insert witty title here

What is it about the written word that causes people to generally accept it with little scepticism or questioning?

Over the years I've observed that if information is presented orally (no snickers from the peanut gallery) then people will generally question it or at least look for some sort of substantiation, but that the written word tends not to be questioned (certainly not to the same degree as other media).

It's as if putting it in print somehow makes the information more accurate.

And of course that ain't true.

Newspapers and journals are notorious for either embellishing their facts or slanting their reporting to sell more copies of their publication - but people tend to accept what they read simply because it's composed of ink and paper.

I'm not really going anywhere with this, I'm just curious about why we're so gullible when it comes to one particular method of information dissemination.


In other news...

As I've mentioned earlier, I'm puttin' on my travellin' shoes again and heading south to The Land of the Free and The Home of the Brave tonight. I shall endeavour to keep posting during my voyage but if I miss a few days, don't you forget about me...

An older gem from the internet...


GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) Answers Given During The 1999 Exams


"Monotony means being married to the same person for all your life."

Use the word "judicious" in a sentence to show you understand its meaning: "Hands that judicious can be as soft as your face..."

How important are elections to a democratic society? "Sex can only happen when a male gets an election"

What is a turbine? "Something an arab wears on his head"

What is Britain's highest award for valour in war? "Nelson's Column"

Who was it that didn't like the return of the prodigal son? "The fatted calf"

What's a Hindu? "It lays eggs"

Name the four seasons : "Salt, mustard, pepper, vinegar"

What changes happen to your body as you age? "When you get old, so do your bowels and you get inter-continental"

What guarantees may a mortgage company insist on? "They'll insist you're well endowed if you're buying a house"

What is a co-operative? "It's a kind of shop that is not as dear as places like Marks and Spencer"

What is the first thing you would do to someone who has been involved in a car accident and is immobile? "Rape them in a blanket and give them a sweet cup of tea"

What is artificial respiration commonly known as? "The Kiss of Death"

What are steroids? "Things for keeping the carpet on the stairs"

What is a common treatment for a badly bleeding nose? "Circumcision"

"Red, pink, orange and flamingo are the colours of the rectum."

I've said goodbye to my boyhood, now I'm looking forward to my adultery."

"I always know when its time to get up when I hear my mother sharpening the toast."

"Christians go on pilgrimage to Lord's."

"A major disease associated with smoking is premature death."

"The equator is a menagerie lion running around the earth through Africa."

"Artificial insemination is when the farmer does it to the cow instead of the bull."

"Cows produce large amounts of methane, so the problem could be solved by fitting them with catalytic convertors."

"The process of flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists."

"The moon is a planet just like the earth, only it is even deader"

"Dew is formed on leaves when the sun shines down on them and makes them perspire."

"A super-saturated solution is one that holds more than it can hold."

"Mushrooms always grow in damp places and so they look like umbrellas."

"The body consists of three parts - the brainium, the borax and the abominable cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abominable cavity contains the bowels, of which there are five -a, e, i, o and u."

"Momentum: What you give a person when they are going away."

"Planet: A body of earth surrounded by sky."

"Rhubarb: a kind of celery gone bloodshot."

"Before giving a blood transfusion, find out if the blood is affirmative or negative."

"To remove dust from the eye, pull the eye down over the nose."

"For a nosebleed: put the nose much lower than the body until the heart stops." "For drowning: climb on top of the person and move up and down to make Artificial Perspiration."

"For Fainting: Rub the person's chest or, if a lady, rub her arm above the hand instead. Or put the head between the knees of the nearest medical doctor."

"For dog bite: put the dog away for several days. If he has not recovered, then kill it."

"To prevent contraception: wear a condominium."

"For head cold: use an agonizer to spray the nose until it drops in your throat."

"To keep milk from turning sour: keep it in the cow."

"The pistol of a flower is its only protection against insects."

"The alimentary canal is located in the northern part of Indiana."

"The skeleton is what is left after the insides have been taken out and the outsides have been taken off. The purpose of the skeleton is something to hitch meat to."

"A permanent set of teeth consists of eight canines, eight cuspids, two molars and eight cuspidors."

"The tides are a fight between the Earth and Moon. All water tends towards the moon, because there is no water in the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins in this fight."

"A fossil is an extinct animal. The older it is, the more extinct it is."

Since I haven't posted an Oddball news item for a few days...

