after their physical, security, safety and comfort needs but not at the expense of the environment or as the result of child labour. They have made a conscious decision to avoid investing in companies that sell firearms, tobacco, alcohol, promote gambling, have a poor environmental record, unsafe working conditions or make use of child labour.

Is it possible to invest in mutual funds that avoid these industries and still have a decent return on investment? Let's look at some examples. Before I do that, I have to add that there are not a lot of mutual fund companies that use socially responsible investing as a criteria for selection in their funds in Canada. Unfortunately we do not have many examples to choose from. In fact, I believe that there is only one fund family in Canada that uses such criteria for all of their funds.

The Ethical Funds family of funds is one such example. If we look at their North American fund, like many funds, as at December 31st, 2000, it is down 19.39% from where it was 12 months ago. Despite this, the 3year return is 14.99%, the 5year return is 21.19%, and the 10 year return is 17.14%. This fund has out-performed the S&P 500 composite index over several reporting periods. Wouldn't you agree that a 17.14% return goes a long way towards satisfying Maslow's deficiency needs? There is an RRSP eligible version of this fund as well.

Many investors are not so much concerned about fantastic returns as they are about preservation of capital. The Ethical Growth Fund has 1, 3, 5, and 10 year returns that do not out-perform the TSE 300 composite index. However over the last 6 months, when the TSE dropped 11.88%, this fund only dropped 2.92%. It has still has a five year return of 10.14% and a beta (measure of risk) that is almost half that of the TSE.

In all fairness to other Canadian Mutual Fund companies, there are many funds where socially responsible investing isn't necessarily the focus the fund, but where the fund manager simply doesn't invest in companies with poor social and environmental records. Some fund companies have one or more socially responsible funds in their fund family. In this group you will find funds that have done very well proving that you don't have to sacrifice your ideals to get a decent return.

Yahoo 'Web Beacons'

Yahoo 'Web Beacons'
Spy On And Track Yahoo Users!
From Anonymous
5-15-5

Yahoo tracks all of its users everywhere on the web and the way to opt-out is detailed below. If you have a Yahoo e-mail account or belong to one of Yahoo's many Yahoo groups, this probably applies to you. Yahoo has probably been tracking everything you do online. Follow the instructions precisely to opt out of this. Notice the important part at the very end.

"Yahoo is now using something called 'Web Beacons' to track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what you're doing and where you are going similar to cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every group you visit.

Take a look at their updated privacy statement:

http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy

About half-way down the page, in the section on cookies, you will see a link that says web beacons. Click on the phrase web beacons.

http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/beacons/details.html

That will bring you to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network."

In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new method of snooping.

Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted. Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next page. Be careful because on that page there is a "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will **undo** the opt-out. So don't reflexively click that button, or you will undo the opt-out ! Feel free to forward this to other groups."

just kidding

is freud right? are there are no jokes? do we use humour to convey beliefs/opinions/judgments? and when we laugh, what does that mean?

when you need a change...

you can always change your name, with anagram suggestions courtesy of www.wordsmith.org. i especially like american cloy, cocaine mylar, anemia calory and malice crayon!

ACCLAIMER YON
ACCLAIM ORNEY
MACARONIC LEY
MACARONIC ELY
MACARONIC LYE
CARCINOMA LEY
CARCINOMA ELY
CARCINOMA LYE
CYCLORAMA EIN
CAMELIA CORNY
CAMELIA CRONY
CINERAMA CLOY
AMERICAN CLOY
MARCIA CONLEY
MARCIA CEYLON
CRANIA COMELY
CAYMAN RECOIL
ARMENIA CYCLO
ROMANIA CYCLE
MARIA CYCLONE
ANOMALY CIRCE
LAYMAN CICERO
MALAY CORNICE
CALCINE MORAY
CALCINE MAYOR
OCEANIC MYLAR
COCAINE MYLAR
COMICAL YEARN
LACONIC MAYER
CONICAL MAYER
ACRONYMIC LEA
ACRONYMIC ALE
CYANIC MORALE
CIRCA MALONEY
OCCAM INLAYER
CELIA ACRONYM
ALICE ACRONYM
MALICE CRAYON
CAROLINE YMCA
CORNELIA YMCA
ICEMAN CALORY
CINEMA CALORY
ANEMIC CALORY
ANOMERIC LACY
ANOMERIC ACYL
ANOMERIC CLAY
ALEC ACRIMONY
LACE ACRIMONY
CREAMY OILCAN
CREAMY ALNICO

"What you think about, you begin to feel. What you feel generates what you do. And what you do creates how you will become."

