I guess that following the few weeks I just passed with human rights issues largely on my mind, it didn't surprise me to find myself in New Hampshire where the state motto (or whatever it's called) is Live Free or Die.
I'm not sure how much I like this motto. Sounds a bit like a command, which kinda contradicts the motto. It's also quite assertive, which sorta offends my "delicate," or nice, or polite, Canadian self. But it just seemed fitting.
Anyways, I'm in the White Mountains. It's gorgeous.
Every once in a while, a subject touches me so much that I find myself back in my old blog, just having to tell the world (that is, my 2.5 readers) how I feel.
I'm sure by now you've heard of the G-20 summit in Toronto over the weekend. You've heard how much the leaders achieved (which is to say, not that much), and you've heard of the protests -- violent and peaceful.
In preparation of the summit, Canada (the gov't, police, army, all of them combined and more) turned a part of downtown Toronto into an armed fortress with a security zone. They've erected a 9 ft high fence to protect that zone where the not-so-welcomed leaders were to meet. They've brought in 5,100 officers, and in total had some 20,000 personnel involved in security for the two summits (G8 too). Then, they also secretly passed a law giving extra powers to police for a few days.
When the gov't denies the citizens basic human rights, and when people can't walk about freely where they live, you can't expect anything else -- people will protest.
Power begets power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So was the matter with the extreme force they showed (fence, cops etc.) that irked Torontonians and Canadians, and so was their use of power afterward during the peaceful protests.
I went downtown Saturday afternoon to witness the protests. I was not intimidated by anyone in the crowd, but the police sure scared the crap out of me. They were the ones fully armed, not anyone else. They stood like a bunch of thugs in their black (bloc) uniform, not anyone else. They stood there in full riot gear in front of pink-clad dancing youngsters that just wanted their streets and their human rights back -- the ones the Charter promises them. The image was surreal. For a moment, visions of Tiananmen Square flooded my mind.
Videos are abound on YouTube of police's incomprehensible behavior and use of force when it wasn't necessary and the lack of it when it was. Police didn't protect anyone Saturday when goons smashed windows all over downtown, and they sure as hell didn't protect anyone Sunday when they arrested and detained peaceful protesters in the rain for hours.
By now, the police have zero credibility now in the eyes of many. Quite truthfully, when I listen to one of them talk, hoping to get a glimpse of understanding, they don't even make sense. It's hard to believe a man with a shaky voice who looks like he knows he'll be made the scapegoat come investigation time. And all this time, not one decent police officer came forth and spoke out, not one refused to attack a peaceful crowd.
Those goons that smashed the windows and burned police cars, and those officers that trampled my human rights are no different. Both are breaking the law (or what should be law if they didn't pass a secret one that gives police extra power and allows them to deny my "right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure;" and my "right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned"). They were both scary, and both acted like thugs who disregard the people around them and their surrounding.
My friend Ryan says I'm just experiencing a moment of clarity. That Canada has always been a police state, and that recent events just showed it to everybody. I'm starting to think he may have a point.
The whole world cheered when they tore down the Berlin Wall. And so many demonstrated and opposed the wall Israel has built around the territories. Don't they know by now that walls are just plain bad? Have they not figured it out yet?
When I first heard of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies I thought it was a joke. Because I was going on vacation and looking to read something light while sunbathing, I actually bought the book. For a laugh.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen is one of my favorite books of all times. Yes, I know some consider it the Harlequin romance of the time, but I absolutely love that book. So I was ready for a funny parody of sorts, but boy was I was disappointed.
The book is nearly verbatim the original, plus the occasional paragraph or sentence mentioning the zombies or describing the fights against them. While for a second there I thought it was the unfortunate result of some misguided feminist trying to empower the women in the book, I was soon greatly disappointed as not only were they not empowered, the great powers they actually possessed in the original book were fully lost.
It then took me no time to realize the author is male, which was of course confirmed when I checked the cover. Seth something. He actually had the nerve to write by Jane Austen and Seth something. How can someone be so arrogant as to think he can put his name next to hers? He really think himself her equal? I assure you, he's not.
The addition of the zombies was not funny, the "fights" and martial arts references were quite boring (despite the fact that I am a martial art practitioner and love action in films and books) and the relationships, in fact the whole story was made flat.
I know Pride and Prejudice is public domain, but does it really give anyone the right to bastardize it so? Should we allow such work? And to think this was actually a New York Times bestseller just really irks me. How? How is that guy allowed to make a fortune on the back of a work he didn't write? What's next? Romeo and Juliet and Aliens? War and Peace and Elmos?
