Before I begin in earnest, I should also state that although I put a number in the title, that number does not represent any specific order or magnitude of aggravation, but rather simply illustrates that this is the first in a series. With my track record, it may be a while before we see number 2, so the reminder of what number I am at will serve a useful purpose down the road.

Today I want to rant about some annoying weather reporting terminology that has become commonplace. There are few things as consistently irritating to me as hearing that although the temperature is 21 degrees, it actually feels like 30 degrees. I ask the innocent but important question: What ever happened to the term ‘humidex’? Wasn’t that term (and its representative number) contrived as an indicator of something that we, especially in Montreal, already know, that when humidity is high, it seems to be hotter than the actual temperature indicates?

I prefer that 30 is given to me as the humidex reading, as opposed to being told what it ‘feels like’. I mean, do they really know what I’m wearing? Is it not possible, perhaps even likely, that I am suffering from hot flashes or the chills or some other condition that makes the temperature ‘feel like’ something other than it actually is? If I had just run across the street, it might even feel like 40! While I am in a refrigerated trailer, chances are great, barring severe incompetence on the part of the trucking company, that the air will feel much colder.

Actually the media might be more savvy than I give them credit for being. While I complain that the media has reached a new low in appealing to the lowest common denominator in intelligence, I hear people running around the office at work screaming, “Oh my God!!! It’s minus 30!!!”, when in truth the temperature is minus 8, but it happens to be a little windy. Once again, instead of bringing out this ‘windchill factor’ reading honestly (which as an aside I thought was ‘windshield factor’ when I first heard it as a kid: windchill being, I suppose, another contrived weather term that did not occur to my already advanced intellect, whereas a windshield was something I had already heard of – oh how I digress!), we are told that it ‘feels like’ minus 30! How do they know I’m not wearing an Inuit parka? Perhaps I am sitting in a greenhouse, in which case it would actually ‘feel like’ plus 25, no matter what the temperature. Or perhaps I am sleeping next to an exhaust vent of a downtown highrise. It might be minus 8, but it ‘feels like’ plus 8, and after I am finally put into the squad car, plus 25. If I sneak a bite out of the discarded remains of a doughnut on the back seat of the squad car, the temperature may ‘feel’ a degree or two warmer. Of course once in prison it might only ‘feel like’ 15 degrees, depending on the prison, I suppose. If you factor in fear, and the effects of breaking into a cold sweat, it might ‘feel like’ the termperature is off the mercury, that is if these meteorologists indeed use mercury anymore.

I should mention that all of these temperatures are given in degrees Celcuis.

Recently, I witnessed the most extreme manifestation of this problem possible. A CBC Radio newscaster gave the long term highs and lows ONLY using the ‘feels like’ numbers, leaving temperature completely out of the forecast. I would have fired that guy.

If you’re still there, you surely appreciate what I am trying to say. When I seek out information, I want it to be accurate, and most importantly, OBJECTIVE. Stick with the facts, please. Subjective information such as what it ‘feels like’ outside is best left for kindergarten discussions, in my opinion.

I really can’t say whether this development is more indicative of a growing contempt big media (the weather forecasting agencies are equally responsible) has for its audience, or a simple lack of respect for the intelligence of the public. I know very few people incapable of understanding the concepts of humidex and windchill, so it is probably a little of both. I can understand how a 5 year old might benefit from the ‘feels like’ language, but how will this child advance intellectually if we insist on using terms designed for the comprehension of children in newscasts, whose target audience is supposedly adults?

I expect that their real reasons for using these new terminologies are more cynical in nature. Extremes get people’s attention, thusly attracting more viewers, or keeping their attention longer. This is why we never hear about ‘humidex’ in winter, even though there is no doubt in my mind humidity adds a chill in cold in a similar way it creates the impression of exagerrated heat on a hot day. Does not the wind cool us down in the summer? I submit that it does, yet we never hear about the windchill factor on a breezy July evening.

There is another possibility. Could it be that there might be some element of climate alarmism in this choice of terminology? I’m just asking.

So weather editors everywhere, please stop telling us what it ‘feels like’ outside. This information is simply too subjective to be considered as news. Stick with the ‘humidex’ and ‘windchill’ readings.

And while we’re on the subject, let me remind all of you weather reporters out there in radio, television and cyberland, that ‘humidex’ and ‘windchill’ factors are not measured in degrees. They are represented by a standalone number. Temperature is measured in degrees. Please refrain from this most common of errors as it drives me up the walls.

Now excuse me while I get a life.

Perhaps it was because of the routine I had established at the check out counter, whereby I would start packing the groceries already checked out into the plastic bags while the cashier was scanning the other items. I always felt that this was a great time saver for everybody, especially myself.

This time was different however. As I reflexively reached for the rack of plastic bags, I noticed that they weren’t there. It was then that I was informed of my choices.