Why Friday the 13th Is Unlucky
From David Emery,Your Guide to Urban Legends and Folklore.

Paraskevidekatriaphobia: Fear of Friday the 13th
I have before me the abstract of a study published in the British Medical Journal in 1993 entitled "Is Friday the 13th Bad for Your Health?" With the aim of mapping "the relation between health, behaviour, and superstition surrounding Friday 13th in the United Kingdom," its authors compared the ratio of traffic volume to vehicular accidents on two different days, Friday the 6th and Friday the 13th, over a period of years.
Interestingly, they found that in the region sampled, while consistently fewer people chose to drive on Friday the 13th, the number of hospital admissions due to accidents was significantly higher than on "normal" Fridays.

Their conclusion:

"Friday 13th is unlucky for some. The risk of hospital admission as a result of a transport accident may be increased by as much as 52 percent. Staying at home is recommended."

Paraskevidekatriaphobics — people afflicted with a morbid, irrational fear of Friday the 13th — are no doubt pricking up their ears just now, buoyed by evidence that their terror may not be so irrational after all. But it's unwise to take solace in a single scientific study (the only one of its kind, so far as I know), especially one so peculiar. I suspect it has more to teach us about human psychology than it does about any particular date on the calendar.

The Most Widespread Superstition

The sixth day of the week and the number 13 both have foreboding reputations said to date from ancient times. Their inevitable conjunction from one to three times a year portends more misfortune than some credulous minds can bear. Folklorists say it's probably the most widespread superstition in the United States: some people won't go to work on Friday the 13th; some won't eat in restaurants; many wouldn't think of setting a wedding on the date.

How many Americans at the turn of the millennium still suffer from this condition? According to Dr. Donald Dossey, a psychotherapist specializing in the treatment of phobias and coiner of the term "paraskevidekatriaphobia," the figure may be as high as 21 million. If he's right, eight percent of Americans are still in the grips of a very old superstition.

Exactly how old is difficult to say, because determining the origins of superstitions is an imprecise science, at best. In fact, it's mostly guesswork.

The Devil's Dozen
It is said: If 13 people sit down to dinner together, all will die within the year. The Turks so disliked the number 13 that it was practically expunged from their vocabulary (Brewer, 1894). Many cities do not have a 13th Street or a 13th Avenue. Many buildings don't have a 13th floor. If you have 13 letters in your name, you will have the devil's luck (Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Bundy and Albert De Salvo all have 13 letters in their names). There are 13 witches in a coven.
Though no one can say for sure when and why human beings first associated the number 13 with misfortune, the belief is assumed to be quite old and there exist any number of theories purporting to trace its origins to antiquity and beyond.

It has been proposed, for example, that fears surrounding the number 13 are as ancient as the act of counting. Primitive man had only his 10 fingers and two feet to represent units, so he could not count higher than 12, according to this explanation. What lay beyond that — 13 — was an impenetrable mystery, hence an object of superstition.

Which has a lovely, didactic ring to it, but one is left wondering: did primitive man not have toes?

Despite whatever terrors the numerical unknown held for their prehistoric forebears, ancient civilizations weren't unanimous in their dread of 13. The Chinese regarded the number as lucky, some commentators say, as did the Egyptians in the time of the pharaohs.

To the ancient Egyptians, we are told, life was a quest for spiritual ascension which unfolded in stages — 12 in this life and a 13th beyond, thought to be the eternal afterlife. The number 13 therefore symbolized death — not in terms of dust and decay, but as a glorious and desirable transformation. Though Egyptian civilization perished, the death symbolism they conferred on the number 13 survived, only to be corrupted by later cultures who associated it with a fear of death instead of a reverence for the afterlife.

