Surly says:
Hey, what's up?
Mike says:
Hey, just watching buffy actually
Surly says:
Buffy, really?
Mike says:
well with one eye. I downloaded it and have it on in the background
Mike says:
I'll have to blame your blogging friends
Surly says:
Yeah, they're obsessed with the show.
Mike says:
I'm worried that it's contagious
Surly says:
It can be....part of why I never started wathcing....
Mike says:
I used to be the biggest buffy fan for the first season and then when I went to university I lost track...so it's in my blood unfortunately.
Surly says:
You've been bitten by the vampire, as it were?
Surly says:
hyuck hyuck....
Mike says:
ha ha
Surly says:
Hey, you're the one who made the bad pun about blood....

Democrats and Republicans in Universities

Christina Hoff Summers thinks that a finding that most university professors were democrats shows that conservatives can't "make it past the gantlet of faculty hiring in political-science, history, or English departments." It could also mean that people who think are liberal democrats.

Also, in the realm of freaky right wing nuts, CORAD, a republican 'think' tank/antiperspirant manufacturers, have released an album of right wing rap songs with the aim of swaying more black voters to go republican. Included are such hip hop gems as "Liberal Democrats are racist" and "Gun Control is racist." Unfortunately, they really ruin their cred by linking to such group as the "European American Issue Forum", which speaks to such important issues as hate crimes against 'european-americans.' I guess the two white guys who started this project will have to go back to their deoderant business.

Isn't that enough blasphemy for one day

Play Messiah Annihilator created by some bored texan kid. A game I'm sure would not be a big hit around the Parents Television Council.

Speaking of Heathens

Looks like there are some heretics out there questioning the all powerful Google. Google-Watch is a guy who thinks that Google is abusing its power and manipulating its "neutral" page ranking for big business customers. What is interesting is that Google Watch "is not currently ranked" by Google, despite its being up and linked to for months. Looks like Google is a wrathful deity.

The Worst Show on TV

I love this Parents Television Council website, brought to you by the same people who have been searching for a liberal bias in the media for the last couple of decades. They follow all the prime time shows fastidiously noting every naughty word, every possible sexual innuendo. Unsurprisingly, the 'best' shows tend to be those preachy, christian ones like 7 th Heaven or Touched by An Angel. Their favorite show actually stars billy ray cyrus! Of course, what kind of good moralizer doesn't enjoy the chance to spew wrathful indignation on heathen television shows that are corrupting our youth and destroying the moral fiber of this great nation. Clearly, then, it means that Buffy is the worst show on television. Here's the fair, balanced perspective:

"Buffy has earned red lights for its sexual content, use of foul language, and violence. Last season, the most offensive sexual content consisted of graphic sex scenes between Buffy and Spike -- some of which had violent overtones.

Offensive language has included uses of “bitch,” “bastard,” “hell,” “damn,” “ass,” and “piss.” Violence on Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not only frequent, but also very graphic. In past seasons, episodes included vampires being aroused by biting their victims, Buffy being stabbed, and Dawn’s wrists being slit. In the 2001 season finale, Buffy committed suicide, jumping to her death to save the world. The 2001 – 2002 season premiere showed her decayed corpse regenerated and resurrected through witchcraft."

One kinda funny thing is that while they take Buffy to task for her witchcraft, Sabrina the teenage Witch gets high ratings. No kidding. They find it 'cute' how Sabrina is just a normal teenager who happens to be a witch. Cute, huh? Freaky weird is more like it.

Suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fashion.

Chelsea has finally decided on a hair style decision. I'm disappointed that she decided against the tomato red streaks despite my heavy-handed emotional bribery, but I guess one can only live vicariously through so many people. When I was in Prague and Budapest this summer, there were a significant number of people walking around with cool red streaks in their hair. I thought this was the height of fashion despite clearly being a fad that, once popular, would be unbearably lame. I thought though that if I had the fashion courage I could be ahead of the curve for once.