I should have expected this. It had been reported on in the news some time ago, that certain supermarket chains would begin charging the nickel in the Montreal area, in order to protect the environment, but in my neighbourhood the local supermarket still values my business enough to give me an option, so I had forgotten about this until recently, when I visited one of those big grocers for the first time since the change.

To the credit of the cashier, she seemed genuinely embarrassed as she informed me, as I was for her. I have worked in similar jobs in the past, and it is never easy informing a customer of some unexpected charge, however small. There is no guarantee that the reaction will be reasonable.

I find this policy totally ridiculous. It does happen from time to time, that busy people stop to shop on their way from work or other activities, and therefore are not in possession of their precious cloth bags. Charging for a bag is, in my view, mean spirited, and ultimately disrespectful towards the customer. Besides, why do they assume I will be ditching the bag in a landfill?

What I find really offensive about this whole exercise is not the 15 cents it cost me to have bags in order to carry the things I just purchased. That is likely just a money grab, and from the number of bags I saw purchased, surely a lucrative one. I, after all, was not going to buy my cloth shopping bags from this particular establishment, no matter how hard they tried to shame me into it. I don’t like being coerced into any kind of purchase, and certainly don’t appreciate being a captive customer of some corporation, whose ultimate motive is always profit, no matter what they tell you.

Were plastic bags not available for purchase I would probably have placed all of my groceries back into the cart and replaced them on the shelves before leaving the store, if only to make my point, the seemingly forgotten but important point that I am a customer who is about to drop 100 dollars at their place of business. I am also skeptical as to whether these companies are that worried about the environment, as I will illustrate a few paragraphs down.

That having been said, I have no doubt that the employees enforcing this policy are doing so with the best of intentions.

I despise this policy on so many levels. Yes I acknowledge that the environment merits our respect, and I do live my lifestyle in such a way that I do not consider myself a threat to the earth. My existence is quite minimalist in many aspects, and I confidently submit that it is way more so than that of the powers that decided to charge me a nickel for a plastic bag.

I guess it’s the element of hypocrisy that gets to me the most. I find it hard to swallow that these big box grocers care about the environment at all, other than as a marketing tool, a campaign to convince the environmentally conscious (coincidentally, everybody!) that they also are conscious.

If these places really were worried about such things, they would make their stores accessible by foot. Instead, the typical large scale grocery store chooses to be situated at driving distance from where people live. Look at the size of the parking lots serving these establishments! I’m sure it would take several thousand plastic bags to equal the destruction wrought (in theory) on the atmosphere that the multitude of cars headed to and from shopping at these places would cause. I do realize that many of these establishments were built years ago, before global warming became an issue, but if you think about it, the plastic bags also were in existence before they became ‘bad’, so the ‘already exists’ defense does not serve as a good excuse in my opinion.

And don’t even get me started on the packaging of most individual items for sale at these places. Apparently that’s a-okay though, since the packaging qualifies as ‘marketing’, as was so astutely noted by someone I work with, and of course companies have the right to ‘advertise’. It is only lowly I who should not have the right to use plastic for my individual carrying pleasure.

I submit the charge for plastic bags is the most cynical ‘marketing’ effort yet.

If I were any more paranoid (is this even possible?) I would feel that this policy of charging for bags may even serve a more sinister purpose, which is to demonize anyone who may not be so enamoured with the eco-conformity so many wish to impose upon society. They succeed in doing this via the demonization of the bag itself, which naturally extrapolates to those seen carrying them. This will eventually pave the way for more egregious money (or power) grabs (under the guise of saving the earth) in the years to come, although what exact form these will take remains to be seen.

As such, I have decided, when possible, to forego shopping at all stores that charge me for bags, until such time as everybody charges for them, which I predict will be in the not too distant future, anyway. I realize this decision will be met with derision by many who just can’t be reasonable when it comes to environmental matters, but to me it boils down to a simple matter of personal choice, which is an adjunct to personal liberty, an issue of which I am a strong proponent.

I did not voice the reasons for my decision to try and convince anyone else to do the same, so to those about to express outrage in the comments section, please spare me the venom of your wrath. As with any topic, this issue needs to be discussed with civility, not shouted down. That alone would reduce much of the hot air currently in the atmosphere, and it wouldn’t even cost a nickel.

It was all so very impulsive, as I have been known to be at times. Impulse is special in that it seems to usually occur when least appropriate. In retrospect this may have been one of those times.

This all began as my forty-somethingth birthday approached recently, which would have been traumatic enough had I not received not once, but twice, email messages from one of Facebook’s applications with specific reference being made to my upcoming birthday, and actions that I can take to celebrate, all using this application I don’t ever recall installing (Causes).