Anathema

Other sources suggest the number 13 was purposely vilified by the founders of patriarchal religions in the early days of western civilization because it represented femininity. Thirteen had been revered in prehistoric goddess-worshiping cultures, allegedly, because it corresponded to the number of lunar (menstrual) cycles in a year (13 x 28 = 364 days). The "Earth Mother of Laussel," for example, a 27,000-year-old carving found near the Lascaux caves in France often cited as an icon of matriarchal spirituality, depicts a female figure holding a cresent-shaped horn bearing 13 notches. According to this theory, as the solar calendar triumphed over the lunar with the rise of male-dominated civilization, so did the number 12 over the number 13, thereafter considered anathema.

On the other hand, one of the earliest concrete taboos associated with the number 13 — a taboo still observed by some superstitious folks today, apparently — is said to have originated in the East with the Hindus, who believed, for reasons I haven't been able to ascertain, that it is always unlucky for 13 people to gather in one place — say, at dinner. Interestingly enough, exactly the same superstition has been attributed to the ancient Vikings, though I have also been told that this and the accompanying mythological explanation are apocryphal. In any case, the story has been handed down as follows:

Loki, the Evil One

Twelve gods were invited to a banquet at Valhalla. Loki, the Evil One, god of mischief, had been excluded from the guest list but crashed the party anyway, bringing the total number of attendees to 13. True to character, Loki raised hell by inciting Hod, the blind god of winter, to attack Balder the Good, who was a favorite of the gods. Hod took a spear of mistletoe offered by Loki and obediently hurled it at Balder, killing him instantly. All Valhalla grieved. And although one might take the moral of this story to be "Beware of uninvited guests bearing mistletoe," the Norse themselves apparently concluded that 13 people at a dinner party is just plain bad luck.

As if to prove the point, the Bible tells us there were exactly 13 present at the Last Supper. One of the dinner guests — er, disciples — betrayed Jesus Christ, setting the stage for the Crucifixion.

Did I mention the Crucifixion took place on a Friday?

Bad Friday
It is said: Never change your bed on Friday; it will bring bad dreams. Don't start a trip on Friday or you will have misfortune. If you cut your nails on Friday, you cut them for sorrow. Ships that set sail on a Friday will have bad luck – as in the tale of H.M.S. Friday ... One hundred years ago, the British government sought to quell once and for all the widespread superstition among seamen that setting sail on Fridays was unlucky. A special ship was commissioned, named "H.M.S. Friday." They laid her keel on a Friday, launched her on a Friday, selected her crew on a Friday and hired a man named Jim Friday to be her captain. To top it off, H.M.S. Friday embarked on her maiden voyage on a Friday, and was never seen or heard from again.
Some say Friday's bad reputation goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. It was on a Friday, supposedly, that Eve tempted Adam with the forbidden fruit. Adam bit, as we all learned in Sunday School, and they were both ejected from Paradise. Tradition also holds that the Great Flood began on a Friday; God tongue-tied the builders of the Tower of Babel on a Friday; the Temple of Solomon was destroyed on a Friday; and, of course, Friday was the day of the week on which Christ was crucified. It is therefore a day of penance for Christians.

In pagan Rome, Friday was execution day (later Hangman's Day in Britain), but in other pre-Christian cultures it was the sabbath, a day of worship, so those who indulged in secular or self-interested activities on that day could not expect to receive blessings from the gods — which may explain the lingering taboo on embarking on journeys or starting important projects on Fridays.

To complicate matters, these pagan associations were not lost on the early Church, which went to great lengths to suppress them. If Friday was a holy day for heathens, it must not be so for Christians — thus it became known in the Middle Ages as the "Witches' Sabbath," and thereby hangs another tale.

The Witch-Goddess

The name "Friday" came from a Norse deity worshipped on the sixth day, known either as Frigg (goddess of marriage and fertility), or Freya (goddess of sex and fertility), or both, the two figures having become intertwined in the handing-down of myths over time (the etymology of "Friday" has been given both ways). Frigg/Freya corresponded to Venus, the goddess of love of the Romans, who named the sixth day of the week in her honor "dies Veneris."

Friday was actually considered quite lucky by pre-Christian Teutonic peoples, we are told — especially as a day to get married — because of its traditional association with love and fertility. All that changed when Christianity came along. The goddess of the sixth day — most likely Freya in this context, given that the cat was her sacred animal — was recast in post-pagan folklore as a witch, and her day became associated with evil doings.