[To be clear, I very much enjoyed Bridget Jones (although they have stopped with the first one). Yes, it was a remake, but it wasn't verbatim and it was just fitting.]
OK, so I'm a faithless person. I'm not even sure what that means. I guess I'm an atheist since I don't believe in the existence of (a) god(s). Even writing this makes me embarrassed to the core, like saying I don't believe hobbits exist.
I don't often discuss this though. I respect other people's beliefs to the extent that they believe it. I don't think it's in my place to tell other adults what they should or shouldn't believe in. This is plain rude, and I hope my manners, while I can definitely be direct, are slightly better than that.
Plus, I really have no energy for such a discussion with its inevitable conclusion. I don't feel the need to justify myself, nor persuade anyone.
Some may already feel that saying the above was rude enough, but hopefully most will take it in stride, just like I do when listening to their explanations about their faith, whatever it may be.
I can totally understand therefore much of what Charlotte Allen at the LA Times says when she thinks that "What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger." I can relate to her sentiment regarding Dawkins and others. As an -- fine I'll agree to be called by that name for the sake of being clear -- atheist, I don't understand why they have to talk so much about god. Really, many of them talk about god more than religious people.
Still, I also think Allen's position is defensive in a way, and it shouldn't. Granted, most faithless sorts sound condescending, myself included probably. But really, if people have such strong faith, they really shouldn't give people like me a second thought.
But most, I don't even understand why get into such arguments. In a way, I guess treat religious beliefs like I do sex. It's personal and no one's business.
I seriously don't know much about self publishing. All I know is that it's definitely getting more attention.
Today I read on NYT about Scribd, an Internet start-up that introduced today a way for anyone to upload a document to the Web and charge for it. Already Scribd is the most popular document-sharing site, the Times say, as it takes a YouTube-like approach to text.
But now there's a store too, which allows authors or publishers to set their own price for their work and keep 80% of the revenue, which apparently is a much higher percentage than higher services (I really don't know, does anyone know how much Lulu.com charges for example?)
Other features include security measures, or unprotected PDFs, which gives them the ability to be read on any device (not just the Kindle).
The Times writes:
So far, no major publishing houses have signed on to the store, though the company says it is talking to them. The independent publishers Lonely Planet, O’Reilly Media and Berrett-Koehler will add their entire catalogs.
The Scribd store will also give unpublished authors, or authors who are in a hurry, a well-trafficked Web forum on which to post their books, charge for them and see immediate results.
There have been some success stories of self publishing, although not many. Regardless, I definitely it's exciting there's another service for writers in the Internet age.
Anyone with some self-publishing experience can give a better insight into the new service?
For those writers out there submitting stories, those interested in submitting and just for general knowledge, I found this:5 Lies Writers Believe About Editors from Jeremiah Tolbert, an editor at Escape Pod:
LIE #1: Editors give every story fair consideration. OR: Editors reject stories without reading them at all.
LIE #2: Editors never reject a good story.
LIE #3: Editors don’t foster new writers like they did in the old days, and don’t care about new talent.
Yesterday, stock markets hit multi-months highs, erasing this year's losses. Today, Fed chairman Bernanke said he expects growth in 2009.
Ok, so there are definitely signs now, very early ones, that things have bottomed and stabilized, and that at least the rate of economic decline has lessened. Stock markets are forward looking and are reacting to that, but that shouldn't fool people into thinking we're about to find ourselves in a period of booming economic growth.
Stock markets are interested in the corporations, not in the people. Corporations start doing better also because they fire so many people. So, in fact, long after the recession is officially declared over, people will continue to suffer. Unemployment will likely continue to grow and peak a quarter or two after the recession is over.
So I find myself, as someone many would consider as socialist at the least (albeit a realistic one), in a bit of a conundrum here. As a financial writer and stock holder I cheer the market rally, adding to the positive sentiment. But at the same time I know so many who have lost their jobs and can't ignore the reality I live in. I hope that reality will change soon, but I seriously doubt that.
So no, the recession ain't over yet, and worse, the labour situation will get even worse before it starts getting better, and more people and families will continue to lose their homes, and delis will continue to accept food stamps.
Yup, internet newspapers and news organizations that publish online will be considered for all 14 of the journalism awards. No doubt, some blogs that mainly report on news may be eligible. This is definitely a sign things are changing in our world.