Instead, I tried to convince Christy then Chelsea to follow the same reasoning that I had rejected. And I went blond.

Also, in the meantime, I have seen signs that the coolness of the streaks is diminishing. I saw a TV ad for the “high class” chain haircut place “Supercuts” that advertised old school mullets, 3-inch vertical bangs, and the streaks. Once a style hits the trailer parks, it can no longer be taken seriously. (As snobby as that sounds, it’s true). Although, choosing Christina Applegate’s haircut may not be the ideal way to escape the trailer park stigma. For those interested, this page has a few pictures of Christina (and her hair) from the movie “The Sweetest Thing.”

I was amused by that review of the movie. It sounds really good:

“You may at this point have started thinking of this film as a romantic comedy. Let me assure you it is nothing of the sort. Rather it is the lowest, most vile, most despicable, gross out comedy to hit theaters since Tom Green. The film's funniest moments are intended to come from encounters with glory holes, urinals, and rotting food. But beyond these disgusting attempts at cutting edge humor, the characters themselves are so disgusting, both in appearance, dress, and behavior, that it is impossible to do anything other than spend 90 minutes wishing death upon them.”

I am glad that Chelsea was able to pull so many thoughtful things from the gutters of that film. I'm impressed. She is quickly becoming one of a select group of friends of friends who sound really cool, but I’ve never met and probably never will. Other members of this illustrious group include Christy’s friend Jen in New York and a guy called, no joke, Roman Kiss who I sometimes doubt is a real person. Maybe one day I'll throw a friends of friends party and all those people could come together and feel really awkward for an evening. It'd be fun.

Bland and Unassuming


This is me according to the test provided by Mike Beltzner. I think it's true although I don't like it.
I am Vanilla Flavoured.


I am one of the most popular flavours in the world. Subtle and smooth, I go reasonably with anyone, and rarely do anything to offend. I can be expected to be blending in in society.

Puppy Chow

In other news, my sister has got herself a puppy. A rather cute mix of retriever/hound/german shepherd.
Today, you'll be glad to note is also my highest hit day ever! There were eight different people who came to the site, including people who did not come from Andrew's site! I note Andrew's site has also undergone this "explosion" in hits as well (or more likely has caused this hit count increase). Congrats to you! Fame and Fortune here we come!

The Wedding Story

Weird news from the past this morning. My friend Christy had been off across the river watching an IMAX film at the Museum of Civilization. Turns out that this is a prime spot for outdoor weddings and there were about 10 or so weddings in various stages of wedlock at the time. From the chaos, Christy spots a familar face, then another. It's Hilary Myron and Miriam Padolsky! People we knew at high school. Turns out that they were there attending the wedding of Mike Beach and Kirsten Hoye--other high school people--which was going on right at same time that Christy happened to be walking by. Strange, strange all around. Simon Leadley was the best man. Congrats guys, I guess.

Just want to echo Andrew’s point in today’s post. Lame, preachy anti-smoking (or other drug) campaigns don’t work. Everyone remember the old “Break-free” Luba commercials from the eighties? If you want to see a really lame current campaign, check out the WHO’s Feel Free Campaign. I especially like the duck-hunt-like game where you have to kiss the non-smokers. “Don’t kiss the smokers,” it says, “you’ll burn your face.”

But before you think that I agree with the CEO of Rothmans, just remember that this is a guy who spent a hundred million dollars in advertising, in a year when advertising was completely banned in Canada. His real point is that advertising works. Good advertising works. Rothmans knows what good advertising is, but many people in the government don’t.