Malaysian woman breaks world record for living with 6,000 scorpions

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) - A Malaysian woman has broken a world record by enduring 32 days enclosed in a glass box with 6,069 scorpions, suffering seven stings in the process, her sponsor said Tuesday.

Nur Malena Hassan, 27, will remain in the case, on display in a shopping mall in the eastern city of Kuantan, until Saturday, said Bohari Rahmat, whose biscuit company sponsored the stunt.

Late Monday, Nur Malena surpassed the previous record held by Kanchana Ketkeaw from Thailand, who spent 31 days in a glass box with 3,400 scorpions, Bohari said.

Now I don't know about you folks, but surely to God there's a better way to get into the record books.

My mother's place in Mexico was bad for scorpions - they'd crawl into the bath towels by the shower and when you stepped out to dry yourself off...

Then again....given a choice between living in a glass box with 6,069 scorpions or in a glass box with my ex-mother-in-law, I've have to take a moment to think about it.

I tried finding an online version of this article but had no luck, so here it is all typed out by your's truly. It's a long post (especially with my diatribe at the end) but bear with me here...

British Columbia Alimony Order Sets Precedent

Appeal court rules man must keep paying 'bitter' ex-wife

(by Cristin Schmitz ~ Vancouver Sun, Monday, September 27th, 2004)

Ottawa - In a ruling that may put the "fault" back in no-fault divorce, British Columbia's top court has ordered a man to keep supporting his ex-wife who says that she can't work because he cheated on her and dumped her six years ago.

"Emotionally she is bitter to the point of obsession with his misconduct, and in consequence has been unable to make a new life - her life is this litigation," British Columbia Court of Appeal Justice Mary Southin observed of Sherry Leskun, of Vancouver, who argued her own case.

The three-judge appellate panel, whose ruling is binding on B.C. courts and persuasive in other provinces, dismissed Gary Leskun's bid to either cancel, or reduce, his court-ordered $2,250 monthly support to his 57-year-old ex-wife.

Leskun, 49, left her in 1998 for his present wife, with whom he had had an affair during an extended business trip to Chicago.

He contended that with 34 years' banking experience, his ex-wife should be cut off from spousal support because she hasn't tried hard enough to find employment since she was laid off by the TD [Toronto Dominion] Bank in 1998, a month before Leskun informed her that their marriage was over.

The Divorce Act imposes a legal obligation on ex-spouses to make reasonable efforts to support themselves.

Since the advent on no-fault divorce in 1968, the law has also explicitly instructed judges not to take into account adultery, cruelty, abandonment or other spousal misconduct when awarding spousal support.

"Parliament, in its wisdom or lack thereof, has said the court must give no weight to what the husband here did - that is carrying on behind his wife's back and, when it suited him, walking out on his wife of 20 years who had borne him a child and contributed substantially to his financial well-being." Justice Southin wrote in a decision reported in the next edition of The Lawyers Weekly.

She and Justice John Hall went on to rule "not without hesitation" that the law did not bar them from considering the "emotional devastation" that Leskun's adultery had wreaked on his ex-wife's emtional health, and therefore her ability to work.

That conclusion was rejected by the third judge of the panel, Justice Mary Newbury, who protested that modern Canadian divorce law clearly excludes "bitterness" as "an excuse for a spouse who is able to work for remaining unemployed."

Gary Leskun's lawyer, Lorne MacLean of Vancouver, said his client will ask the Supreme court of Canada for permission to appeal the judgement.

The "portion of the decision that allows a dependant spouse to refuse to become self-sufficient becuase of the payor spouse's misconduct during the marriage is arguably at odds with settled Canadian legal principles," MacLean contended.

"It has the potential of dissuading angry spouses who are capable of attaining self-sufficiency from making efforts towards their own independance...for creating 'maintenance junkies'," he argued.

"People need to get on with their lives after a marriage has ended and not get caught up in a web of bitterness and self-imposed dependancy, which results from the desire for revenge."

Justice Southin acknowledged "fortunately most spouses do put the past behind them and, as the saying is,' move on'."

But she ruled that Sherry Leskun's inability to acheive financial self-sufficiency resulted "at least in part from the emotional devastation of misconduct by the other spouse," as well as from her age, a lingering back problem, and a string of deaths and illnesses in her close family.

Justice Newbury noted that, based on her observations of Sherry Leskun in court, "I would have thought she was employable, at least on a part-time basis, in the banking industry."

