starcatcher.ca

Mom and Melissa went to Michael’s (the craft store) yesterday to spend money on Christmas stuff (while I was at Jubilate choir practice, so I wouldn’t complain about her spending money). What they saw there bugs me… Apparently, store employees have ripped off the price in American dollars from every item in the store! This is frustrating, confusing, and misleading all at the same time.

Money is a weird thing. It’s just a bunch of pieces of paper/metal to which some people have given a seemingly arbitrary value. But now that our pieces of paper and metal appear to be worth more than the American pieces of paper and metal, we feel that we should be paying “what something is worth” for stuff that we usually buy. Stores, on the other hand, will vehemently disagree with you, so it is in our best interests to respond with our spending money in kind.

What can we do? Easy. If you want to get more for your money, go where they’re saying that they’re using the “American prices”. Some people boycott Walmart for various reasons, but this might be a good time to step foot in there again. Go to the States on a shopping trip, if you need to. Best of all, buy stuff from American retailers online (if you can afford to wait). You’ll probably get better prices, and the dollar/price difference will hopefully cover any additional shipping fees that you get. And you have to do this fast, because American companies are on the verge of jacking up their prices to compensate for the devaluation of their dollar. Gas prices in the US are nearing $5 in some states, which is actually more than here for once.

So, wait, what about the small Canadian retailers? What about the guys who need our dollars to survive, who can’t compete if we insist on spending less for the same stuff? Well, that’s capitalism for you. I’m going to look out for me and mine, and if that involves spending my money at Walmart or Costco or at some American online retailer, so be it. If you can’t compete, I don’t want to hear about it. Yes, many people may argue that big corporations may ultimately hurt an economy (if they’re bigger than the whole town), but unfortunately, that’s where the economy is headed, if it isn’t already there.

Ultimately, I don’t know how much of an effect that Joe Consumer is going to have on the ebb and flow of the North American economy. There are factors at play that are completely beyond our control, that the best we can do is to take care of “micro”, and hope that “macro” doesn’t get too messed up too soon.

Either that, or we’re going to have to move to Europe.

In this morning’s edition of the Chronicle Herald, there was an article about a same-sex married couple who recently gave birth to a baby. The issue at hand is that the one who didn’t give birth to the baby wasn’t automatically given status as “parent”, and that she would have to legally adopt the child to gain this status (if that is even an option)

Melissa is a strong gay-rights advocate, and anyone who knows her knows that she takes these kinds of issues seriously. She couldn’t get behind this case right away, though, because she was missing one crucial piece of information: in a “ol’ fashioned” marriage, where, let’s say, daddy’s not shootin’ quite right, and “alternate arrangements” were required, does the man automatically get to be legally considered “the father”, despite the fact that he’s not? If this is the case (which assumes lots of things), then the couple in the paper definitely have grounds based on precedent. If not (meaning men have to jump through the hoops too), then this couple should just get in line now and stop harassing the press.

You have to wonder, though, if the issue comes up very often in heteroland… What man is going to admit that his wife’s baby is not his? Or, if the hospital knows that the father is not the father, are they required to force the father to adopt the baby as his own? Does the *initial* legal definition of parents automatically refer to the “donors of biological materials”? In the end, it’s just a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo, yet another way for lawyers to make money. It’s sad that legal issues have a nasty way of getting involved in matters of the heart: those two ARE the baby’s parents. They know it, and their friends and family know it. What’s left?

People on Q104 are getting away with more and more these days. Not so much the DJs, though, as the callers they play who complain about this and that on a daily basis. It’s not uncommon to hear them say “shit” or “God damn” at any time of day. It’s interesting how they can let this kind of stuff slip by the censors, isn’t it?

I have no problem with this, of course, but here’s my thing: while there is profanity in many songs played on the radio, they’re “selective” in which songs get censored! For years, they’ve played songs off The Tragically Hip album Fully Completely without censoring them (Locked in theTrunk of a Car and At The Hundreth Meridian both contain the word “fuck”). Nowadays, when they play these songs, they’re playing the “watered down” versions! And yet they still play songs like Theory of a Deadman’s “No Surprise” and MGB’s “Load Me Up” uncensored.