Advertising doesn’t usually work on the level we think it does: does anybody, for instance, drink a Coke because they think they’ll be surrounded by happy multicultural people smiling and having a good time? Or drink Labatt’s because bears will come out of the woods and start singing. No, but for some reason, people drink more Coca Cola products in the U.S. than they drink water (I suspect that fact is an urban myth but you get the idea). And drink more Labatt’s than any other beer. Advertising isn’t very good at some things, but when it’s done right it’s very good at suggesting, at planting that idea in your brain until it’s ready to germinate. No one wants to admit that advertising works on them, but it does. Companies don't spend billions every year out of the goodness of their heart. Your "choices" are influenced by advertising. So a counter-advertising campaign, like that for smoking, can certainly work if it’s effective. While you won’t get anyone who will say “That commercial made me quit smoking,” it could have planted that seed. Luba doesn’t do that. Just Say No doesn’t do that. Lame “I’m happy and a non-smoker” don’t do that. But it doesn't mean that there can't be an effective campaign like this one from Minnesota called Target Market.

The professional blogging world is full of these insufferable right-wing pundits running the same Bush /Reaganite/stupid white male/grumpy old men tune. These men, even the ones I like, see Mickey Kaus (www.kausfiles.com) and Andrew Sullivan (www.andrewsullivan.com) annoy me and my original idea for why I was doing this blog was to be able to respond to them. Even if no one read it.

Over the weekend amongsta fun night at the bar and insufferable heat, I have been thinking, of course as this late summer warrants, about economics. Specifically, I have been perplexed about the free market and why people think the free market is good for business. Because people, especially the conservatives, talk all the time about how great the free market is and how creates all this wealth. On any issue, the problem is big government and over regulation, and if only if things were more deregulated, everything would be perfect. I don’t understand. I myself don’t have any problem really with the idea of a free market—I think it’s one of the fairest ways of dealing with something that is inherently unfair—but I don’t understand how it creates wealth.

Making a profit requires that there is some sort of imbalance in values between the buyer and the seller. In a real free market, it strikes me that profits could only be a fleeting, temporary thing. If a company were making a profit on some good, other producers would enter into the market and undercut the profit margin. Producers would then keep undercutting themselves until they were selling at cost. This is my high school economics understanding of it, but it does seem to work in real free market situations. Third World food bazaars are a perfect example of this. There is no regulation, all the goods are in one location, and prices, except for those who are dumb tourists, tend very quickly to settle so that the farmers make no or little profit. This is free market economics at its purest—very fair if you’re on your toes, very cheap, and nobody makes any money, except for one guy who got in on the ground floor.

On the other hand, heavily regulated industries where there still is competition seems to create sustaining wealth. For a poor but amusing example, think of drugs. Can’t get any more regulated than that, it’s illegal even to possess the product. But as the enforcement of the regulation grew, prices went up, profits went up, and supposedly even the quality went up. Legal drugs can fit into this category. Cigarette companies, for instance, make significantly more money in heavily regulated countries than they do in open markets. Canada’s 5 million odd smokers produce significantly bigger profits for the tobacco companies than tens of millions of smokers in, say, South East Asia. Pharmaceuticals are becoming more and more profitable, profits that are based on government safety regulations and regulations that protect intellectual property rights (a horribly anti free market regulation if I’ve ever seen one.)

It also seems that countries that are free market tend to be poor than those that are heavily regulated. There no way that you can tell me that the US or Canada is free market the way a place like Tanzania is. In North America, the government makes companies pay all sorts of taxes, obtains licenses, conform to all sorts of building and safety regulations, pay for EI and other payroll taxes on the employees. These are all barriers to competition; they make it harder to set up a company, harder for the producer and consumer to meet on a fair playing field, thus raising prices. In many places in Africa, even in those places that would be considered closed markets/ state dictatorships, the average person can basically do whatever. Some people in a free market makes tons of money, either through illegal means, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, or just being at the right place at the right time. But the average business experiences no growth and no profits, creating a ever widening gulf between the lucky and strong and every one else.

Even real economists believe that closed and regulated economies may lead to more wealth. From the NY Times: “Dani Rodrik of Harvard used Dollar and Kraay's data to look at whether the single-best measure of openness -- a country's tariff levels -- correlates with growth. They do, he found -- but not the way they are supposed to. High-tariff countries grew faster. Rodrik argues that the countries in the study may have begun to trade more because they had grown and gotten richer, not the other way around. China and India, he points out, began trade reforms about 10 years after they began high growth.