She agreed with her collegues, however, that a divorce court could not ignore Leskun's family and medical problems, which were "exacerbated" by the breakdown of her marriage.

"For this reason, and not because of and self-imposed disabilty, I would reluctantly uphold the [support] order of the court below and dismiss the appeal," Newbury wrote in a seperate opinion.

These are my observations as I read this:

She's too distraught to work, but she's able to pull herself together enough to represent herself in court?

I'm still bitter because my dad never bought me the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip when I was nine. Does that mean I can expect a cheque soon?

In all of Justice Southin's years on the bench, I guess she's never come across an instance of something called a legal precedent. That's the only reason I can come up with to explain why she thinks this decision wouldn't discourage other angry spouses from "moving on". After all, everybody knows we're living in The Golden Age of Personal Responsibility.

Her back injury and string of family illnesses & deaths were exacerbated by the divorce? WTF???

Granted, the only information I have on this ruling is what's in the newspaper, so it's premature of me to come to any conclusions. It also sounds like the ex-husband was a real louse and does have a moral obligation he's trying to absolve himself of.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but see this as one more step towards solidifying a culture that rewards the self-created victim.

By the way, Justin Southin is well-known in British Columbia for her unusual views on Child P*rnography which resulted in self-admitted child p*rn afficiando Robin Sharpe walking out of court a free man; and also for the taxpayer-funded $19,000 personal ventilation system that allows her to smoke in the comfort of her office.

The Elefant is the fifth motorcycle I've owned. Well, technically I suppose it's the sixth since I had bought a little Yamaha 50cc dirtbike for the boys when we lived in Hell.

The following comprises my personal history of motorcycling.

At age seventeen, I bought this 175cc dirtbike (mine was blue) for $500.00 bucks. I was living in Montreal and taught myself to ride it on the busy city streets. The very first day I had it out I popped my first-ever accidental wheelie...through a red light...in rush hour.

One day I was cleaning it and ended up (don't ask me how) with a rag sucked into the engine block. I immediately sold it to a couple of brothers I knew and the bike ended its days as a collection of unassembled parts in their backyard:


A couple of years later I put myself through a four week motorcycle riding school and came out the other end a smarter guy (in theory). Shortly after that my best friend Brian and I bought matching motorcycles: a 750cc 1982 Suzuki Katana. We also had matching black helmets. We thought we were the cat's ass.

It took me less than 6 hours to have my first major accident: street-racing with Brian to Montreal's airport, the intersection light changed on me from green to red and I locked up my brakes trying to stop before smashing into the through-traffic. As my front brake locked, the rear end of the bike flipped up and cartwheeled over. I was flung into the intersection like a stone from a catapault and landed about fifteen feet away, rolling like a tumbleweed into the traffic I had been attempting to avoid. Brian said it was spectacular.

He ran up to me shouting "Are you alright??" and my only reply was "Check the bike! Check the bike!" When I landed I'd taken a chunk out of my helmet and my body looked like it had been beaten with one of these but other than that I was fine. Lucky...but fine.

The other two accidents I had with this bike over the years I owned it involved getting hit by other vehicles. In the first I was sideswiped by a van and ended up knocked over and sliding into a bus-stop full of people. In the second I was rear-ended at a red light by a drunk driver in a Jaguar. After that second strike the insurance company wrote the bike off.

About eight months later I moved out here to British Columbia and got into four-wheeling and being a general red-neck. It was a passing phase.

The next bike was a number of years later. It was a 1100cc Suzuki GSX-R. We were living in Bella Coola and since the place only had 50 miles of paved road, the only thing I could do with it was use it on my 3-minute drive to work and to bomb up and down our "highway" on weekends. I sold it after moving down here. Never had one accident with it.

Also while in Bella Coola, I bought this 200cc Honda dirt bike for exploring the area's logging roads. It was lots of fun and was great for getting into back-country I was too lazy to walk to. We sold it when we bought the sailboat.

So that concludes The History of My Motorcycles. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed remembering it.

Thanks again t everyone who offered up their feedback yesterday: I'll get right started on making this a lap-dancin', shooter-offerin' blog filled with oddball stories and deep thoughts.

But in the meantime...