So what gives with the inconsistency? I know part of it lies in the “we play what the record companies give us” routine, but I’m sure Q104 doesn’t throw away versions of songs if they get newer, “cleaner” ones. I honestly can’t imagine someone phoning in to complain to Q104 about profanity or indecency in Hip lyrics, or in any classic rock songs for that matter (ZZ Top’s Pearl Necklace, anyone?). Obviously, there are limits to what can and can’t be played on the radio, which is fine, but swearing and the attitude is a part of rock music, and if we don’t like it, we should be able to turn it off.

The Q Morning Crew gets away with LOTS more without actually uttering any expletives, so what harm are a few well-used (meaning not excessive) four-letter words now and then? I mean, if the occasional “shit” is what’s going to get you to turn off Q104 in the morning, I’m AMAZED that the stuff they say and do NOW (even though it’s nowhere near Howard Stern in his heyday; that stuff’s just ultra insulting, crass and low-brow) hasn’t turned you away yet.

On Monday, our friend Pat Lundrigan posted an announcement of his recent marriage in Halifax’s Chronicle Herald (I wrote about the wedding when we went a few weeks ago). The online version didn’t have the picture, so I’ve scanned it and uploaded it here. And shrunk it down, of course, but you get the idea.

Read the rest…

Let me go on record saying the “Blue Canoe” is the worst name for a store EVER. It says absolutely nothing about the store (other than the sign is blue, and I think the “canoe” might be a reference to it being Canadian), and in no way does it inspire me to go and give more money to the Irvings for things that I can no doubt get somewhere closer for less. I swear, the name must have been picked by opening the dictionary and picking two words at random. “Chicken aphrodisiac?” “No.” “How about… um… Textbook melancholy?” “Pass.” “Blue canoe?” “Brilliant!”

I hereby declare that I’m personally boycotting Irving because of their stupid convenience store name (”Mainway” was better, if not by much), and I invite you to do the same. Someone must pay the price for inept market research studies!!

This gas price thing is getting ridiculous. $1.099 for self-serve regular? I thought when it got into the mid-nineties it was getting bad, but this is foolish! What’s more, we’ve seen a 10 cent increase in the last week ALONE! It could cost me $50 to fill my car now! I drive a little Suzuki Esteem!!! For that much money, I should get to fill my tank, then park my car wherever the hell I want, including (but not limited to) the middle of the street, on people’s lawns, or right in the middle of a swimming pool, without having to fear the repercussions.

Read the rest…

For some reason truly unbeknowst to me, the braintrust in the US has decided to extend Daylight Saving Time by two months. They say that it will help “save energy” for some strange reason. As a result the Nova Scotia (and other) provincial government is debating whether or not it should follow suit.

Obviously, if the biggest megapower in the world is going to start mucking with its time system that it might be in our best interest to follow suit. I of course am of the opinion that Daylight Saving Time should br thrown out altogether (since it’s a throwback to the days when agriculture was among the primary industries in North America).

By suggesting an extension to DST, they’re implying that the Standard Daylight Time framework is inherently flawed, and that it might be in our best interest to have DST year-round (of course, it wouldn’t be called “Daylight Saving Time”, it would just be “Time”, which is fine, but a little harder to pitch to the consuming public due to its blandness). What’s the worst that could happen? If the sun rises at 6:30AM and sets at 5:30PM in December, why not make it rise at 7:30AM and set at 6:30PM?

I can think of a few advantages:

• Ski hills with no artificial lighting system would be open longer!
• People would never be able to use it as an excuse as to why they were late for church on that one Sunday
• We’d finally be on par with mighty Saskatchewan

On the other hand, many of our computers and electronic devices are hard-wired to change their clocks to/from DST automatically. For PCs, it’s nothing a patch won’t solve (a modern-day Y2K, almost), but VCRs and the like would be a bit of a pain, because you’d have to either change your clock 4 times a year (if the proposed change goes through, not if DST is dropped altogether…think about it), or invest in a new piece of hardware.

The final word: this desire to change Daylight Saving Time is a ploy by the electronics industry to sell more VCRs.