So I’m still confused how the free market can create wealth. It can be fair. It lowers prices. But I haven’t seen a satisfactory model for sustained growth that uses the free market, except the wild west/first one in/grab and dash system. So until then, I have to conclude that the free market is bad for business. Hear that conservative pundits!

Bob the Builder, his tool and a willing pussy

Deconstruction of the Bob the builder books for some rank sexual innuendo.

Hey Drew

According to the web stats on this page all the people who've seen it have come from your page. I'm guessing that this particular blog is just you and me keeping in touch. Not such a bad thing--although it has made you wade through my laborious writing. Anyways, in that vein, I'll give you another reason to not to celebrate Elvis's death: this whole celebration thing is racist:
"Media arrogance and dishonesty means we are eternally bound to live in a skewed world where Elvis is king of rock'n'roll, Clapton is the guitar god, Sinatra is the voice and Astaire is the greatest dancer. Accustomed as we are to this parade of white heroes, the case of Elvis is particularly infuriating because for many black people he represents the most successful white appropriation of a black genre to date."

Also, if you're interested in dead white men with undue media attention, look at Dress-up Jesus, I think you'll like it Drew.

You Wanna See Gross?

Just been thinking about Andrew's piece yesterday about little demons floating around. I took a course in parasitology in university from this strange little old woman who once decorated her christmas tree with 40-foot long tapeworms. We had to do a final project in which we had to collect parasites from nature and identify them. In my first attempt, I actually tried to collect the schistosomes that cause swimmer's itch from snails that live in the sea. Unfortunately, I didn't have the proper tank to keep salt water snails alive long enough to be able to release the parasites. The snails died a horrible death and then rotted, emitting the worst smell that I have ever experienced, or want to experience again. It was a good thing in some way though because I wouldn't have known which parasites the schistosomes were, and I would have had to identify them. If you've never tried to identify animals that consist of nothing more than suckers and sex organs, it's a pain in the ass. I eventually had to dissect worm testes to find parasites which turned out to be vey closely related to the amoebas that live in people's mouths. Betcha didn't know that your mouth is very likely filled with these single celled parasites!

But if you want to see really gross, check out the effects of this other parasite that blocks lymph nodes causing swelling. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Do I look German?
One problem with having a name that is very uncommon, yet common sounding is that people mistake it for other names. Even when you spell it out for them.
Here are some names that I've been called.
Michael Charlton: I went through an entire summer camp being mistaken for this guy. While I like the "mischievous " smile, I don't see the resemblance.
Michael Chaisson once took credit for an exam I wrote. I don't harbour any resentment.
His french female "relative" Michelle Chaisson on the other hand I suspect took advantage of her mixed identity to take credit for this Queen's University environmental award.

Michael Cayton tended to appear when a phone was invovled. Phone tapping must be invovled. He turns out to be "the best friend ever" in college of some guy named Ozy.

I'd also like to take is opportunity to unfairly discredit this guy named Micheal, who I am assigning blame for this horrible mispelling. He is the reason that I've never been able to have a toothbrush with my name on it, as someone decided that one of the most common names in the western world was not as important as this guy.

Amakhozi for Life!

It's about that time of year again. You know the one I'm talking about. Begins the end of August and go all the way to April. That's right! It's the South African Professional Soccer League season. While the PSL may not have the same status as the English Premiership or the Italian Serie A, it's definitely one of the most exciting sporting exhibitions in the world.


My team, of course, is the Kaizer Chiefs .

