"When you point a finger at somebody else, you're pointing three at yourself and a thumb at the sky."

In an attempt to clear off the PVR (which is still holding some movies recorded well over a year ago) before the fall TV season starts and we go away for two weeks, we got through three movies in between all the beautiful weather this weekend:

Seraphim Falls (imdb | rotten tomatoes) started off with a bang (literally), but got slow, and then got positively glacial. I’m sure the descent from high snowy mountain to hot, dead valley was a metaphor for man’s fall from grace, but holy ass, guys. Oh, and you’d think someone could’ve hired a dialog coach so that Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan didn’t make a western sound like an afternoon in Cork.

Lonesome Jim (imdb | rotten tomatoes) was mildly amusing in parts, a bit annoying in others, and mostly just intriguing: why would Liv Tyler appear in back-to-back films starring the Affleck brothers, which carry nearly the same plot? I don’t want to run the movie for anyone, but if you’ve seen Jersey Girl you’ve seen a flashier version of Lonesome Jim.

Traitor (imdb | rotten tomatoes) was…well, kind of surprising. I thought it would be dumber than it was. I thought it would be a straight good-guy-on-the-run shooter, but there was more to it than that. It was fairly predictable, but still…not half bad. Good for a lazy Saturday morning on the couch.

How to enjoy a fickle summer

I do enjoy a good summer weekend. Yesterday I left work a little early and met Nellie at the Rebel House, and two more friends joined us shortly after. I ate pheasant sausage and a bison burger and drank pints of Denison’s and Neustadt. Nellie ate mac ‘n cheese and drank KLB and Neustadt and Okanagan Springs and (!) Big Rock. It was a pretty Canadian evening.

Today has been an absolutely stellar day. We slept in, watched a movie (Traitor), visited the market and have spent the last little while enjoying a picture-perfect day on the balcony. In fact, I’m writing this on my balcony, using my new Dell netbook, listening to tunes on the outdoor speakers, watching boats sail around the lake. In a few hours we’ll grill the steaks we just picked up, crack a bottle of red, and pretend I don’t have to go to work tomorrow morning.

Eau de random

A little while I (God a’mighty, but this sounds poncy) went to Holt Renfrew to buy my cologne. Let me explain: it’s not that I seek out things from Holt Renfrew — in general I never shop there as I find it far too pretentious and the customer service, if you don’t reek of money, is terrible — but I happened across an article online that said this one was great and I did need a new one and they only happen to sell it at Holt Renfrew and I didn’t want to spend time comparing fucking colognes and so I just went and bought it aaaaaaaaand Ikindoffeellikeawankernow.

Anyramble, I went to pick some up. The guy there tried to do the upsell — ooh, we’re almost out, do you want to buy two? — but I declined. The first one lasted me a year. He suggested, then, that I take one of their sample bags so I could pick something else I like. I said fine and jammed it in the bag. When I got home I realized he’d thrown about 20 samples in there. Oy.

But hey, never being one to pass up a little scientific experimentation, I decided to try each one for one day, just to see if I like it. I reach in blindly, take out a bottle without looking, wear it for the day to see if I smell like a fancy girl and then see what it was when I get home. Maybe I’ll discover something that’s not awful that can be purchased a different store.

So far Wood by Dsquared (I think…I may have the brand and company mixed up) is okay, but the Bulgari something or other I wore today smells as if I gorged on flower petals and orange juice and then threw up on my shirt.

So that’s a ‘no’ then.

"[O]nly slightly more pleasant than doing housework."

There’s a line in the movie 500 Days Of Summer where (don’t worry, I’m not really giving anything away here) one of the characters suggests a more honest message for the inside of a “Congratulations on your new baby” greeting card should be “I guess we won’t be hanging out as much anymore.” Funny. True, too.

Nellie and I are at that age where most of our couple-y friends are having kids. We’re pretty fortunate in that a) we still get to see them, and b) very few of them — and none of those closest to us — ask us when we’re going to start having kids. Good thing, too; I never know quite what to make of that question. Does it imply that the inquiring party is really anxious for us to reproduce so that they’ll be able to relate to us? Or that they simply can’t think of anything non-childcare-related to ask us? I suppose it could be both, depending on the person. In any case, the answer is “probably never.”

So, why is that?

A few weeks ago the Maclean’s cover story — “The Case Against Having Kids” — listed anecdotes and evidence for abstaining from kids, including the following:

  • “[A]mong people 55 and over… the childless by choice are more content, have higher levels of well-being and are less depressed.”
  • “[T]he salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth and then drop, while fathers’ incomes are unaffected.”
  • “Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard and is the author of the 2006 best-seller Stumbling on Happiness, reports that childless marriages are far happier.”

Both those stats have to be qualified. The 55-and-older study subjects who have a ‘good’ relationship with their children are happier than those who don’t, although the article doesn’t point out whether they’re happier than those without children. As for the second point, procreation is linked to income as well as education, though the article doesn’t state which link is stronger. In any case, these are just broad stats…they’re not reflective of the choices each person makes when thinking about having kids.