Yesterday when I went to pick up Melissa from work, there was a girl outside. She was around 18 years old, she was pregnant, and she was smoking.

I’m sorry, are we not teaching today’s youth that smoking is very unhealthy, ESPECIALLY in pregnant women? I am a firm believer that nothing makes a woman appear uglier than a cigarette. They make their skin look old and dried up, and generally gives them a weathered look you’d only see in an old boat. Why girls smoke, I’ll never understand.

The kicker here is that she’s pregnant and smoking. The hospitals do their best to keep mothers and babies healthy, and what do the mothers do? They continue to abuse their (and their babies’) bodies anyway. What a waste of time, effort and money on the part of the hospital! The money could easily be better spent by, oh I don’t know, burning it, or giving it all to me. The mothers would no doubt be just as well off…

Then again, there’s no teaching some people. I remember hearing stories of pregnant junkies at the hospital, who were jonesing quite badly for a fix, and then when checked on at a later time, it being clearly obvious that she’d gotten it… And who can ignore this disturbing story about a woman in Oklahoma who gave birth while she was drunk?

It just goes to show that while you need a license to drive a car, you don’t need one to have children, and there are people taking advantage of this fact on a daily basis that CLEARLY SHOULDN’T BE. Yes, the future of civilization is in good hands!

Do politicians really take musicians seriously? I’m not a politician, but I know that if I were, I wouldn’t be able to take Bob Geldof seriously. His Live 8 concerts taking place right now are gained at raising awareness about a problem that has always existed, hunger and poverty in Africa.

Making the concerts free was an interesting move, probably motivated more by a desire to focus on the message rather than to keep the commercialism out of it (if they charged admission, everyone would have wanted a cut, and that’s missing the point). It’s easy to conclude that his heart is in the right place, although regardless of how big his heart may be, it’s still overshadowed by the size of his ego. (”I haven’t done anything in a while… Hmmm… Artists always release “Greatest Hits” albums when they’re in a slump… What was my greatest hit? ‘I don’t like Mondays’? Naw… I got it! I’ll re-issue Live Aid!”)

But cry and cry as much as they want, what effect will it have at the end of the day? What will people do if nothing is really accomplished as a result of these concerts? Vote their leaders out of office? By and large, it really doesn’t matter who’s in power, because the little guy always gets screwed in some way in the end, regardless of who’s in power. While debt reduction makes sense in a way (do countries like the US and Canada REALLY expect poor countries in Africa to repay their debts?), there’s no guarantee that the despotic African leaders would actually do good with their extra cash.

The bottom line: Enjoy the show. With most of the world’s biggest acts in concert on the same day, including a freakin’ Pink Floyd reunion, you can’t go wrong. Life will go on in Africa, and not much will change. If you really want to make a difference, there’s always missionary work.

PS: Michael Stipe looks really weird with his face painted blue. That is all.

The Nova Scotia Tattoo’s choir director, Dr. Walter Kemp, recently wrote an article in the Chronicle Herald decrying the government’s stance on funding for the Tattoo. They claim that the Tattoo has no cultural value.

Their claim, of course, is prepostorous. The Tattoo is filled to the brim with acts representing many aspects of Nova Scotian and Canadian heritage, along with its longstanding affiliation with the Military. It also provides a venue for Nova Scotians (and our visitors) to get a glimpse of other culturally-viable performances - witness this year’s participation of troupes from Russia and Kenya.

Maybe, then, it’s because there isn’t much in the way of Nova Scotian culture. But what is culture? It’s what a people are about, isn’t it? What is Nova Scotian culture if not an amalgam of what made it what it is?

Would they be happier if the show was more representative of our current cultural norms instead of our ancestral history? Would you pay to watch performances about teen swarmings, VLT addictions, industrial pollution, and the Finck/VandenElsen debacle? I think not.

The government has it wrong. Not only is the Tattoo culturally viable, it IS Halifax culture, for many people, year in and year out. We don’t want to let it die just because of what some bureaucratic mucketymucks think.