With print newspapers going out of business at a rapid pace -- Tribune just filed for Chapter 11 the other day -- there's not even a question of the increasing importance and influence of online media. Print newspaper may disappear at some point. Gosh, I haven't read a print paper in probably eight years.
For writers, though, this is very meaningful. If anyone still had doubts about the "legitimacy" of internet work and online writing, they're living in the past.
As for fiction and novels, Well, I have way too much to say and it will have to wait for another post.
I know I've deviated lately from the main topic of this blog -- writing. At least, that's what the topic used to be once upon a time, about two years ago, when it was still an active blog.
Then the war happened and I was outed and I had a hard time returning to blogging. Seems lately, though, I've been back blogging a little after all. Only I don't feel like blogging just about writing all the time. So I won't. My blog, my say.
But this post is about writing.
I participated in NaNoWriMo this year. I knew I'd likely fail, but I knew it would give me an extra incentive to write anyways. So I joined, and yes, I "failed" but I don't count it as failing. I wrote over 12,000 words during November. I think that's not too shabby at all.
You know I'm also an editor at BloggingStocks, right? So I have a running word count on the system there. To date, I wrote 991,557 words over two years and half. That's nearly ten standard size novels. In two and half years. If you do the math, that's just over 1,000 words a day. Every day.
Since no one is expecting anyone to write 10 novels in two and half years -- that's about seven and half novels too many -- then do the new math and you get that by writing only 274 words a day you get 100,000 words a year. A novel.
Point: Anyone discounting any amount of words written is doing injustice to herself. Anyone thinking a goal of just 200 words a day would get him nowhere is dead wrong. It adds up. Don't argue with the math!
Or, in the words of one Insane Writer: Writing: It’s All About the Numbers.
I know I get discouraged sometimes when all I can manage is a measly 150 words, so I guess I'm writing this more for myself following my undisputed, gynormous failure in NaNo...
So it's like this: Seems Americans have devised a plan, Gifts for Guns, starting in 2005 where around this time of year they can actually exchange their guns for gift cards.
While in previous years the chosen gift cards were for Best Buy and Target, this year, because of the recession, it's for food stores.
Anyone who just could never fathom this American mantra of "right to bear arms" protected by that second amendment, probably also shakes his head when reading about this program.
Sure, in essence it's a good thing to get guns off the street, but somehow there's something fundamentally off about this program that really bothers me. Maybe it's that little thing called dignity, I don't know.
So while I definitely applaud such goals as aiming to have less weapons in private hands, and even appreciate that this program actually proves to get results, I can't help but hope for a much more fundamental change in views and concepts one day.
For now, it seems, the recession and the need for food -- I wonder if the right to eat is protected by any amendment -- has brought in a record number of guns. At least that.
Believe it or not, but it is exciting Canadian politics that actually got me back to this blog.
While the world in general and USA more specifically had their full attention on the American presidential election, Canada also held a federal election. Unfortunately, those hoity-toity Conservatives strengthened their hold in the parliament. They didn't get a majority, though, thank goodness.
Harper, the Conservative party leader and the current Canadian prime minister, AKA slimeball, started losing ground some time before the election because he somehow got it in his thick head that Canada is immune to the global economic crisis. He did nothing.
After the election, White Chocolate continued to do nothing. His budgetary proposals are a joke and an insult to Canadians. He squandered the lag time Canada had (still has a bit) before recession hits full force. Instead of acting NOW he chose not to do anything before he proposes a budget at the end of Jan 09.
So the opposition parties formed a coalition. This is what happens in parliamentary systems. It's a common occurrence in many countries with such systems. We don't elect a prime minister. So if parties can create majorities and overthrow the current government through a non-confidence vote to either call an election or form their own government, that's allowed. By law. That's the way our democratic system works. You may think it's flawed, but what system isn't.
Unable to look at Harper without hurling, I was happy that opposition leaders decided to form a coalition and act to stimulate the Canadian economy NOW. I actually felt warm and fuzzy inside to see avowed rivals acting together in an attempt to save us. They put aside more than differences, they put aside hatred, and decided it was important to act.
Harper wasn't that happy. He asked the Queen's representative in Canada -- yes, you read right -- Canada's head of state is actually the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, and she has a vice-regal here, the Governor General. Back to slimey, he asked the GG to prorogue -- that is, suspend -- the parliament!!! until the end of Jan when he presents his budget. This way he can avoid the non-confidence vote scheduled in the House of Commons next week.