Now before you dismiss my now faded outrage about their using my personal information in order to target advertising towards me, consider how probable it is that all of the other information on Facebook, whether public or not, is also mined in order to target advertising and God knows what else. When I think about these things I often get uncomfortable, especially when taking into account that most Facebook applications are developped by third parties who are not vetted by Facebook, yet have access to all of our information, as well as that of our friends!

Don’t get me wrong now, it’s not as though I trust Facebook to the exclusion of application developers. I am an equal opportunity paranoid.

I’m only singling out Facebook in this case because of the emails I received, and because I don’t really join alot of websites. I would not be surprised, and in fact am virtually certain, that all sites do it to some degree.

So I set out on a mission to show these whizzes exactly how I felt, using that hard-hitting device known as deactivation. I imagined the Facebook team shaking in their crocs as they received notification of my decision.

First thing I noticed is that there is no option for closing the account. I clicked on the ‘deactivate’ button and was promptly shown pictures of friends who were tagged along with me in photos, with captions such as “Suzie Sparks will miss you” and “John Jones will miss you”. I have verified with these friends that indeed Facebook did not take the time to actually confirm with them that they would miss me, which upset me further. I certainly hate being misquoted, as I am sure my friends do. While using this cheap attempt at emotional blackmail, Facebook also implies that it is so cocksure that after I deactivate I will not be able to contact my friends ever again, as if the telephone or email no longer exists. How arrogant!

The deactivation itself was a disappointment, as I soon discovered that the only thing that happens is you disappear from your friends’ friends list. They see their number of friends reduced by one, but they are not informed that someone deactivated their account. I am too much of an emotional survivalist to have inquired whether any of these friends noticed that it was I who had caused the reduction.

It’s funny how Facebook informs everyone of every little change one makes to their profile, except for when the change may reflect poorly on themselves. I was really hoping that the item “Paul Haponovich has deactivated his Facebook account” would appear on the News Feed, but I suppose it makes sense that it did not. I did deactivate after all.

After a week of this, I decided to try to log in to my account to see what kind of message I would receive, but I was able to log in as if nothing had happened. I didn’t even need to reactivate. In fact if I wanted to stay deactivated, I would have to find the option and do it over again.

After catching up on the news feed (I really didn’t miss anything),
I decided to adopt a different approach, which is where my protest really went sour. Instead of keeping my account deactivated, I chose instead to clean up my profile, which was already lacking in detail.

I deleted each item individually, which took hours. Of course Facebook does not give the option of mass deletion. I suppose that makes sense. The process allowed me to relive my last two years of Facebook life, which in my case was exaggerated in its simplicity. I deleted everything, not wanting to have to pick and choose from among friends, until my profile resembled a ghost town, with only hints as to its glorious past.

And what was the result of this effort at protest? From Facebook’s perspective, honesty forces my admission that they most likely didn’t notice, whereas from my view, life did change, although probably not for the better. The few people I had mentioned this to thought me anti-social, extremist and just plain out of touch, not to mention one huge spoilsport. They may have a point or two worth examining.

Sadly, If I had expected some to be impressed with my activism, I was horribly mistaken. People seem willing to accept a little loss of privacy and alot of potential security risks in exchange for the convenience an application like Facebook provides. I am left to disagree in shame and silence.

In conclusion, after conducting my personal port mortem on the exercise, I realized that in some cases, you really can’t fight city hall, so to speak, without getting bludgeoned beyond recognition. And although my reduced Facebook presence is somewhat liberating, it has also liberated me from being invited to parties and other fun events, so I have to say, all things considered, that this attempt at protest was certainly a failure, probably an embarrassment, and possibly an indication, but of what I will leave up to you.

I realize it’s February 5th.

It’s funny, because when I started this blog around this time last year, I had every intention of posting on a weekly basis, if not with more frequency.

So why is it that I’ve succeeded at publishing a blog post less than ten times over the course of twelve months?

I’ve given this question some serious thought, and my gut answer always seems to presume some form of perfectionism present in my character. This is problematic, however, after a perusal of my posts. I know exactly what you’re thinking, if not saying out loud. “Paul! You’re nowhere near perfect!”

I won’t argue.

In fact I will fess up to an embarrassing truth, since we’re on the subject. Reality is that I have a collection of draft posts, that, because they took me so long to complete (if indeed they had ever even been completed),  and, due to their subject matter being either commentary on current events, or subjects specific to the time of year, have become highly irrelevant simply because they were not published in a timely manner.

It makes sense. Writing about the news of three weeks ago makes you as relevant as the magazines at your dentist’s office.

Since you need specifics, and I’m not willing to give them, a compromise is in order.

I have chosen as the sole example of my failure my most recent effort (I reserve the right to recycle some of these as they regain pertinence over time). That article was a commentary on the inauguration of Barack Obama, but before I could coherently elaborate my opinion on the matter, it was already the 29th, and the spirit of my commentary was no longer consistent with how I actually felt.