It’s kind of ironic that the Canadian government will spend billions on helicopters and derelict submarines that serve no real purpose (National Security? Puh-leese) as opposed to putting money into something that is not only enjoyable to the people who live in and visit Halifax yearly, but is also very beneficial to the local economy.

So open up your coffers, Ottawa, and spend it on something useful for a change. It can’t be any more wasteful than just about everything else you’ve done in the last few years.

Yesterday, a few Dalhousie architecture students erected a sign proclaiming that they were going to build a Walmart on the site of the old Halifax infirmary. While this was a hoax concocted to study people’s reactions, the notion of bringing a big-box store to the downtown area shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly.

First off, anything has to look better than the mess of the old infirmary. It is an eyesore for to anyone who has to spend any time in that part of Halifax. The space is going to waste, and anything would be an improvement.

Secondly, a Walmart in downtown would definitely bring consumers in who wouldn’t normally frequent the neighborhood. This is not to say that it would take business away from the stores on Spring Garden Rd. On the contrary: many of the Spring Garden businesses cater to a certain clientele that probably wouldn’t be able to find what they’re looking for at other stores, especially at Walmart. Furthermore, these businesses might benefit from some spillover spending brought on by people shopping at Walmart, so they might have MORE money coming in. In a sense, it would have the same effect as Walmart has had at Penhorn, being the “anchor store” in the downtown area, attracting traffic, who then stay to eat at the numerous restaurants, or to catch a movie at Park Lane, for example.

Lastly, if people are concerned about “the crowd” that a Walmart might attract (whatever that means), it can’t be any worse than the homeless people who currently infest the downtown area. What more, it might just give some of those an employment opportunity they wouldn’t otherwise have had!

There are downsides, though: some smaller, generic businesses would suffer, and inevitably close down. Also, Walmart doesn’t really fit in with downtown’s “look” (you don’t find one in downtown TO or Montreal, you’ll find more upscale retailers like Sears or Eaton’s). And finally, it would definitely increase traffic on the already congested downtown streets.

Of course, it could never happen now. Big-box stores don’t have a place in downtown Halifax (where are you, Woolco?). It definitely was an eye-opener, though, especially to those who couldn’t catch on to the fact that it was a hoax. Honestly, would walmart ever boast the fact that it employs only “Non-Union” workers? I don’t think so.

The other day I accidentally submitted my email address to a stupid online social network called “WhereAreYouNow” (or WAYN). Today, people from my hotmail address book (which I had unwittingly submitted to the site to see if anyone else cared about this sort of thing) have started receiving emails telling them that I wanted them to join this silly network.

1. If I want to tell people what’s going on, or where I am now, I’ll do it right here from my blog. I don’t have time for social network nonsense. I’m lucky in that if someone wants to get in touch with me, all they have to do is Google my name (spelled properly, of course), and my blog is the most relevant link returned. Better yet, if you do a GIS for my name, only one image is returned! (GoogleWhack?)

2. Just because I asked for the email addresses in my address book to be checked, many of which were probably stale beyond belief, doesn’t mean that I want to get in contact with those people, and I definitely don’t want them thinking that I’m going out of my way to put their email addresses in this system so that THEY can be duped as well.

Now watch as I probably get lots of spam from this. Thanks, Stupid Online Social Network!

If there’s one thing that can be said about many Catholics, it’s that they’re set in their ways, to a fault. They don’t want their church to change, both in terms of its tenets, and also in the way that things work there. This weekend, we celebrated the Resurrection of Christ, but our discussion with a friend after mass veered more towards church politics than any message that Christ could have given us, and it really left us with a sour taste in our mouths.

It’s quite discouraging when people come to a new church and try to establish themselves, but instead find themselves under constant scrutiny by people who preferred the way it was done before. Apparently, it happened that way with our current priest when he arrived (we missed that, as it was many years ago): he tried to change a few things, and as a result, many parishioners left. Some may return, should our priest be posted elsewhere. They’ve apparently had these kind of issues with other people involved in other ministries, too. I’ll spare the details, since they are rather embarassing and shameful, as these things were done by Catholics, to Catholics, and I’d rather not be associated with them. Suffice it to say that most of the negative energy is not so much directed at people for who they are, but rather, for who they aren’t, or better yet, whose shoes they are filling.