The Chiefs, more commonly known by their Zulu nickname Amakhozi, were started in 1970 by Kaizer Motaung who still runs the team. Motaung was a star player for another major Soweto team called the Orlando Pirates until he left South Africa to play for the Atlanta Chiefs of the North American Soccer league. When he returned after the league collapsed, he got into a fight with the Orlando owner, rallied other disillusioned Pirates players, started his own team and a vicious rivalry that continues to this day. 43 people were killed in 2000 at a Pirates/Chiefs game when the stadium was oversold and fans rushed into the Chiefs' home field Ellis Park.

The Amakhozi are one of the most successful club teams in the world in terms of both wealth and success. In their short life span they have won over fifty cups and titles, including the prestigious African Cup last year, equivalent to winning the UEFA cup. Their jersey is one of the most recognized in Southern Africa, as is their slogan, "Peace, Love and Unity."

As this new season begins, it is safe to assume that the Chiefs will challenge for the league title against the Pirates and last year's winner Sundowns from Pretoria although the path will be made more difficult if they lose their star player Jabu Pule to Marseilles who are threatening to lure him away. To follow their success, you can check on the sports page of iafrica.com. Win or lose, the Chiefs are always fun to watch as are their fans, famously described as a "Hallowe'en party gone terribly, terribly wrong"


Pictures from the http://www.goafrica.co.za/joburg/feb_2002/soccer.stm

If Google says so, then it must be true

Google is my god. It is not just a search engine; it is something far more spiritual. It takes the zeitgeist of the world and makes it quantifiable.

An example:
"Lame or Cool." Enter the thing into google with lame, search. Enter with cool, search. The search with the most hits wins. Jesus, for instance, validating various t-shirts and bumper stickers I've seen, is cool but is more lame than Buddha. The problem, of course, is that google thinks that many more things are cool than are lame. This is in the inclusive spirit of google though as she has much more love (55 million hits) than hate (6.5 million hits). I have to defer to google's judgment.

Google has other practical purposes as well. Just a few moments ago, a co-worker had a grammatical issue: is it "There is a variety of..." or "There are a variety of..."? Debate flared. Fisticuffs were threatened. In our moment of crisis, google came to our rescue and told us that the plural form of the verb was preferable. It also reassured us simulatenously that we weren't as stupid as we thought. We had stumbled onto a vigourous debate or at least a common grammatical mistake: 45,000 other people had also been confused. Google gave us answers and it gave us a community. Of course, this makes sense. In an era when prescriptive grammar is wrong, the only way to discover normative usage of a word or spelling or phrase is to survey. Google provides the ability to do that easily, quickly, and accurately.

As the web grows, so will google. Scary.

The Kanata Man!

Congrats to Mr. Limmert!
In honour of Andrew's new house, I present the new musical comedy "Surburb"!

Death. Plop.

The worst poem ever written according to a prof at Western Michigan and others. Actually printed in a serious anthology of poetry.

Why I've never fucked anyone
Just wanted to point to one of my favorite pieces of writing. The Problem with an Ugly Verb by David Eggers is probably if not the funniest at least the most genuinely touching essay about the word "fuck" ever written. A masterpiece of modern literature, at least according to me.

Well, I’m back from a week spent in Corner Brook, Newfoundland for my cousin’s wedding—picture perfect wedding of course...congrats to John and Susan. Now, I’m readjusting to this stifling heat in Central Canada.

However, more importantly, an apology and an explanation. The entry on my friend Andrew’s housing decision was an attempt at a recreation of an entry I had written earlier and had been lost. It’s not so much that I disagree with what I had said but that I had left holes that allowed insinuations to creep in. I never meant to suggest anything more about Andrew than he’s looking for a more mature living situation, a kind that I am not ready for/ don’t want at the moment. I meant only to point out the dualism of our current ideals due to our differences in situation, which Andrew also describes in his reply post. We are looking for different things that meet the different needs of where we are in our lives.
Furthermore, in terms of creative artistic temperament and talent, clearly Andrew has me, and most of the world, beaten hands down and I would never want to suggest otherwise. I also did not want to suggest there is anything wrong with Andrew’s priorities: I know that he is a caring individual with wonderful relationships with his girlfriend, family, and friends and is not overly concerned with material possessions.