As a bonus example of how bad it’s actually been, immediately prior to the previous example, I started writing about new year’s resolutions, but by the time I got around to it, Obama was swearing in.

You get the picture.

The evidence is overwhelming.

As much as I would like to attribute my failure to publish to my aforesaid perfectionism and/or my striving therefor, I must face the grim reality of the real reasons, laziness and procrastination.

Let’s face it, I could not have been less productive over the last few months even if the weather had been nice.

All is not tragic, however, as the title of this piece courageously states. By not publishing these not-so-interesting exercises in brain farting, I benefit by having more time to dwell on my failure to publish blog posts. In the process, my reputation also gets the tarnishing it so probably deserves.

But the greatest benefit of all probably devolves to you, dear reader, as you were spared so much of my opinion over recent months that you remain the unchanged person you always assumed you would remain.

And as a result of my ever-growing collection of unpublished drafts (I’m not talking beer), I get to publish, one day in the distant future, a collection of all of my unpublished works, after time will have rendered them even less important.

So as you can see, being a half-assed contributor to the blogosphere does indeed have its rewards. You just have to know where to look to find them.

We asked a total of five Canadians, with the participants being from almost half of all provinces and territories, a series of questions about what they feel are the most important issues facing Canadians today, as well as a question on their voting preferences.

The data shows a virtual dead heat among all five major political parties, with the NDP leading the way with 20% of decided voters. The New Democrats were considered to be leading because the poll participant who selected them said that she ’strongly prefers’ the NDP, while those indicating they would vote for the other parties described their preference as only ‘somewhat strong’.

The survey indicated that if Canadians were to head to the polls today, the NDP would obtain 20% of the national vote, followed by the Conservative Party with 20%. The Liberals were chosen by 20% of respondents, and were neck and neck with the Green Party, also chosen by 20% of those surveyed. The Bloc Québecois was polling in fifth place with 20 percent of decided voters.

The data clearly shows that Canadians are prepared to elect another minority government, although it remains unclear which party would get to lead it.

The survey also showed that the New Democrats were favoured by 100 percent of art students, while 100% percent of all corporate CEO’s indicated they would vote for the Conservatives. All Quebeckers surveyed indicated the Bloc Québecois as their party of choice, while 100% of bicycle mechanics chose the Greens. Also, if the election were held today, 100 percent of all comatose hospital patients would vote for the Liberal Party.

The poll reveals that Canadians are divided about which issues they feel are most important, with 20 percent believing that art subsidization is the biggest issue, followed by CEO compensation (20%), automobile emissions (20%), and when I receive my next welfare cheque from the Quebec government (20%). Twenty percent of respondents did not indicate a preference.

The poll is considered accurate to within plus or minus 50%, 1 time out of 10 million.

Mugshots of wannabes with beady eyes and disfigured expressions appear all over, imploring you with their catchy slogans and pretty colours, but also politely reminding you that a vote for them is what’s best for you.

Naturally, those of us who are already decided or are dedicated to a particular party or ideology have our own take on what is right and who to vote for.

But what about those of you who don’t follow politics, yet want a basic enough overview of the federal parties to know which candidate best represents your ideas and beliefs? You should not have to sift through policy papers, listen to speeches, or even more boring, watch television just to fulfill your (arguably) civic duty.

I have decided to provide you, as a public service, with a summary of what the five major federal parties stand for, in order of their current popularity, so that you may mark your X with a clear conscience, and not tie up the lines at the voting booth by tossing coins, rolling dice, or asking scrutineers to pick a number.

All of the following is, of course, my own humble opinion.

As an additional disclaimer, please remember that what I write below does not represent the actual platforms of the parties, but rather reflects the reputations they have developed over time.

The Conservative Party

The Conservative Party is the hybrid child of big business, law and order sociopaths, social prudes and redneck racists. Born of the merger of the Canadian Alliance, intolerant of anyone who is different from them, and the Progressive Conservative Party, intolerant of anyone poorer than them, the Conservative Party consolidated these two parties into one under which all intolerance could congregate. They are sometimes accused of having a hidden agenda, but this has been difficult to ascertain as only a handful of party members are actually allowed to speak.

The Liberal Party

Known by many as the ‘Natural Governing Party of Canada’, the Liberals are exactly that, the party of the the Canadian political elite. Like all political parties, their main purpose is to gain power and feed at the public trough, although the Liberals have been far more sucessful at it than any other party in Canada’s history. In keeping with the traditions of political elitism, many working class families have been voting exclusively Liberal for generations now, regardless of policy and even if it might be against their own interests. Due to this phenomenon, Liberals continue to get elected no matter how badly they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

The New Democratic Party

The NDP could have easily been called the Umbrella Party, as it attracts members from a vastly diverse collection of special interests and ideologies, almost all progressive to a degree. Traditionally the home of the unions and the working class, the New Democrats have expanded their coalition to include virtually everyone, including many who would be considered extremists in the other major parties, such as pot activists, gay rights activists, women’s rights activists, and just plain activists. Because the NDP has never won a national election, it is not known for certain whether an NDP government would spend the country into bankruptcy, but they would certainly be expected to not go down without trying.