Various legends developed in that vein, but one is of particular interest: As the story goes, the witches of the north used to observe their sabbath by gathering in a cemetery in the dark of the moon. On one such occasion the Friday goddess, Freya herself, came down from her sanctuary in the mountaintops and appeared before the group, who numbered only 12 at the time, and gave them one of her cats, after which the witches' coven — and, by tradition, every properly-formed coven since — comprised exactly 13.

The Unluckiest Day of All
The astute reader will have noted that while we have thus far insinuated any number of possible connections between events, practices and beliefs attributed to ancient cultures and the superstitious fear of Fridays and the number 13, we have yet to explain how, why or when these separate strands of folklore converged — if that is indeed what happened — to mark Friday the 13th as the unluckiest day of all.
There's a very simple reason for that: nobody knows, though various explanations have been proposed.

The Knights Templar

One theory, most recently propounded in the novel "The Da Vinci Code," holds that it came about not as the result of a convergence, but a catastrophe, a single historical event that happened nearly 700 years ago. The catastrophe was the decimation of the Knights Templar, the legendary order of "warrior monks" formed during the Christian Crusades to combat Islam. Renowned as a fighting force for 200 years, by the 1300s the order had grown so pervasive and powerful it was perceived as a political threat by kings and popes alike and brought down by a church-state conspiracy, as recounted by Katharine Kurtz in "Tales of the Knights Templar" (Warner Books: 1995):

"On October 13, 1307, a day so infamous that Friday the 13th would become a synonym for ill fortune, officers of King Philip IV of France carried out mass arrests in a well-coordinated dawn raid that left several thousand Templars — knights, sergeants, priests, and serving brethren — in chains, charged with heresy, blasphemy, various obscenities, and homosexual practices. None of these charges was ever proven, even in France — and the Order was found innocent elsewhere — but in the seven years following the arrests, hundreds of Templars suffered excruciating tortures intended to force 'confessions,' and more than a hundred died under torture or were executed by burning at the stake."
A Thoroughly Modern Phenomenon?

There are drawbacks to the "day so infamous" thesis, not the least of which is that it attributes great cultural significance to a relatively obscure historical event. Even more problematic, for this or any other theory positing premodern origins for Friday the 13th superstitions, is the fact that no one has been able to document the existence of such beliefs prior to the 19th century. If people who lived before the late 1800s perceived Friday the 13th as a day of special misfortune, no evidence has been found to prove it. Some scholars suspect the stigma is a thoroughly modern phenomenon exacerbated by 20th-century media hype.

Friday the 13th doesn't even merit a mention in E. Cobham Brewer's voluminous 1898 edition of the "Dictionary of Phrase and Fable," though one does find entries for "Friday, an Unlucky Day" and "Thirteen Unlucky." When the date of ill fate finally does make an appearance in later editions of the text, it is without extravagant claims as to the superstition's historicity or longevity. The very brevity of the entry is instructive — "A particularly unlucky Friday. See Thirteen" — implying that the extra dollop of misfortune attributed to Friday the 13th can be accounted for in terms of an accrual, so to speak, of bad omens: Unlucky Friday + Unlucky 13 = Unluckier Friday.

If that's the case, we're guilty of a misnomer for labeling Friday the 13th "the unluckiest day of all," a characterization perhaps better reserved for, say, a Friday the 13th on which one breaks a mirror, walks under a ladder and spies a black cat crossing one's path — a day, if there ever was one, best spent in the safety of one's own home with doors locked, shutters closed and fingers crossed.


Sources:
Bowen, John. "Friday the 13th." Salon magazine, 13 Aug 1999.
Brewer, E. Cobham. "The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable." (1898 Edition in Hypertext).
"Days of the Week: Friday." The Mystical World Wide Web.
de Lys, Claudia. "The Giant Book of Superstitions." New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1979.
Duncan, David E. "Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year." New York: Avon, 1998.
Ferm, Vergilius. "A Brief Dictionary of American Superstitions." New York: Philosophical Library, 1965.
Krischke, Wolfgang. "This Just Might Be Your Lucky Day." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 Nov 2001.
Kurtz, Katharine. "Tales of the Knights Templar." New York: Warner Books, 1995.
Opie, Iona and Tatem, Moira. "A Dictionary of Superstitions." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Panati, Charles. "Panati's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things." New York: Harper Collins, 1989.
Scanlon, T.J., et al. "Is Friday the 13th Bad for Your Health?" British Medical Journal. (Dec. 18-25, 1993): 1584-6.

what am i getting myself into?!?