There are many reasons people go to church. To worship our Lord, to gather as a community to establish and cultivate relationships, these are all valid and healthy reasons. Political machinations and backstabbing are not. The people responsible for this hypocritical behaviour should definitely take a good, long look at themselves, at what makes them a Christian: love and acceptance of your fellow man should be right up there.

If there’s one thing that I could change about the Catholic Church, it’s that its members (or rather, the host of its more conservative members) be a little more open to change, be it either the sweeping social reforms we see happening nation wide, or maybe just a few new faces arriving to add a new twist to their Sunday routine. A little growth is definitely good for the well-being of the spirit.

There’s a lot of chatter in the media about the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball these last few days. Yesterday, you had a whole slew of baseball players testifying before the Supreme Court, saying so and so took steroids, or so and so didn’t take steroids, or (in the case of Mark McGwire) nothing at all. The rise in the use of performance-enhancing drugs is really forcing us to ask ourselves if the face of professional sports is changing, and the answer is an undeniable “yes”.

Today’s pros are not your father’s athletes. These juiced-up muscleheads would eat athletes from 50 years ago for dinner. A lot of the time, it seems that the focus isn’t so much on the end result of the game: it’s more about “what so-and-so said” or “what so-and-so did”. Muhammed Ali and Mike Tyson were both great boxers, but people remember them more for their charisma, their personalities. Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield wouldn’t be draws on their own, because they’re boring (personality-wise) as watching paint dry. People loved Tyson because they didn’t know what to expect. Bobby Knight wouldn’t have the reputation he has if he weren’t a true hard-ass, throwing chairs around and generally causing controversy.

So why do people attend professional sporting events? Do they want to know who wins? If that was what they wanted, they could catch the results after the game on the TV, radio, or ‘net. No, it’s not about winning or losing: it’s about the drama, it’s about being entertained.

Here’s my suggestion: professional sports should be fixed.

Read the rest…

Apparently Mel Gibson has decided to re-release The Passion of the Christ. He states the motivation behind his decision as being “to allow those who hadn’t seen the film to be able to see it”. News sources state that around 6 minutes of violence has been trimmed from the film to make it more appropriate for sensitive viewers.

You know, when The Passion of the Christ came out last yet, I thought that Mel Gibson had shown a lot of balls for daring to release a film meant to disturb and inspire all at once. At the time, his only concession was to add subtitles to keep us abreast of what was going on (at least for those unfamiliar with the story). The fact that he’s going back and removing some of the gore is really indicative of Mel’s true colours: while he might have been interested in conveying a message (which could have included a bit more insight into Jesus’ life and ministry), it’s obvious he was more interested in making money than anything else. The notion that this film might become a perennial release à la Ten Commandments, Sound of Music, or It’s A Wonderful Life is no less disurbing because it really shows that the movie is less about the message than it is about the money. But then again, hasn’t it always been that way? I mean, George W. Bush has been cashing in on the religious right for the last four years, and thanks to them, he’ll be around for another four!

Sure, some people might be offended by the imagery in the movie, and that’s fine. At the time, the movie was intended to be an “authentic portrayal” of the events of the Passion. If that’s really the case, then toning down the gore could only serve to make it LESS authentic! Finally, to those who didn’t want to see the movie because they were easily disturbed, there’s an easy place to get the same gist of what happened:

On Good Friday, attend a church service.

Have you seen that commercial for Bell ExpressVu with the two incompetent parents trying to entertain their children by singing “Let Your Backbone Slide”? Their ultimate solution is to get them satellite TV. The moral of the story: if you suck at parenting, make sure you have something good on the TV to keep them occupied.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t believe that they’re sending out the most constructive message vis-à-vis parenting here. Experts everywhere say that TV shouldn’t be used as a babysitter. Those people shouldn’t have been having kids in the first place!

Besides, everyone knows that the Internet is this century’s TV. Get with it, Bell!