The Green Party

The Green Party is where you go when the NDP rejects you. Green Party members really are the most environmentally conscious, and as such more likely to wear flowers or actually drive a car running on olive oil or some other biofuel, if they are not angrily anti-motorist. They would impose their rigid environmental standards on all, ultimately affecting our dietary, reading and personal grooming choices. Of the five major parties, Green Party members are the most likely to get tasered in a demonstration, closely followed by their kindred souls, the New Democrats. Many people who vote for this party only do so because the word Green appears in the name.

Le Bloc Québecois

The Bloc Québecois is the choice party of the Quebec independence movement. The Bloc insists on participating in the Canadian Federal System, even though they purportedly want to break it apart. Although they claim to represent the interests of Quebeckers, it is more likely they represent the interests of collecting their healthy pensions, as they win uncontested in many regions of Quebec only because they have the word Québecois in their name. The Liberals can learn from this, and reclaim many lost votes in the process, by renaming their party the Liberal Party of Les Canadiens de Montréal, and change their logo to a big ‘C’ with an ‘L’ inside.

There you have it! I have managed to offend everyone, even myself! Whew! I’m feeling a bit queasy right now. I should get some air.

So if after reading this you still can’t decide who to vote for, abstinence may be for you. I’m of course referring to abstaining from voting, but you knew that already.

And if indeed I have been able to contribute in the smallest way to your reaching a decision, I accept your thanks in advance, and wish you happy voting.

Finally, for those of you livid with anger at the moment, or offended at all, please understand that this post was intended as humour, so please try to laugh at it, or laugh it off. It really wasn’t meant for you personally, and besides, you are the exception to these stereotypes anyway, right?

Many people love good conspiracy theories. They are interesting, exciting, maddening, usually plausible and always highly entertaining. They suggest great secret crimes commited against society that, if true, would have everyone seething, but are seen to be so beyond the pale that a vast majority of humans refuse to believe anyone could be so depraved as one would have to be to carry them out.

There is also a large subsection of humanity that deplores the people who espouse conspiracy theories, insisting on marginalizing their ideas, and calling them freaks, idiots, and worse.

Those who rail against the skeptics are usually influenced by a media that does not allow discussion beyond a certain accepted narrative. It does not matter whether the narrative is true or not. It cannot be challenged. It is taboo.

Conspiracy theories always break that acceptable narrative, which is why they are attacked so vociferously by a certain type from the pool of humanity which is Joe Public. They can’t help it.

What really perplexes me is why these narratives exist to begin with and are so taboo to question. The best reason I could fathom is because indeed they are untrue, and powerful elites (who are almost always the subjects of these accusations, anyway) must, at all costs, never allow a rationalization other than the one created to serve whatever agenda they have.

This is all, of course, purely theoretical.

Lately I have seen (mostly on the internet, of course, where else do all we nutjobs congregate?) very compelling evidence proving that, among others, Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy, and that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were an inside job and the Twin Towers brought down with explosives.

Compelling, however, does not mean conclusive. Still, without going into detail, much of this evidence seems highly probable when taken at face value.

But how can we really know for certain whether photos aren’t touched up, videos are edited or documents are doctored? Our belief in the truth surrounding these conspiracies boils down to faith, in a similar fashion that belief in the official version of events does.

I suppose that where one stands on this depends largely on whether there is a tolerance for thinking outside of what is known and comfortable. People who cannot challenge orthodoxy are unable to enjoy conspiracies simply because they challenge truths that are accepted as basic ones. These disruptions of normalcy can affect the happiness, even sanity, of many.

People also do not like to admit to being suckers.

But is it really so inconceiveable that people who govern do not necessarily do so in our interests? Is it really so unbelieveable that people so accustomed to great wealth and power will do anything to maintain or increase it, conscience be damned?

If I were that repulsive (and rich and important), I would certainly do everything in my power to hide my true nature.

As an aside, I have just now educated myself on why some people are wealthy and powerful, while I rarely rise above being horny, hungry or thoughtful.

Although I am extremely skeptical of many things, like all of you I would rather keep faith in the goodness of humanity and give the benefit of the doubt. I often pray that my suspiscions are wrong.

But with the way the U.S. financial system has been unravelling over recent weeks, seriously hurting the well being of millions of people around the world, I believe that the time is nigh when even some the most diehard defenders of the establishment, as they watch their standard of living go down the proverbial drain, turn on their masters and accept more and more of these so called conspiracy theories as anything but theoretical.