He asked, she agreed.
So, I always knew I live in a constitutional monarchy, Canada being part of the Commonwealth realm. As an immigrant, I even swore an oath to Queen and Country when I became Canadian. But I always imagined this was just a cutsey role, that nothing improtant ever really materialized out of it. That it was some lingering romantical attachement and nothing more.
I know, I know. It seems I'm hiding behind "it's the law" when it suits me and condemning it when it doesn't. But I strongly believe this monarchial / dictatorial rule is a remnant that was left in place because no one ever thought it would be used. Like declaring martial law only in the most extreme of circumstances (I know, I lived through one). This is the most dangerous of precedences that would allow future prime ministers to avoid non-confidence and be overthrown in a democratic process. It allows Harper to stay in power even though he doesn't have the support of the parliament. Now, this is unconstitutional in nature, and it is undemocratic!
Meanwhile, the leaders of Canada keep squandering the lag time it had to try and keep the recession away, or at least keep it short and shallow. Canada was holding its own for a while as Canadian banks were the strongest among the G8. But, despite what Harper kept saying, Canada cannot exist -- well -- apart from the US, its biggest trading partner. The Canadian auto industry is the US auto industry. And the saving grace that was high commodity prices has all but disappeared.
I believe Canada can still avert the worst of it, but not if Harper keeps on wasting time. He's inept and his inactivity will cost us. He's got to go! As for the monarchy, I'd rather it stayed in the ceremonial realm.
I started my come back well enough, at least in terms of how often I posted. I still didn't find my groove as far as post topics were concerned, but I was willing to give it time. I actually even had a few things (that I thought were interesting) brewing.
And then, the markets tanked and I got real busy at work. Since the days were so full, it was hard to do anything in the evening, and I just needed to clear my head -- usually that entailed mostly reading with a bit of TV. I just couldn't look at the computer past a certain hour, except maybe to play Mahjong or Chess.
But today, a good friend quit being himself. I have often mentioned Ryan Oakley and his blog The Grumpy Owl here. Ryan is a good friend and a fellow writer. And Ryan wants to hire you as a ghostwriter.
The idea behind it has many aspects:
You get to be Ryan Oakley. You get to make him say things. In return, Ryan gets the benefit of different point of views, the benefit of diversification. No longer a white, catholic male, but perhaps a woman, an Asian, a Muslim, Ryan can be anything, anywhere.
You get to say things you never dreamed you would actually express -- anonymously. Ryan, just like a politician reading a prepared speech, will assume the words -- your words -- and never reveal who wrote them.
Unless you choose incomprehensible bigotry, you will not be edited. Ryan Oakley gives his word as a gentleman that your name will never be revealed and that all posts will go under his name as if he wrote them. Complete confidentiality.
No rules, no guidelines. Write whatever you want. Anything you ever wanted to say but were too embarrassed to even admit to yourself you had such thoughts! You are Ryan Oakley and he takes responsibility for your own words, as offensive as they may be. Use Ryan Oakley and the platform he gives you to voice some things you never dared!
And of course, being me, I have to add my little nasty twist to it. What you ghostwrite as Ryan doesn't necessarily have to be offensive. Declare your secret love for Barbies or your crush on Lindsay Lohan and let's see how he deals with that!
Recently, I came across a blog post in a more finance-oriented blog that related to the future of media. The blogger, aware his sample size of his own three children don't really constitute any meaningful, scientific source, didn't really come to any conclusion, but rather to several suppositions about the future of media.
The post is rather interesting with respect to all media and entertainment types, but naturally I was really interested in what the written word. Here's what he said from his finance point of view:
- mass market magazines might be undervalued. [...] - books may be the one category of media and entertainment that aren't disrupted by digital technology. or maybe we just haven't seen the technology that will do it. i honestly don't know. and i don't know how the book business is faring versus five or ten years ago. but at least in my family, books are still a growth sector.
I've compared my own sample size of 8 nieces and nephews (the ninth is three-month old tomorrow, so I didn't count her yet :). With respect to digital media, the post was bang on. With respect to magazines, I didn't find a similarity. As for books, I find that depended more on the house the kids grow up in, but most are avid readers.
Alas, statistics is not proving our small sample size. Americans (not sure if that represents "world," but it was easiest to find) are indeed reading less, as I think we've all been feeling. Interestingly, "teen fiction is a rapidly expanding category," but that can be attributed, at least in part, to Harry Potter. Overall, there is a decline in sales according to the National Endowment for the Arts report. One saving grace is that reading scores among nine-year olds are soaring.