It really serves the greedy folk in the NHL right to see their season scrapped because they couldn’t agree on money. Any little thing to bring those millionaires down a peg or two can’t be all bad, as far as I’m concerned.

I haven’t really cared about professional hockey in several years, mainly because there’s way too much money involved, which really ruins the spirit of the game. The players are paid too much, all because the owners rake in too much money from the gate and merchandising. It’s a vicious circle: the owners make money by selling stuff. Players want a cut of that money, because they figure “hey, we’re responsible for you guys getting rich”. Since stuff is selling, prices for everything go up. Owners make more money, players want more money. And on it goes. I couldn’t imagine shelling out in the neighborhood of $200 for a family to see an NHL hockey game!

I’m glad they cancelled the season. Some teams will survive, like those in the hockey-centric markets where if one fan leaves the game, two will gladly take his place at the rink. Other teams in smaller markets may not survive, but hey, that’s bad business for you. It’s too bad that the people whose businesses rely on hockey run-off for their livelihoods are going to suffer.

At least we still have junior hockey. They still have something to prove.

We’re in the midst of awards show season, and as far as many are concerned this is the #2 show behind the Oscars. Fortunately, the 2005 Grammy Awards didn’t fail to impress for the most part.

Some people have already chimed in with their opinions. You can read some of them here and here, and I’m sure there are many others floating around. Here’s what I thought:

Read the rest…

CNN.com - World regrets North Korea’s quitting nuke talks - Feb 10, 2005

Everybody’s talking about the North Korean nuclear threat. This is where we’ll see what the “US-led coalition” is really made of. Since the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction(tm) is what caused the Americans to lead an invasion of Iraq in the first place, then OBVIOUSLY they’re going to be all over these guys like stink on shit, aren’t they?

We see Condoleezza Rice all over the nukes trying to talk down the Koreans. Did we see this kind of stuff before Iraq? No, we had UN weapons inspectors going to Iraq and not finding anything on numerous occasions. But that didn’t stop them, did it?

This whole Korea thing will definitely expose the Iraq War for the farce that it truly is (if the political denials in the wake of the ongoing conflict haven’t been enough to convince everyone of the truth). The Americans invaded Iraq “where there was a chance” of weapons. With the Koreans almost certainly being armed (the Iraqis never bragged/bluffed about it), will they chance attacking when the consequence would surely be MASSIVE loss of life, if not on our continent then definitely in the population centres of Seoul and/or Tokyo?

Of course not. They’ve got nothing to gain by deposing Kim Jong Il’s regime. Life goes on. For the time being, at least.

Well, it’s that time of year again. Starting today, Catholics everywhere beginning observing the season of Lent, which basically boils down to not eating meat, giving up fun things, and feeling guilty about yourself. We do it to commemorate the 40 days and nights that Christ spent in the desert being tempted by the devil, in preparation for his ministry, and ultimately his capture and crucifixion at the hands of the Romans and/or the Jewish High Priests (depending on who you want to believe; ultimately, it doesn’t matter). And you thought YOUR life was rough.

When we were younger, we’d give up things for Lent like candy and other stuff that we enjoyed. Now that I understand a bit more, I know that it’s just as important to do *more* during Lent as it is to give things up. So, while I’m giving up a few things, I’m going to try to do a little extra here and there where I wouldn’t otherwise.

Lent is about many things, among which is penance. As a result the things we choose to either do extra or give up shouldn’t necessarily be easy for us. They should test our mettle as free-thinking people, and ultimately benefit others if at all possible. I mean, I’m not going to say, “This Lent, I’m going to eat broken glass every day,” or “I’m gonna smack someone with a hammer.” Mind you, being a little more charitable, a little more reliable, a little more forgiving, a little Christ-like doesn’t hurt.

So what’s the goal in all this? I’d like to think that we could grow as people, that some of these commitments we make for these 40 days actually stick with us and allow us to become better people, Christian or otherwise. The problem is that as soon as Easter comes, many people just think, “Phew, I’m glad that’s over,” and go back to being how they were before Lent.

Lent should be a time for penitence, yes, but also a time for spiritual and personal growth. Christ gave up a lot so that we could live; we could stand to part with a little.