All I meant is that Andrew wanted to find a perfect house, irrespective of location, and that choice had consequences. As he says, “When I suggested that I didn't care which neighbourhood we looked in, we were looking for a house, I meant just that. The house can be anywhere, literally anywhere, so long as we get a house that's big enough for us for the rent we can afford to pay.” My point was that Andrew’s choices meant some trade-offs. Of course, if he could get the perfect house in a cool neighbourhood, Andrew would do that because that’s the kind of person he is. But, by putting house first, he is pretty much ensuring that he will find a fantastic house in a lame neighbourhood. Location=expense. Nobody could afford a three-bedroom place with a backyard in one of my ideal neighbourhoods. Those houses just don’t really exist. For most people, choosing location means downscaling in terms of space and quality. That’s the trade-off: location vs. space and quality. At any price range, a person can get bigger/nicer house in the suburbs. For me, that decision is easy, but most normal, sane people would give up location as Andrew has done.
It also means that Andrew will be living with other normal, sane people who have made the same decision. Many of those people will have barbeques and nice lawns. This is not a problem: this is a lifestyle choice and a sensible one at that.
Don’t forget Andrew that you have made this choice. Your decision does indeed depend “in part about status or an expression of personality” because you have placed a value on what you find more important to you: location or quality. You, Stacey, your two cats and your kick-ass entertainment system could fit quite cosily into a nice 1 bedroom in the Market, if you so chose. It would be much smaller, no question, and you would have to give up many things for very little in terms of benefits, but it could be done. Andy and his girlfriend have done it to live in Greenwich Village. Matt and Fiona have done it, albeit more temporarily, to live in the Annex. Your house will be nicer than theirs though, no question.
It is not so nearly black and white an issue of course. Ottawa, really, isn’t that big a city. Anywhere you live, you’re pretty close to the action, such that it is. You’ve probably also not analyzed the choices in my terms and your decision was not as dramatic a one as it would be for me. But you can’t deny that neighbourhood does matter a bit. Would you have been happier in your house in Vanier if you weren’t actually surrounded by drug addicts? And honestly, if you had more money would you then downscale to live downtown, when you could live in an absolutely kick-ass place further out?
Finally though, you’re happy with your life. I know it. I can see it. I can tease you about becoming domesticated, because you are becoming domesticated and settled-at least a little bit. (Don’t worry the plaid years are still a ways away.) You like it and that’s great. I’m not ready for that kind of life yet, and that’s fine too, I think, but that’s no reason for you not to make the choices that you want. I’ll even bring the barbeque to your house-warming party.

The Pope walks into a bar...
The Pope visited Canada recently and scared the hell out of me (no pun intended). His visit attracted 200,000 rabid young Christians to snog and party and proselytize. It was a cause for world news and dominated headlines for days with articles written by fawning, obsequious reporters, acting like they had found the inside track to salvation. They didn’t ask the questions I wanted them to ask such as “Aren’t mass meetings of faith always a little creepy in the way the group dynamic reinforces blind devotion and sublimates dissent?” and “Does anyone really believe that an 82-year-old man with advanced Parkinson’s is an enthralling public speaker?”

On the other hand, I have a bit of a fondness for Catholics. I especially like the Spanish catholic culture, or the idea of it anyways, of it being colourful and gaudy and fascinated by blood and gore and buildings that reach to the sky and statues that cry--Masses in Latin, esoteric priesthoods, and drinking blood out of wine glasses. It seems sufficiently pagan and dirty and I like that. Even the obsession with sex is slightly, well, sexy. So in the end, I found the whole Papal visit and associated hoopla, while a little creepy, no more offensive than the spiraled out of control church picnic that it was.