So, what is the future of books and reading? Would there be alternatives to fiction?
I'm pretty sure print will not decline in favor of digital books, which is fine -- reading is reading -- but fiction itself - will anyone be reading?
One of my dad's longest running jokes, or maybe I should say 'sayings,' is about movies he doesn't like. You have to understand that he doesn't like about 90% of them, so I've heard this often. Anyways, the saying goes something like this: It's a masterpiece; the master has left, the piece remained.
Well, the other day I found myself saying something similar about the latest Coen brothers movie, No Country for Old Men. I thought the movie really sucked. About ten seconds into the film I found it boring (during the first narrative). About a minute or two into it, I told hubby I didn't want to see it (already there were two murders and I knew the movie was going to be bad, as in mean). I stayed and watched the whole thing though. The movie was two hours long. Two hours too long in my opinion.
Anyways, our friends -- and as I understand it many other people too -- found the movie very good and artistic. You know, hubby tried to explain their opinion to me, it's different. People think it's one of those artsy phartsy movies. I said, sure, only there was no artsy, just phartsy.
Many say the movie was different. I say it just sucked, but because there were some "artistic" elements often found in real art films, people confuse the issue. It saddens me because I do generally like Coen Bros' movies and this one has a plot line similar to Fargo, one of my all-time favourite movies, with a small town cop that goes after a ruthless murderer. The difference here is that another person gets involved.
Let's start with characters. They were all shallow and one-dimensional. The bad guy was just -- bad with no other qualities. The two protagonists weren't much better, their motives unclear.
The dialogue - what dialogue?
The description - ok, here I must agree that the cinematography was good, as was the acting - superb!
The plot was interesting, but lacked any redeeming qualities to make up for all the horrors subjected to when watching the film. It lacked that something that binds it all together.
As a whole, the movie lacked that je ne sais quoi quality that makes something work. Perhaps it was the lack of heart in both character and plot, lack of any redeeming quality that could give the viewer hope. There was no soul.
So no, No Country for Old Men isn't art, it just isn't good. I wish people didn't confuse feeling alienated by a movie with calling it art. If it was a book, I guarantee people would just stop reading it. Even the harshest books I've read, with the worst endings possible, left me with some emotional bond to one character or another despite losing hope for it, or for mankind - 1984. There was none of that here.
Well ... I think you got me by now. Feel free to disagree of course.
Last Friday, a few days before the new year, I received a phone call from the Canadian Blood Services, asking me to come in and donate blood.
For some reason, I was elated. It has been a while since I've given blood, even though it was always on my to do list this past year. My feelings probably had a lot to do with Patry Francis from Simply Wait, who has recently been diagnosed with cancer. Although this is not direct help to Patry (and in hopes she will never need such help), giving blood helps not only trauma and surgery patients but many cancer patients too.
Unfortunately, due to being in a malaria-risk zone as I roamed through a certain Latin American / Caribbean country jungle, I was ineligible. I will have to wait until a year had passed since my swim under the falls. That would be in March.
Meanwhile, Laura Benedict has come up with the idea of blogging for Patry. The date set is January 29, when her novel, The Liar's Diary, will be released in paperback. So far it seems that a large group of bloggers will be part of this as Litpark lists them. Anyone can join.
Well, you know the importance I put on space exploration, and you know what a geek I can be, so this sudden official "Most Likely to be Contacted" badge when I only just resumed blogging two weeks ago or so, is just freaking amazing.
Well, no one can't deny that I haven't made the first steps. After all, I've written a blog and submitted it for transmission in space.
Now, all I have to do is wait. To be contacted of course. I'm taking this all very seriously!
Here are some space/science posts I'm really proud of for those who think Blog In Space was wrong:
I felt it was expected - a post that makes a mention of the year-end in one way or another. And because I felt it was almost "obligatory," the post I had originally written (but never published) was rather nasty. In it I listed everything that's going wrong with the world (well, I couldn't possibly list them all) in general terms. You know, I mentioned the things that worry me like global warming, wars, hunger, poverty, diseases, epidemics, space exploration (or lack thereof), cultural dilution etc.
I could never understand how those artificial divisions of time (year, month, et.) are so meaningful. So the earth rotated around the sun again. Big deal. Time is continuous and so is the earth's movement and because it completed a rotation we're suddenly joyful? It doesn't stop or anything, the earth doesn't know it's been a year. The bad things don't miraculously disappear for the night...