It turned out to be a surprisingly busy day today. I headed out at 0720 for downtown Vancouver to get some shopping done before the crowds began to swell. After some time in a popular branch of a retail outdoor store chain, I trolled the used CD stores and managed to find some treasures:

Iggy Pop: The Idiot

Suzanne Vega: Solitude Standing

Orbital: In Sides

The Police: Every Breath You Take

and lastly but not least:

Elvis


And after that bit of shopping was done, I bought this:



It's called the Elefant, powered by a 900 cc Ducati engine and manufactured by an another Italian firm called Cagiva

It's not a crotch rocket, but I've already put 70 miles on it and I have to admit that it's pretty darn fun - plus I can drive it to Tierra del fuego" if the mood strikes me.

It's reader feedback day!

I'm opening the floor to comments and suggestions from you.

Yes, you.

And you over there too, don't think I don't see you.

What topics would you like to read more of?
What topics should I drop?
Do I need to work on my brevity or should I generally add more detail?

Ask and ye shall receive!

One of the more frustrating aspects of working for a large, impersonal organization is the amount of nonsense one must deal with. I think the following series of emails reflects this:

From: Christopher
To: all staff
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:35 AM
Subject: Vehicle 65548

Good morning,

This vehicle (a Dodge Ram 2500 4x4) just came back from spending the last two months in the repair shop to address a manufacturing defect that apparently affects the steering.

I took this vehicle out this morning and experienced a severe loss of control while on the Trans Canada Highway. It was pure luck that allowed me to avoid sideswiping a semi and doing a rollover into the ditch at 95 kph.

Last year I experienced a high-speed transmission failure in this same vehicle.

Despite any good intentions to have this vehicle repaired, my opinion is that the vehicle should be returned to whoever leased it to the Company, with a request that it be replaced, not repaired.

I strongly urge all staff to avoid using Vehicle 65548 regardless of what assurances are made that it has been repaired.

Christopher

This is the response I received from the fellow in our Regional Headquarters who is responsible for leasing these rolling death-traps.

From: George
Sent: September 22, 2004 4:24 PM
To: Christopher
Subject: Vehicle 65548

Good afternoon Christopher.

Let me assure you this unit is being assessed via a full safety inspection at an approved General Motors service centre. If Vehicle 65548 is found to have weak front end components (as I suspect) they will be replaced with more stout after market pieces.

I make no secret of the fact that I'm building a convincing business case for getting rid of these Dodges ASAP but at present, they are not scheduled to go until mid 2007.

On another matter, regardless of what I am sure were good intentions, I found the email you sent to all local staff to be inappropriate. Such commentary serves to bring into question the safety of company vehicles and the credibility of your local repair shops.

Regards

George

And lastly (at least until the next email salvo is fired) is my rebuttal.

From: Christopher
To: George
Date: 23 September 2004 7:25 AM
Subject: Vehicle 65548


Good morning George,

Thank you for the response.

The fact of the matter is that local staff do question the safety of Company vehicles. In fact, a little over a month ago I was tasked by the Area Manager to look into exchanging the two Jeep Libertys because he felt they were unsafe for staff use. In addition, my supervisor has pointed out that the new Dodge Durangos do not have a low range 4wd - which he found to be a serious safety concern when driving down steep logging roads.

As for the credibility of local repair shops, the evidence plainly supports the conclusion: Vehicle 65548 spent two months being serviced for "front end concerns" and the severe failure I experienced occurred the second time the vehicle was driven since the repairs were completed by the local Dodge service representatives.

Regardless of the confidence you feel in making a vehicle diagnostic on Vehicle 65548 from your office in Nanaimo, I have yet to be contacted by anyone and asked to provide a detailed description of the loss-of-control I experienced, so I am afraid that my opinion regarding both the safety of the vehicle and the seriousness with which the matter will be taken remains unchanged.

sincerely,

Christopher

Last night I took my sons and my ex's boyfriend's sons to one of the local theaters to see Sky Captain and The World of tomorrow. The ex's boyfriend's sons are identical twins, aged 12 - which is the same as as my son #2, so all four boys get along fairly well.

The trouble is, the twins are little shits when it comes to behaving themselves in public and the last time I took all four of them to a movie, I had to tell them to behave themselves pretty steadily - to the point where I announced that if they ever misbehaved like that again with me, it would be the last time I ever brought them anywhere. I also made a point of talking to the ex's boyfriend about their behaviour and received "well, kids will be kids" as a response for my efforts.

Amongst other things, my ex and her boyfriend share a common approach to parenting. As my ex said last week about her own philosophy towards effective discipline: "I praise the kids when they do good and they they misbehave, I don't praise them".