Hey guys,

We're planning the Orientation Week for incoming 1L this fall, and post any suggestions you have here. We have lobster dinner with a band, trip to Walmart for shopping, Halifax nightlife, sports events, and more, but we are open to more suggestions! Let me know, so I can bring them up next meeting.

To those who are anxious, we're currently matching you with your upper-year buddies, and as soon as we have finalized the list, wait for an email from your upper-year buddy and feel free to annoy him/her with your questions!

SIS

this kid made me giggle...

FIFTY REASONS I ABSTAIN FROM SEX:

1. Having viewed many educational films and the like, penises are ugly.
2. My house is too crowded. Noise carries in apartments.
3. I don’t have enough money for an abortion.
4. I have no desire to have an internal examination (which is what every girl should get upon turning 18/ starting to have sex)
5. Planned Parenthood is in Portland- too far away and I can’t drive.
6. Kissing hasn’t been exciting enough for me to want to try anything beyond that.
7. I get cold sans clothing. Poor circulation.
8. My brother is a product of sexual intercourse. Enough said.
9. My father has many firearms and I don’t think I could have the death of my boyfriend on my conscience forever.
10. I need my energy for doing my IB homework and studying for tests. Vectors rock me.
11. Sweat is pretty gross and there are places I won’t put deodorant.
12. I’ve learned everything I need to know from the Internet, education is thus superior to experimentation.
13. Have you SEEN the unwashed miscreants that go to this school?
14. It’s undignified.
15. I like my bed springtime fresh.
16. AIDS.
17. HIV.
18. Gonorrhea.
19. Herpes.
20. Chlamydia.
21. Syphilis.
22. Latex smells gross.
23. My skin is easily irritated.
24. I have enough body issues without taking on someone else’s.
25. I have better things to do.
26. Doesn’t burn as many calories as African dance.
27. Diapers are expensive.
28. Baby food gets stuck under the fingernails.
29. Boys smell.
30. My brother doesn’t knock.
31. I prefer to sleep with my dog.
32. It’s not something that really interests me at this point.
33. I don’t love or trust anyone that much right now.
34. My grandma is always home.
35. I don’t have a job. I don’t want to use my allowance on condoms- I need lunch money.
36. Birth control pills make you gain weight.
37. Can’t drive/no car = no convenient backseat.
38. My hormones are crazy enough without BC.
39. Shots, even contraceptive ones, freak me out.
40. I’d forget to take BC pills.
41. BC patches get all gross and funky after being on you for a month.
42. I simply have no time.
43. I can’t even KISS with a straight face.
44. Too much risk, not enough satisfaction.
45. I don’t really date.
46. Too much emotional responsibility.
47. Boys are dumb.
48. COOTIES!
49. MY GOODNESS, I have a reputation to uphold!
50. It’s to my advantage to appear innocent.

"...condoms might be permissible if a husband had HIV and his wife did not." what the fuck?!?

Nicholas D. Kristof: The pope and AIDS
Nicholas D. Kristof The New York Times
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2005