Maybe you understand now why I decided to just save the post and not publish it, but went to take a nap instead given that I hardly slept last night and I'm planning on having fun tonight!
I woke up, and with a puffy face I had much less cynicism in me than a few hours earlier. Not that anything had changed. I guess that what mainly changed was within me and I didn't want to be in a bad mood or ruin anyone else's. Didn't I just say that I wanted to have fun tonight too?
So let's do just that tonight and meet again to solve the world's problem in two days, hows that?
"Writing is arrogant." I don't remember where I've heard this before. Perhaps it was Ryan, The Grumpy Owl, who mentioned it to me first, and at the time I don't believe I gave it much thought, if at all. But I find myself thinking about these words every so often; they've landed somewhere in my brain and wouldn't leave. I was wondering what others are thinking about it -- is writing arrogant?
Well, on the one hand, writers assume that their word is important enough to be read. They assume they have something to say to the world that is of value (added). They assume they can teach / influence / affect people. They want their words to do that.
Then again, so does any other art form, no? Show me an artist who doesn't want his work to affect the person experiencing his art, and I'll call him on it. So does that means that art in itself is arrogant?
This concept pains me. I don't know why but it does.
Take even non-fiction writing, say articles. They have to sound authoritative to pass even the first acceptance level. Say blogs, this post. I make very strong statements and I make them in a way that sounds as if I believe I'm right (which I am, of course... :).
See why the concept pains me? Or is it me?
Take a fictional work, say a novel. You want your readers to be at the very least moved enough so they would turn the page. But you want more, no? What you really want is for them to cry and laugh, bite their nails and sigh in relief. You want them to think your words are important / interesting enough to be read. You want them to experience them same thing you do when you read a good book.
Is that such an arrogant thing to want to be able to affect people? Or is it something else?
There is one person I think about every Christmas. This is why:
An X number of years ago, when I was still a student, my world came apart. I had just separated from my ex a few months before, my roommates left for the holidays and most of my (good) friends also left to be with their families during the holidays. I was all alone, with my own family an ocean and a continent away. Granted, I don't celebrate Christmas, certainly not in the religious sense, but everybody else around me was and combined with new single status, I've never felt so alone in my life.
A few days before Christmas, I went out with some less close friends from university who were native to the city. We had a really good time. We we were young and stupid and broke many laws that night. Surprisingly enough, drunk driving wasn't one of them. We did, however, break into a ski resort and tobogganed at 2 a.m. down the slopes - did I mention is was fun?
But my post isn't about that. I can't remember how the conversation evolved, but somehow L found out I was doing nothing Christmas Day. "No way," he said. "You're coming with me to my sister." I voiced my (very weak) objection about not wanting to intrude on a family Christmas, but L wouldn't hear of it and said he would call me the next day with directions.
I was sure he would forget. We were, after all, quite drunk. But L didn't forget. He called me the next day, gave me instructions and made me promise I'd show up. I did.
I remember being so nervous driving there my hands were shaking on the wheel. I stopped twice on the way there to calm myself. Not only was I truly embarrassed for what I felt would be an intrusion, but the whole thing itself, being with a family other than my own, the kindness of L, etc., made me very emotional.
L's sister and her husband were amazing, though, as was he. They made me feel very welcome and at ease. We had dinner -- homemade sushi -- and then retired to the music room where L's sister and husband played and sang. It was truly the best Christmas Dinner I've ever had.
L -- better known as Liberty (I hope if he ever reads this he wouldn't mind me disclosing his name) -- had just been recently separated from his wife too, something we had in common among our very young university-going crowd. We were never romantically involved, nor did we want to (I think), but he was truly one of the kindest souls I've ever met.
Wherever you are today, Liberty, thank you for breaking my loneliness that Christmas. I think of you every year during Christmas, wishing you the best.
I guess that following the few weeks I just passed with human rights issues largely on my mind, it didn't surprise me to find myself in New Hampshire where the state motto (or whatever it's called) is Live Free or Die.
But today, a good friend 
Well, the other day I found myself saying something similar about the latest Coen brothers movie, 
Unfortunately, due to being in a malaria-risk zone as I roamed through a certain Latin American / Caribbean country jungle, I was ineligible. I will have to wait until a year had passed since my swim under the falls. That would be in March.
By 
Uploaded on