However, some people, including some I wouldn’t have expected, were a little more taken aback about the event. Normal, sane, liberal-leaning people would fervently denounce the Catholic Church and bemoan the Pope’s influence on the world. Except for birth control (about which I agree the Catholic Church is just being stupid about), most of the Catholic bashers were having theological problems with Catholicism rather than practical ones: "How come the pope has all the power?" "Why is the Church so rich?" "Why can't people interpret religion for themselves?" etc. These are all problems that Luther had with the Pope, and I can't really see getting all worked up about 500-year-old religious debates.

However, most people I talked to weren’t particularly conscious of the theological aspects of their criticism and talked about the Catholic Church as if it was some malevolent multi-national corporation with the Pope as CEO/dictator for life. The influence of Protestantism has clearly grown so large in this culture that it’s difficult to distinguish secular policy with religious argument. For instance, if you disagree with the notion of papal infallibility that means that you probably shouldn’t become a Catholic. It doesn’t mean that the Catholics should change what they believe. The whole idea of a religion is that it presents a correct view of the world and if some of those things sound ridiculous to you, or you don’t like them—well, too bad. The idea that an individual can choose what and how to believe is peculiarly Protestant (not secular) and frankly doesn’t make that much sense to me.

It wasn’t that long ago that Catholic kids in North America were beaten up for walking through a Protestant neighbourhood (and vice versa). The underlying message of many of the Catholic-bashers was an attempt to convert Catholics to a kind of modern touchy-feely Protestantism. Proselytizing scares me. Proselytizing when the proselytizer doesn’t even realize it is even scarier.

Kissing the Short Smurf

Endless fun with this Euphemism Generator

Interesting article about the new wave of surbanites, leaving the faded dream of surburbia behind for (surprise!) a New Suburbia. He says:
"George Santayana once observed that Americans don't solve problems, they just leave them behind. They take advantage of all that space and move. If there's an idea they don't like, they don't bother refuting it, they just go somewhere else, and if they can't go somewhere else, they just leave it in the past, where it dies from inattention....It's not worth the trouble. He just bolts. He heads for the exurbs and the desert. He goes to the new place where the future is still open and promising. He goes to fresh ground where his dreams might more plausibly come true."

My friend Andrew is looking for a new house now. He's mainly been looking at houses that exist only in Surburia. 3 bedrooms with a big backyard and a garage for a price less than a friend in New York City is willing to pay for a bathroom. He doesn't care about location--it's about the perfect house--and has offers on beautiful houses in both the far east and far west of the city in equally unpleasant (to my mind) communities.

Myself, I don't understand. I'm not looking for space, when all I want is a room where I can put a bed and hang my pictures. I'm not looking for a garden, when it would be left fallow for the weeds. And I definitely don't want to live in a place where I need a car.

I think that Andrew and I have different dreams of what we want our adult lives to be. Andrew, I think, dreams of stability and the idylic existence promised by the surburbs. The manly domesticity, too, of the barbeque/perfect lawn lifestyle I can see being a big draw for him. Because my dreams lie at the other end of some spectrum, I can see the appeal of the surburbs, without feeling the draw myself. I lean towards the romanticism of the old, myths of brick and wood, packaged in a veneer of sophistication. My ideal is places like Greenwich Village in NYC, the Annex in Toronto, or the Plateau in Montreal. Places, I guess, that once were suburbs long ago, then overtaken by the inevitable urban movement, without surrendering to the concrete and steel that makes most cities revolting places. They seem like places of community, of culture, of artistic expression and fun. I suspect my dream is no more realistic than Andrew's though, and the trade off between commuting time and a cramped apartment, is not a moral issue but is just that, a trade-off.

The Weekend Redux.

I did write a long post on Friday only to have it lost in the ether of the Internet. Teaches me for trusting computer programs to run a few hours without crashing.
So, in the interest of reaching out and kicking back at those who oppress us, I will try and replicate Friday's thoughts.

Finally a site that says something: asdf

Curiously, this sites seems to lack the features that make the blogging world an interesting place. It strikes me that the blogging world is a giant conversation of people talking to no one in particular.

Well, hello.