Yes, sweet, beautiful revenge. I’ll show them! How dare they?

There is an old saying that revenge is a dish best served cold, or something to that effect. And as with all old sayings, there is an element of truth to that, as I will attempt to show.

You see, vengeance actually tastes best when fresh, but fresh vengeance to a soul that’s hurting, like wine to an alcoholic I suppose, tends to be consumed in quantities that are too large for our metabolisms. As such it almost always leaves a bad aftertaste and a massive hangover to boot. Worse, for fine human beings possessing a refined sense of justice, like myself, any type of revenge, at whatever temperature it is to be served, is diffficult to seek without prior analysis.

Why is that, you ask? Why can’t revenge taste sweet and be good for you? The answer? You’ll just have to bear with me, precious reader.

Firstly, the act of seeking revenge, although reflexive, is usually the wrong reaction to being hurt. By pursuing vengeance we presume that we were intentionally affronted. This may or may not be the case, but it is important to know whether it is. Sometimes the intention to hurt exists only in our own injured perception. We must let enough time pass to be able to ascertain this objectively, otherwise we come off as insane, as well as unfair.  Also, we are likely to be emotionally frail when hurting. At those times we are almost certainly not in the ideal decision making frame of mind. And let’s face it, nobody wants to do anything they’ll regret later.

When we are thinking of revenge we are actually temporarily (hopefully) mentally ill, so we forget those famous words of Gandhi, “An eye for an eye leaves both parties blind.”

But if we allow ample time to pass (let’s call it a month for argument’s sake), enough time to ‘heal all wounds’ as that other old saying puts it, and we still feel that revenge is warranted, then chances are it is, and I say let it be ‘full steam ahead’. My quota for cliché use has now been surpassed for the year, maybe longer.

Serving this revenge dish as a cold one both benefits the avenger, if only because it will have been rather thoroughly thought out, and also adds poignancy to the revenge being dished out. Chances are strong that this other person, however horrible personality-wise, will have moderated those thoughts which caused her originally offensive behavior. This particularly hard hitting reminder of how bad they were is often effective in instilling some kind of remorse, but not always.

Of course you are not seeking revenge to teach any lessons or anything. I know you are above that.

So how exactly does one gather the patience required to sit out such a lengthy period of time? If you are fuming mad, it takes great control, but it should pay off sometime in the future.

As an exercise in practising restraint while waiting out the calendar month before acting, picture the typically diabolical Joan Collinsesque schemer (sorry, Joan, I am only confirming you as the great actress that you are). Imagine her wring her hands as she plans her next homewrecking conquest. Try to understand her devious calculations, all to achieve an end, no matter who gets hurt and how many lives get destroyed.

As one of her victims, admit that you are considering getting back at her, in this case even justifiably.

Try to imagine any form of revenge that would actually have any affect on someone so unscrupulous. There probably isn’t anything that would be effective, at least not until the dust had settled. When someone stirs up so much trouble, even she is blinded by the commotion while the action is still hot. She had her reasons for doing this, after all.

You will soon realize that, yes I was right. It is better to wait. For one thing, you will not be the only one looking to get back at her. She may be so beaten down by her other victims any idea you may have had may constitute overkill, or worse, have no effect.

It is true that there are alternatives to vengeance. The problem with those are that they just don’t satisfy any appetite for revenge, and we all know that the cravings can be as strong as for any addictive substance. Since this isn’t a restaurant, I’ll leave appetites out of the remainder of this post. Besides, anyone thinking of revenge has little patience for alternatives.

Are there other options in the likely event that you just can’t wait that long? You could hire someone to get revenge or ask a friend to help. This doesn’t score high on the watch-em-sqirm satisfaction level, but it is very good if you absolutely must, for whatever twisted reason, get that revenge while wishing to maintain anonymity, as well as your dignity, or what little you may have left. Just make sure your dignity is already compromised with the person you are hiring. 

In the end you could always wish for her to get run over by a bus or something, and nobody would be any wiser, but you may not be able to overcome the feelings of guilt should it actually happen. There are also other problems with this solution, most of them obvious I hope. I mean, what are the chances?

As you can see, the alternatives, or at least the few I enumerated here, don’t quite cut it when compared to the real deal.

So next time you feel that need for revenge, it might be best to try practising restraint and patience. You will probably find that as time passes, you will simply get over it, without any effort, and get on with life. You’ll move along quicker than you realize, and be a better person for it.

And for those of you who don’t care about being better, why not go for that sweet, sweet revenge? You’ll find yourself saying “Was that ever worth waiting for!!!”, or, for those of you who may be only slightly less refined, “Take that, bitch!”