So this time when one of the doublemint twins picked up a heavy pipe in the movie theatre parking lot and started swinging it around at cars and people - and after the theatre manager and I got him to put it down - I made it clear to the both of them that they were no longer welcome to join my sons and I at the movies. Judging from the surprised looks on their faces, the concept of any consequence for bad behaviour was pretty foreign to them.

It bothers me that I'm placed in the position of being the 'heavy' with other people's kids. It's not like I'm sleeping with the ex's boyfriend, so there's certainly no obligation on my part to even be willing to bring them along on outings with my boys. I do it because it seems like the reasonable thing to do for the sake of maintaining a friendly relationship with my ex. I do however, have my limits.

Having said that, I think it also stands to reason that parents have a responsibility to teach their children how to behave appropriately - and avoiding that responsibility because you want to be 'buddies' with your kids isn't doing them - or you - any good in the long run.

Be a parent first and a buddy second. If you do the first one right, the second will follow naturally in due time.

If there's one thing I've never had any sympathy for, it's people who try and hide behind "I couldn't help myself" as a justification for their behaviour.

Because the bottom line is that you could have helped yourself, you simply chose not to.

The following excerpt speaks specifically to violence in America, but I think it's safe to say that the underlying principle being talked about applies to pretty much all human behaviour...in Canada as well as the United States.

...thus, modern America may be violent not because it approves of violence (which it clearly doesn't) but because it supports the belief that people will inevitably lose control on many occasions.

Our culture has lately become increasingly fond of notions of "irresistible impulses" and genetic causes of addiction. But in research on self-control, one conclusion stands out over and over again: people acquiesce in losing control.

In other words, they let themselves lose control, and they become active participants. Whether it is a matter of breaking a diet, going on a drinking binge, or abandoning an unpleasant task, usually the person somehow allows it to happen

The same applies to violence. The concept of an irresistible impulse is somewhat misleading, because most violent behaviour is not the result of irresistible impulses.

People allow themselves to lose control. And they do so in part because they learn to regard certain impulses as irresistible...indeed, the very notion of an "irresistible impulse" seems to me to be a cultural construction and one that is highly questionable on psychological grounds.

There is such a thing as an irresistible impulse, but usually such impulses are limited to biological necessities. If you require someone to stand up for an indefinite period of time, eventually the urge to sit or lie down will become irresistible. To me, "irresistible" means that you would do it even if someone were aiming a gun at you and forbidding you to do it; and indeed people will eventually lie down or urinate despite such a threat.

But such cases are rare and exceptional. There are very few other impulses that are truly irresistible. There are, however, plenty of impulses that people can learn to treat as if they were irresistible. Resisting impulses is hard work, and if people have a readily available excuse for not doing that work, they will often be happy to give in.

~ Roy F. Baumeister, PhD (author: Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty)

From the Weekly World News comes this helpful tidbit:

HOW TO BECOME A PIMP IN 10 DAYS

...All you need is flashy clothes, a few cell phones & a gold Caddy!

You can become a pimp with a stable of hot-blooded "ho's" in just 10 days flat with tips from Rooster J -- the self-professed "pimpingest pimp in Detroit!"

"Pimping is hard work -- but becoming a pimp is easy," says Rooster, author of the riveting new book, Pimping for Fun and Profit (Shotgun Press, $7.95).

"First you need a gold Cadillac or a Chevy Caprice with a padded vinyl roof, fur seats and a spare tire bolted to the back bumper. "Then you'll have to buy some colorful pimp clothes - don't forget the hat!

You're also going to need two or three cell phones and a couple of beepers going off in your hands and pockets all the time. "Otherwise you won't look important enough to be running your girls. "Collecting the car, clothes, phones and beepers will take about five days,says Rooster, who declines to give his real name, although pals say it's Clarence.

Once you've got those in hand, you've got just five days left to learn cool pimp lingo and also to prowl bus stations, halfway houses and airport-area motels for ho's to work the streets for you. "Learning the language isn't all that difficult if you concentrate on a few key areas of your speech," says Rooster, who holds a master's degree in English from the University of Michigan but talks down to customers because it's good for business.

"For one thing, don't make the mistake I just made and say things like 'isn't.' "The proper construction is 'ain't.' And you've got to stack up double negatives if you really want to sound pimpin' real." 'I ain't got no' is a good way to start any sentence, such as, "I ain't got no ho who'll get down for $20, honkie. I wanna see a C-note before I let her in the car wit chu, home boy.'