SAO PAULO Let's hope that Pope Benedict XVI quickly realizes that the worst sex scandal in the Catholic Church doesn't involve predatory priests. Rather, it involves the Vatican's hostility to condoms, which is creating more AIDS orphans every day.
Nobody does nobler work throughout the developing world than the Catholic Church. You find priests and nuns in the most remote spots of Latin America and Africa, curing the sick and feeding the hungry, and Catholic Relief Services is a model of compassion.
But at the same time, the Vatican's ban on condoms has cost many hundreds of thousands of lives from AIDS. So when historians look back at the Catholic Church in this era, they'll give it credit for having fought Communism and helped millions of the poor around the world. But they'll also count its anti-condom campaign as among its most tragic mistakes in the first two millennia of its history.
"The Catholic Church helps increase AIDS in the world," said Roseli Tardelli, a Catholic who is editor of the AIDS News Agency in Brazil. She added: "That's wrong. God doesn't like it."
Now that more than 20 million people worldwide have died of AIDS - a toll greater than three Holocausts - there is growing pressure within the church to reconsider its position on condoms.
"If I were pope, I would start a condom factory right in the Vatican," one Brazilian priest told me. "What's the point of sending food and medicine when we let people get infected with AIDS and die?"
In his office, that priest keeps a small framed condom behind glass, with a sign: "In case of emergency, break the glass."
Rosana Soares Ribeiro, the coordinator of a Catholic-run AIDS orphanage in Sao Paulo, says she feels that it's more important to save lives than to obey church rules. So she tells HIV-positive teenagers to use condoms when they have sexual relationships.
"My life belongs to God, and God would not want me to allow somebody to be infected with the virus," she said. "So God will forgive my violation of church rules."
The countries that have been most successful in controlling AIDS, like Thailand, Brazil, Uganda and Cambodia, have all relied in part on condoms to reduce transmission.
The Vatican has horribly undercut the war against AIDS in two ways. First, it has tried to prevent Catholic clinics, charities and churches from giving out condoms or encouraging their use. Second, it argues loudly that condoms don't protect against HIV, thus discouraging their use.
In El Salvador, the church helped push through a law requiring condom packages to carry a warning label that they do not protect against AIDS. Since fewer than 4 percent of Salvadoran couples use condoms the first time they have sex, the result will be more funerals.
Fortunately, the Vatican's policies are routinely breached by those charged with carrying them out. In rural Guatemala, I've met Maryknoll sisters who counsel prostitutes to use condoms. In El Salvador, I talked to doctors in a Catholic clinic who explain to patients how condoms can protect against AIDS. In Zimbabwe, I visited a Catholic charity that gave out condoms - until the bishop found out.
"What would Jesus do?" said Didier Francisco Pelaez, a seminarian in Sao Paulo. "He would save lives. If condoms will save lives, then he would encourage their use."
Even some senior Vatican officials are catching up with reality. One step came when Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, the Vatican's top health official, said last year that condoms might be permissible if a husband had HIV and his wife did not.
I wish the cardinals could meet a 17-year-old Catholic girl in Sao Paulo named Thais Bispo dos Santos. She is HIV-positive, goes to Mass each Sunday, wants to have an intimate relationship and marry, and feels betrayed by the leaders of the church she loves.
"Because of their age, they should be wiser," she said of the cardinals, adding: "I resent that they don't think of people like me, teenagers with AIDS or HIV."
So if Pope Benedict wants to ease human suffering, then there's one simple step he could take that would save vast numbers of lives. He could encourage the use of condoms, if not for contraception, then at least to fight AIDS. That choice between obeying tradition and saving lives is stark, and let's all pray he'll make the courageous choice.

grocery store wars

from the makers of the meatrix...

patience is not my best quality.

ARE THE BLOODY STONES COMING OR NOT?!?!?

my song list challenge answers

1. beastie boys - open letter to NYC
2. joel plaskett - news of your son
3. nanci griffith - everything you need but me
4. tragically hip - new orleans is sinking
5. neil young - words (between the lines of age)
6. white stripes - fell in love with a girl
7. eminem - what i am
8. beck - black tambourine
9. the guthries - patsy kline
10.belle and sebastian - seeing other people
11.james brown - get up offa that thing
12.lucinda williams and david crosby - return of the grievous angel
13.madonna - like a virgin
14. van morrison - baby please don't go
15.le tigre - fake french
16.the breeders - divine hammer
17.the beatles - ob-la-di, ob-la-da
18.the decemberists - red right ankle
19.mercury rev - cortez the killer
20.joni mitchell - all i want

praise me like you should.

i was pretty grouchy this morning. i don't remember my mother ever throwing a hissy fit on mother's day. then again, i am trying to embrace/develop/maintain a wholeness of personhood that i am not sure my mum was comfortable with... so tough, kids. if all i hear from the moment i get up is 'gimme gimme', i am gonna get in your face. and if you pout and complain and generally ruin the day that is supposed to be set aside for me, then i am going to call you on it. cards are nice. breakfast is good. what i really want, though, is thoughtfulness and gratitude and celebration. yup, that's right, i want to be appreciated.