As long as you don’t worry about being devoid of conscience, you’ll feel pretty good!

A big part of me hates to admit this, I being such a non-bourgeois working class stiff and all, but I’ve been playing golf for quite a long time now. In fact, September 2009 will mark my 20th anniversary as a regular weekend golfer.

I have never been very good at it. In fact, my best score ever is 90. This was achieved by me on July 24th, 2004, and never since repeated. In reality, I still fail to break 100 more often than not, to my embarrassment. Maybe lessons will help, but probably not. My bad habits are so ingrained now that I wouldn’t be able to hit the ball without them. Yet, it should be clear that I enjoy the game. Why else why would I allow myself to suffer for so long?

It goes without saying (although I insist on saying it anyway) that those of us who enjoy golf see that there are other important aspects to the game besides our scores. Looking good on the course is one of them, as is ensuring that we drink enough beer afterwards, but they frankly pale in importance, even though they are as equally difficult as scoring low, at least for myself. 

Okay, I obviously lack talent, but you would think that with experience my scores would improve, wouldn’t you? I mean, almost every other golfer I have met claims to be routinely scoring in the mid-80′s, so I should really be concerned.

In truth, I am not concerned in the least. Our small gang has had a mini league going for over 15 years, and every game we play counts towards our league statistics, regardless of how bad the conditions. One of the bright points (maybe the only one) about our golf association is our brutal, unwavering honesty on the scorecard and on the course. It would be unfair to have it any other way.

Yes, you read that right. My golf scores are high because I do not cheat.

I am not saying that everyone else cheats at golf, but I fearlessly estimate that more do than don’t. 

Paradoxically, most weekend golfers are influenced to some degree by the pros, who never, ever cheat. At the professional level the game is played in truly honourable fashion, as it is meant to be. Maybe it is because of the abudndance of spectators and cameras, which would not be surprising. Still, cheating is non existent at that level, and anyone who gets caught moving their ball even a millimetre, even unintentionally, will be suspected forever by their peers and their lives will be made hellish on the Tour. At the amateur, weekend golfer level, however, cheating is common.

Maybe accusing everyone who doesn’t play completely by the book of cheating is going a touch overboard. I recognize that the intention is not always there. I think when someone errs it is impolite to accuse, especially the first couple of times. Also, I don’t consider a cheater anyone who openly heads to the golf course for the walk and the sunshine, and to take a few swings without taking golf seriously. The moment, however, that anyone claims to either be a serious golfer, or even simply mentions their scores to the world at large, they lose all leeway insofar as respecting the rules goes. The gauntlet gets thrown down with that famously vectorial force and direction.

When we are suspicious of a cheater, our gut instinct almost always proves correct, if only because cheating is indeed so rampant. I have taken the liberty of breaking this massive group into smaller, more digestible categories, for your honest amusement:

The Cheater of Convenience

The hardest type of cheater to actually catch, this slimeball can post an honest score for weeks, but will eventually find himself among the trees without witnesses, and will always get out unscathed. When I go into the trees I rarely return to fairwayland without great damage done to my score. Nobody can be that lucky all of the time. Even if this lowlife is actually playing honestly, his horseshoe-up-the-ass consistently good fortune merits extra scrutiny.

The mulligan-gimmie-prop-it-upper

The most common of cheaters, this type of golfer pretends that all is well, anticipates a strong game on the first tee box, shanks his drive, then announces matter of factly “I’m taking my Mulligan”. For those who aren’t aware, a Mulligan is a a common form of cheating, specifically a replay of a shot just taken, without penalty. Since the perpetrators are often strangers, nobody dares protest. It is his game, after all. He will then proceed to play through 18 holes by the rules, except for fluffing his ball when in the rough and picking up his ball when he gets to within three feet of the hole. Do you know how many three foot putts I’ve missed in my lifetime? You can’t imagine! Seriously! Really! I really really can’t stress enough how you can’t imagine!

The Forgetful One

We’ve all played a round with this classic stroke-shaver. After his drive goes into the water hazard, he drops a ball at the point of entry, hits another one into the lake, then finally clears the water and goes into the greenside bunker, where it takes him three shots to get out. Once his ball is finally on the green, he needs three putts to put the ball into the hole. He then announces proudly that he just scored a seven, and if you call him on it, he will innocently claim that he miscounted. Nobody is that bad at counting! Come on! We grew up watching Sesame Street!

The Unapologetic Incorrigible Cheater

A member of our final group will never find themselves taking part in one of our league’s official events, but we can find them at every golf course. They will do everything necessary to post their target score, shamelessly. Kicking the ball in full view of their playing partners from behind a tree onto the fairway is an act not beyond this type of trickster. They will continue on their merry way in this manner through 18 holes, not just breaking the rules, but acting as though they don’t even exist. They even get angry after hitting a bad shot, which is dumb, because they are going to rescue themselves anyway. When this type drops another ball after hitting one into the woods, you know they won’t be counting the penalty. When they reach the 18th green, they proudly pick up their ball two feet from the hole and declare their satisfaction with having scored their best ever, 82!!! Obviously, this type of golfer never has a bad game.