"'Wassup?' is another key pimp expression. If you're ever at a loss for something to say, just drawl, 'Wassup? Wassup? Yeah, bro. Wassup?' and start high-fivin' someone and grabbing your crotch and pulling your pants down and telling everybody to stop talking about 'yo mama.'

"That's also an effective way to introduce yourself to a ho. The ladies love that kind of stylin' and profilin'. They eat that stuff up. "Getting gals on your lady squad is easy if you choose targets who look like they're lacking in self esteem.

"It doesn't hurt if they're pacing in front of the bus station at 2 a.m. in a teddy and high heels," says Rooster. "That could well be an indication they might have some experience as a working girl."

You can do all this in 10 days flat if you stick with the plan and don't start messing around with your own girls," says Rooster. "Then you'll be pimping your way to fun and profit -- just like me!"

Well, I have the cellphone and the big hat, so now I'm off to find me Ho!

Is there anything more enjoyable than relaxing on a Sunday afternoon while watching Motorcycle Racing?

*chuckle*

Probably, but my options are a little limited at the moment...

Speaking of bikes, I have an eBay bid on this one:



If it doesn't work out, I have a deal lined up on another...



The ol' truck just ain't satisfying my need for speed.

I usually feel my most insightful on weekends and have have all sorts of pithy wisdom to dispense - but ironically, I also notice that weekends tend not to bring a lot of readers, leaving me wordy but unread.

Such is life.

Son #2 had his front teeth rebuilt (cue the theme from the Six Million Dollar Man), and they more-or-less look like the originals.

But I'd prefer that he still had his originals.

I even have photos of The Great Tooth Reconstruction Project of 'ought Four, but despite having downloaded Hello, I can't seem to get the hang of posting personal photos here. Is there anyone out there with some helpful advice?

This is cool stuff!

Freediving amazes me - mostly because I'm about as comfortable in the water as one of those goofy, water soluble aliens from M. Night Shammycloth's movie Signs.

New depth marks set for freedivers off Greek island

SPETSES, Greece (AP) - Two freedivers have set depth records during events off the Greek island of Spetes, organizers said Monday.

Martin Stepanek, 27, of the Czech Republic reached 103 metres on a single breath of air Friday to set a men's world mark for constant weight freediving, which allows special fins for propulsion. The previous record of 102 metres was set by Carlos Coste of Venezuela in June.

The second record was set Sunday by Austrian Herbert Nitsch, who reached 66 metres without the aid of fins. Nitsch, 31, broke his own mark of 62 metres set Friday off Spetes, about 100 kilometres southwest of Athens.

For those of you unfamiliar with, or who simply don't like the metric system, 103 metres is 337.94 feet, or almost 34 stories.

If you're curious about freediving, why not start by renting The Big Blue at your local video store? Of you can simply dive right into this website...

The ex phoned me last night to let me know that son #2 had an accident yesterday afternoon that resulting in his falling on concrete and snapping off one third of one front tooth and badly chipping the other one. And yes, they're his adult teeth...

I'll meet them at the dentist's office at 1030 this morning.

Just the mental image of anyone breaking their teeth like that gives me the heebie jeebies, let alone having it happen to my child.

But he's always been one to use his face as a crash pad - I remember taking the two boys camping once when they were younger and son #2 was chattering away, not paying attention to where he was walking and he tripped, smacking his forehead squarely on a boulder. Not the ground or a rock...a boulder larger than himself.


Well, whatever repairs or capping are required to fix his teeth, he won't be getting any of Mister Bling's products.

Send some warm, dry thoughts to Honey as she battens down the hatches for Hurricane Ivan.

In other news, I have my private office back! Last week I was told to pack up my cubicle and move back downstairs to my office. I'm not sure why the change of heart, but I'm not going to ask too many questions.

I'm tired and cranky.

I've spent the last two days sitting on a job interview panel, listening to bright-eyed candidates think out loud.

Several times I had to bite my lip to keep from standing up and saying "look, it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop randomly blurting out words and phrases in the hope you're gonna stumble on what we want to hear and just admit that you're out of your depth."

As you can tell, I survived Friday's Hilary Duff concert (you may recall me buying my daughter tickets for her birthday last July).

A pre-teen concerts go, it was everything I imagined it would be: screaming pre-pubescent girls, over-priced souveniers (eight bucks for a freakin' glow stick!)and lots of moms. In fact I only counted five dads there.