song mix challenge

here are the rules. i'll post mine sometime next week, and please (!!) feel free to send me yours, even if you want to do it anonymously... i need some new music. (courtesy of April 20 at artofthemix.org)

1. Your favorite song with the name of a city in the title or text.
2. A song you've listened to repeatedly when you were depressed at some point in your life.
3. Ever bought an entire album just for one song and winded up disliking everything but that song? Gimme that song.
4. A song whose lyrics you thought you knew in the past, but about which you later learned you were incorrect.
5. Your least favorite song on one of your favorite albums of all time.
6. A song you like by someone you find physically unattractive or otherwise repellent.
7. Your favorite song that has expletives in it that's not by Liz Phair.
8. A song that sounds as if it's by someone British but isn't.
9. A song you like (possibly from your past) that took you forever to finally locate a copy of.
10. A song that reminds you of spring but doesn't mention spring at all.
11. A song that sounds to you like being happy feels.
12. Your favorite song from a non-soundtrack compilation album.
13. A song from your past that would be considered politically incorrect now (and possibly was then).
14. A song sung by an overweight person.
15. A song you actually like by an artist you otherwise hate.
16. A song by a band (whose members actually play instruments) that features three or more female members.
17. One of the earliest songs that you can remember listening to.
18. A song you've been mocked by friends for liking.
19. A really good cover version you think no one else has heard
20. A song that has helped cheer you up (or empowered you somehow) after a breakup or otherwise difficult situation.

i'm no dirty dancer (i always shower first.)

there is a social/dance at the school tonight that the other mothers keep asking me about, but there is no way i can do it. it is too much to ask of me. i would rather just write them a check. why don't they just ask me to write them a check? yes, i know that it supposed to build community and create a space for the grownups to socialize, but come on, don't we have better ways of spending our friday night?! (please god, i'd rather fold laundry than do the macarena.)
yes, it is true - we are all parents, we are all women, but that is where the similarity generally ends. we don't share political/religious beliefs or workplaces. we are different ages and income levels. we definitely don't share the same taste in clothing, books, music or men. we don't even live in the same neighbourhood. i prefer it this way. i don't need more friends. i am not lonely or bored. i have a busy, happy life. so here's what i propose: let's be kind and cheerful to each other when we are making small talk on the playground. of course i want to talk about the friendship that our kids share! but i am not going to a social event with y'all. sorry.

tomorrow night is gypsophilia at ginger's. now there's some dancing i could really get into...

he's just not that into you

i read this book last night.
Q.
is it a cheesy self-help book written by comedy writers looking to cash in on their sex in the city connections?
A.
Oh Yeah.
Q.
is it an honest look at women from by a sharp observant guy who likes women?
A.
yes, it is this too.

the main thrust of the book is that women should not lower their standards in order to be with a guy who does not show her that he loves her. the authors cover many of the excuses that women use to explain rudeness, indifference, destructiveness, and/or selfishness. they offer pretty much a blanket explanation for all of the crappy treatment (yes, you guessed it, 'he's just not that into you'), but more than that, they call women on why they make these excuses. they talk about how loneliness and uncertainty and horniness and hope make women waste time caring about people who don't care about them and they insist that their readers should like themselves more than this.

random 'rules' from various chapters:
- If he's not calling you it's because you are not on his mind.
- If you don't think you gave him enough time to notice you, take the time it took you to notice him and divide it by half.
- An excuse is a polite rejection. Men are not afraid of "ruining the friendship."
- The only thing he's scared of - and I say this with a lot of love - is how not attracted to you he is.
- If you can find him, then he can find you. If he wants to find you, he will.
- You already have one asshole. You don't need another.
- Men are never too busy to get what they want.
- You deserve a fucking phone call.
- He can take care of his cat.
- Always be classy. Never be crazy.
- Bad boys are bad because they're troubled, as in having little self-respect, lots of pent-up anger, loads of self-loathing, complete lack of faith in any kind of loving relationship, but yes, really cool clothes and often a great car.
- Breakup sex still means that you're broken up.
- Life is hard enough as it is without choosing someone difficult to share it with.