As you can see, in golf there are almost as many ways to cheat as there are cheaters, but since you read this far into this post (I can almost hear you yawn as I type), I am going to presume that you are not among them. After all, why would an actual cheater bother enduring such abuse? I’m so logical.

So I conclude once again by offering simple advice. Continue playing golf by the rules and be proud that the 118 you just scored was honest. Bragging Bob may have impressed with tales of his 2-over par performance, but don’t let the sexy ladies on each arm sway you. Remember he is only cheating himself.

No one can accuse me of not being productive.

Like many at first, I answered the request, but never filled out a profile or did anything else. For about six months, that famous question mark appeared as my image.

Then one day, because I had decided to get involved in politics (very, very loosely involved), and needed a way to stay in the loop with regard to upcoming events, I decided to bite the bullet and expand my profile somewhat, and in the process started discovering how Facebook works. It was an eye opener.

It doesn’t take long to realize that Facebook is really a very powerful tool, and like all powerful tools, can be used for good and for other purposes. I will refrain from describing how it works here, as almost everyone with a computer (and under the age of 40) has a Facebook account now. Our profiles become an extension of our lives, and can grow to amazing lengths when they include applications we have added (such as the famous Scrabulous, a rip off of the game Scrabble), not to mention the causes, video skins, events, and everything else either built in to Facebook or added there by its millions of users. The problem is, unless you take the effort to filter what gets viewed, especially by your Facebook friends, this is all very public, which is poison to both the private and in particular the paranoid. Stop staring!

Oh yes, and that concept of a friend in Facebook is loosely interpreted. Many of us have friends in facebook we barely know. Some people collect friends as though they are postage stamps, competing for the highest quantity. I have had people add me as friends who I have never even met. Seriously! In my case it is understandable, given my good looks and all, but still!

My first negative encounter with Facebook was almost immediate. It took me no time to notice that the same waitress who had invited me to join Facebook had also tagged a photo of me. It was a nice picture, of myself holding a beer and sitting at a video lottery terminal, which was exactly the opposite image I was trying to project of myself to the vast, always online, searchable world which is the internet.

And being a formerly heavy gambler, I had other issues with the image aside from aesthetics. Nobody likes being caught in a lie.

Fortunately we can delete these tags, but who has time to stay on the lookout for such things? We can only be so diligent, after all.

Luckily, Facebook provides the solution. Every time anyone gets tagged, they get an email with a subject line similar if not identical to “Suzie Smith just tagged a photo of you on Facebook”. Also if someone sends you a message, or more likely, invited you to use some crappy application that is of no interest or use to anyone except maybe a couple of weirdos or your bed ridden Auntie in Regina, you receive an email.

In fact, if you don’t set your notification settings accordingly, you will soon start feeling very popular, as the emails will start to flood your inbox. I assure you this feeling of popularity will be short lived.

As an example of one of those aforementioned applications, I recently received a notification that I was sent ‘good karma’ by a friend (my apologies, Sandra), and I was asked if I wanted to return the good karma.

I would certainly like to keep my karmaic emissions as positive as anyone, and have nothing against sharing. However, I always believed that we established karma by our actions, not by clicking a button on a mouse. It is a setup begging for abuse. Think about it (not too hard, please). It is as though I can diss everyone I know, stab the hearts of all sensitive souls around me, and make it all okay by sending good karma through Facebook. How marvellous!

There are literally thousands of these type of applications. Admittedly most are fun. Some of course are pure tripe, but I will save imposing my tastes on you for another time.

An element of Facebook which I find specifically weird, and the most embarassingly public at times, is the ‘Status Update’, where we see the status of each and every friend we have. Although I admire the honesty of many people who keep this up to date, I am not sure everyone appreciates the news that Johnny just attended kiss a cowboy night at a bar in the gay village. I humbly believe that some things are just best kept personal.

The overall impression I get with Facebook is that, very much like with this post and this blog, it is a source of mildly entertaining content, but when you are done you’ll find yourself asking where all of that precious time went. And as far as being a valuable tool for social networking goes, it is indeed, although honestly it’s not all that more valuable than simple email if you’re organized.

So in conclusion, I offer simple, if not useless, advice. If you value your privacy or feel that time is precious, the telephone is a preferable form of communication. If you are unfortunate enough to count yourself among the paranoid (not that you would know it), junk your computer and your telephone right now, light another one, close your eyes, and remind yourself that, other than the government of course, most of us are too busy worrying about ourselves to really care.