My daughter (who's nine) invited her best friend (who's also nine) and the three of us arrived just in time to catch the opening act: Haley Duff, Hilary's older sister.

I got the girls seated, bought them their glowsticks and settled myself in for the duration.

Having had to repeatedly listen to Ms. Duff's music on the drive in ("Turn it louder, Dad!"), I did recognize some songs but most of them all sounded the same to me...except for the finale, in which Ms. Duff mangled The Who's classic: My Generation.

Having seen The Who perform this song live in 1980 (man, that makes me feel old!) I can safely say that Hilary did not do the song any favours.

Nevertheless, the girls thought the whole thing was wonderful and that's all that matters.

Courtesy of the 9/11 Digital Archive

Dad Allegedly Attempts Son's Circumcision

VANCOUVER, Wash. - A father who allegedly tried to circumcise his 8-year-old son in the bathroom after reading selections from the Bible has been charged with first-degree assault of a child.

Edwin Bruce Baxter, 33, was charged Tuesday in Clark County Superior Court. Judge Diane Woolard set bail at $50,000 and scheduled an arraignment for Sept. 17.

If convicted, Baxter faces at least 10 years in prison.
According to a probable-cause affidavit, Baxter told sheriff's deputies he tried to circumcise his son with a knife Friday after reading Genesis 17 and Exodus 4 — both passages refer to the procedure.

He became concerned and called 911 when the boy appeared to be losing too much blood.

Baxter told deputies he had no medical training.

The boy was taken to Southwest Washington Medical Center, where he received several stitches.

Baxter, of Ridgefield, is married with nine children. He works as a truck driver with Helser Brothers Transfer Co. in Portland, Ore., according to court documents.

The parents have been reported in the past for allegedly failing to enroll their children in school, said Doug Lehrman, Vancouver administrator for the state Department of Children and Family Services.

Baxter was convicted in 1993 for domestic violence, Clark County senior deputy prosecutor Kim Farr said.

For your reference, here is Genesis 17 and Exodus 4.

Other than the requirement to use a sharp piece of flint for a scalpel, please note the lack of procedural detail regarding circumcision...


The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.

~ Harlan Ellison

While in Mexico, I rented a car (a Chevrolet "Comfort") and managed to survive about 1200 miles of Mexican roads and traffic. So without further ado, I offer...

Christopher's Mexico Driving Tips

1. Do not drive your rental car in Mexico City unless you like playing a game I call smerge with the other cars.

2. If you do rent a car, get one with A/C because you do not want to roll your windows down and be inundated with exhaust fumes, pungent odours and offers to have your windshield cleaned by a one-legged, toothless leper.

3. Yes, that was a severed animal leg you just passed on the side of the highway.

4. The white lines separating the lanes are only for show. Don't be surprised when you find yourself in the middle of four lanes of traffic on a two-lane street.

5. When approaching a single-lane bridge, whoever flashes their headlights first gets to cross first.

6. Farmers like to let their livestock graze alongside the grassy highway median. The only thing keeping them off the road itself is whatever sense of self-preservation the animals have. My advice is to either move to the far lane or brace for impact.

7. Highway maintenance is somewhat more....casual, than it is in Canada or the United States. When you see those orange cones, slow down because they could mean anything from the road is fixed to there's a hole big enough to swallow your house somewhere around here.

8. If you try and keep within the posted speed limit, you will annoy every other driver out there.

9. The expectation is that you will begin moving the instant that the traffic light turns green (although in one particular place the light had broken so they had replaced it with a car headlight). A delay longer than 4 seconds will get you honked at. A lot.

10. Mexico has the same pimply-faced, aggressive teenage drivers that they have in Canada and the US; but in Mexico he's not passing you on an uphill blind curve in a lowered Ford Mustang, he's doing it from behind the wheel of a thirty-year-old tractor-trailer loaded with thirteen tons of squealing pigs.

11. If you need to stop and ask for directions ("Donde es la via rapida por autopista por favor?" means 'Where is the highway please?") don't assume that the directions you're given are accurate. The fellow smiling and pointing the way may not have any idea where the highway is, but he doesn't want to be impolite.

and lastly,

12. Only the foolhardy drive at night in Mexico.

I've always disagreed with the notion that bullies are bullies because they have low self-esteem. In my experience I've yet to meet a bully or violent person that did not think very highly of him or herself. It's a conviction I've had many discussions about, because most people espouse the "he's mean because he feels bad about himself" theory. I recently found a psyc textbook that supports my view.