it took me three or four hours to read this book, and that includes the time i spent reading aloud to dil. not exactly proust, but then again, i don't like proust. it is a pretty good book that made me laugh and also made me think a bit about the sexyrevolution and the loneliness that makes it so hard for my girls to stick to the standards that they have set for themselves...
it made me feel sad/lucky. sad because my single family and friends are so hopeful and get so hurt. lucky- well, because i sort of feel like i got away with something. i made a lot of bad choices and broke all the rules (well, most of them) and it still worked out for me, even though it shouldn't have worked at all. according to all logic and experience, i should be miserable. but i'm not. i am pretty happy and in a pretty happy relationship. maybe i should write a self-help book.

if it wasn't for the library, i'd have nothing to read or write.

not much going on, mostly because we're so broke. thank god for the library. will i ever be able to buy (non-text)books again? here's some of what i've been reading lately.

lovely bones - alice sebold
this is a book about a little girl who has been murdered and is watching her family from heaven. yes, i did cry when i was reading it, but mostly only at the beginning when susie is being killed. i liked this book. i thought that it was well written, and had a somewhat interesting view of what the afterlife is like. my problem with books like this is that i have this part of me that is cynical and critical and can't let go of the feeling that my emotions are being manipulated for the sake of book sales and future movie rights. once you get past the initial horrors, the book takes on a made for tv movie quality. i felt the same way after i read five people you meet in heaven. to me, the "what happens when i die" book comes off a little feel good, reader's-digest-y. that being said, i do recommend lovely bones. some of the imagery really was quite beautiful and the family dynamics felt painfully real.

disclaimer:
*both lovely bones and five people were (are?) on all the bestsellers' lists for months and months, so i think that i may be more bitter than the average reader.*

sweetness in the belly - camilla gibb
every now and then, i read a book that makes me feel as if i have traveled to another time or place - as if i had seen, heard, smelled the place that is being explored in words. this book does that for me, and it doesn't stop there. not only did i feel like i knew the places gibb describes, i also felt like i knew the characters that she created. when gibb writes about islam and ethiopia, she makes me wish i was muslim and ethiopian. her writing makes the characters' lives seem so rich and sparkling compared to my own. that being said, she does not shy away from all the horrors that accompany being female, muslim and ethiopian - from female genital mutilation to dirty drinking water to the dangers and sadness of being a refugee. can you tell i loved it? there were maybe a few problems with repetition that i blame on the editing, but really, it is a very good story that is very well written.

i also read when will jesus bring the porkchops by george carlin, but i can't really say that this was a good book. it was funny in some spots and managed to cause a fight between me and dillie when he discusses 'men' and 'women', but really, it seemed like georgie included a lot of filler in order to cash his cheque. i have a big soft spot for carlin - i used to listen to Q104's comedy hour when i was about 10 years old, and i used some of the (very inappropriate) jokes at school in order to boost my cool factor. anyways, i am pretty glad i didn't buy it, but equally glad that the library did.

i also got beck's album sea change from the library. it is pretty good. sorry beck, but i ripped it.

thank you for the invitation. (i'm sorry but i must decline.)

i know i could work on my manners. i hope that this is not held against me. nobody's perfect, and i would rather be thoughtful than polite. one of my biggest pet peeves is when people apologize to me when i bump into them - and while some people think it is an endearing canadian quality, it really sets my teeth on edge. it waters down the draught of human kindness to apologize when you haven't done anything wrong, as a knee jerk reaction. at best, it is an embarrassing flub, and at worst an insincere disregard for the powerful meaning contained in the words 'i'm sorry' or 'thank you' or 'please'. (and yes, i know that i am guilty of this; it makes me blush to admit it.)

however, i think that there is definitely a time and a place to apologize, and this is one of them. so - i was rude and i apologize. i'm sorry that i didn't call, i'm sorry that i didn't show up, and i'm sorry that i didn't return your calls. i just didn't know how to tell you that i didn't want to come, and i had no good excuse that would have made it easier for us all. i just couldn't face another night of talking about nothing, or worse, covering the same topics that we've talked about every time we get together as if they were somehow new. i was impolite and selfish, and i will try make it up to you. maybe we can have a potluck, or a movie night. or maybe i should be rude enough to admit that i don't really have much in common with you and just try to ease gracefully away.