The following quotes are from Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty by Roy F. Baumeister, PhD:

Today it is common to propose that low self-esteem causes violence, but the evidence shows plainly that this idea is false. Violent acts follow from high self-esteem, not from low self-esteem. This is true across a broad spectrum of violence, from playground bullying to national tyranny, from domestic abuse to murder and rape.

Perpetrators of violence are typically people who think very highly of themselves. Actually it is more precise to say that violence ensues when people feel that their favorable views of themselves are threatened or disputed by others.

As a result, people whose self-esteem is high but lacks a firm basis in genuine accomplishment are especially prone to violence, because they are most likely to have their narcissistic bubble burst.

If you think you are a great success and you really are, most people you meet are likely to confirm that reality, and you may even be able to ignore the ignorant few who fail to recognize it. On the other hand, if you are not a success but merely think you are, you may frequently encounter other people whose opinion of you is less flattering than your self-image. That is a common recipe for violence.

If you are like most people, you will feel like lashing out at anyone who says you are not as great as you thought. The more inflated your self-esteem is, the more common such encounters are.

Doctor Baumeister then goes on to say...

Another way to look at the issue is to consider how people react to problems and setbacks. Researchers have established that self-esteem makes a clear and reliable difference in such reactions.

People with low self-esteem tend to blame themselves when things go wrong. People with high self-esteem tend to blame external factors, such as other people, the situation, or various obstacles. These attitudes are not too surprising, because they are likely to cycle back and affect self-esteem. Thinking that all your problems and failures are your own fault is a style that fits low self-esteem. Thinking that nothing bad should ever reflect on you is an integral part of high self-esteem. So which style is common amongst violent people?

Now I don't think that high self-esteem is a bad thing - provided that it's supported by genuine accomplishment. But too often we blind ourselves to our own failures, or we fail to take ourselves to task for them - preferring instead to quickly gloss them over and concentrate solely on 'feeling good' about ourselves. The flaw in this is that we convince ourselves that our failures were not as bad as they looked and that successes were greater than they really were.

I think that honest and objective self-criticism is possible, provided you have the self-discipline to carry it out. I also think that personal integrity and a healthy self-esteem comes from earnest self-analysis that evaluates your bad performance under the same light that it does your good.

When I crossed the border and back into Canada at 0130 this morning, the Customs Officer asked me if I was bringing anything back from my trip to Mexico. I said "Yes, about $40.00 worth of souveniers and a case of diarrea."

He waved me through.

Greetings from sunny Oaxaca.

I'm halfway through this expedition and while I can't say that visiting my mother and her husband has been a fun-packed thrill ride, it's going better than expected.

A little background...

My mother and her husband (Jim) met when I was 14. They moved in together shortly after that - at a point when I happned to be living with my mother. I have to confess that I didn't go out of my way to be welcoming to Jim, I found his excessive drinking bothersome and his personality grating.

I had genuinely liked some of my mother's previous boyfriends -they were decent, straightforward guys without any pretensions. I could never understand why my mother, who after years of suffering under my abusive father would choose to have a relationship with such an egotistical, puffed up little prick.

One night when I was seventeen, Jim came to my bedroom door. I could see from his red face and hear in his slurred speech that he was drunk again. He began mumbling some vague threats to me, alluding to a beating if I didn't change my attitude.

So I kicked him in the nuts.

He called me a sissy for kicking him, so I followed up by punching him in the nose. At that point my mother came out of her bedroom and asked what had happened. Jim turned to her and said that he had been minding his own business walking down the hallway, when I had suddenly burst out of my room and attacked him. Then he shouted: "Either he goes or I go"

So my mother called the police and had them deliver me to my father's place.

I don't fault her for making the choice that she did - after all, I was on the verge of moving out shortly anyway and she had her own life to live. I just wish she'd chosen a better human being.

Even this past Monday night (the next day being their 14th wedding anniversay), as I lay awake in the bungalow, I could hear Jim talking to my mother on the verandah on the main house. I assume they were unaware of how sound travels, as I could hear him methodically and slowly denigrate her for being so stupid and useless and air-headed. It had the flavour and tone of a regular speech.

I got dressed and walked up the main house - obstensibly to say goodnight but in fact it was a subtle way to get them to shut up. I didn't say anything about being able to overhear them (or rather being able to overhear Jim, since he had been doing all the talking)...to be honest, I simply don't care that much.