I can’t comment on the following, as it seems to do with the so-called biological imperative — or lack thereof — that I only hear referenced in the case of women:

Many women knew they didn’t want children as children, a claim backed by research in The Childless Revolution that explores the notion that the impulse not to have children is genetic, like being gay. Most were clear-eyed that the choice required a new anchorage. “Children were not a way of ensuring happiness or endowing my days with meaning,” the poet Lorna Crozier writes. “That hard task was mine alone.” The American author Lionel Shriver, who never wanted children, writes in “Separation From Birth” that her greatest fear “was of the ambivalence itself”: “Imagine bearing a child and then realizing, with this helpless, irrevocable little person squalling in its crib, that you’d made a mistake. Who really, in that instance, would pay the price?”

Interesting, certainly, but in my case I’m pretty sure it’s not biological. I’m not even sure wanting children is biological. I think there are plenty of people who want to have kids, to raise them, to have families, to teach a new generation. I also think there are plenty of people who do it because they think they’re supposed to. It’s what you do. You grow up, you get married, you have kids. I suspect the former are the ones who, when they pass 55, are more likely to have good relationships with their kids. The latter, I imagine, are more likely to be among these folks:

In 1975, Ann Landers famously asked readers: “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” Seventy per cent of respondents said “no.”

I would never criticize someone for wanting to have kids. Some of the quotes in the article suggest parents are environmental terrorists for introducing another body into the earthly mix, but I think that’s a pretty big stretch. If people come to a conscious and informed decision about wanting kids, as our friends did, then I have confidence the kids will be raised well and the parents will be richer for it. But then there’re the hordes of people have kids out of some sort of imagined life stage obligation. The same thing happens with other big decisions in life — buying a house, getting married — and quite often it all works out. But in general, I would think that doing something you don’t necessarily want to do is setting you (and your kids) up for failure, and it strikes me as odd that other people are incredulous that I haven’t already taken this leap with them.

So here’s why we haven’t had kids: we just don’t feel the need. I don’t feel as if my life would be augmented by having a child — and I freely admit I may be wrong about that…parents are fond of telling you that you don’t know what it’s like to be a parent until you are one — and I don’t feel the guilt of our parents’ generation whose post-war mentality made child-bearing an act of National imperative. I enjoy my life a great deal, and have enjoyed it more as each year passes. Some parents have called me selfish for thinking that way, but far more have looked us dead in the eye and told us that have kids will ruin your life. I think both statements are nothing more than projections or rationalizations of that person’s personal feelings and regrets. I think that each individual, and each couple, has to decide whether they want kids, and whether it makes sense for them.

And hey, it’s okay that we won’t be hanging out as much anymore. We completely understand, and think you’re doing a great thing. We’ll find ways to entertain ourselves, come play with them now and then, and eventually be the cool uncle and aunt who buy them beer and condoms.

Kidding. Ha ha.

Seriously, though, beer and condoms are fine, but we’re not buying anybody cigarettes.

I swear, every single town in France has a Notre Dame Cathedral

Back in January I mentioned that our big trip this year would consist of two weeks in France. We’ve now hammered out our plan some more:

france_route

The plan is as follows. Follow along on the map for extra fun!

  1. Land in Paris (trust me, the ‘A’ is hidden behind the ‘K’) and jump in a car
  2. Visit Chartres
  3. Visit the Chateau de Chambord and start driving along the Loire valley
  4. Visit Tours, and other small towns along the way like Amboise and Candes-St-Martin
  5. Visit Angers, and from there turn north
  6. See Mont-Saint-Michel, though after the experience we had at Rocamadour I think we’ll just take pictures from the outside
  7. Visit Juno Beach
  8. Visit the Vimy Memorial
  9. Visit Reims
  10. Spend a few days in and around Epernay and Troyes, sampling Champagne and meeting up with my brother
  11. Drive back to Paris, drop the car and spend about five days there…probably visiting the Louvre a couple of times, the Musee D’Orsay, Versailles, maybe the catacombs, maybe just hanging out in St-Germain or Montparnasse.

So that’s the plan.We’ll cover A through I in first six days, then as our energy wears off we’ll start to wind down in Champagne and take the better part of the final week in Paris.

Anybody have any tips for those areas? Any can’t-misses?

Men are from Mars, women are from a different planet with longer grace periods

For a while now I’ve been meaning to blog about some survey results I saw over at The Financial Brand:

A study by Financial Finesse shows stark differences in the ways men and women feel about money. The firm analyzed more than 3,000 responses to an online financial planning questionnaire, revealing trends regarding spending, saving and investing.

Men vs. Women

What do you think? Does this sound right to you? This doesn’t seem to accurately represent my female friends, but I think I have a skewed sample to draw from. Also, question #2 might be misleading: I’m betting people who don’t have/use credit cards were still counted as a “no” response.

Coke vs. Pepsi

Several years ago I watched an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher which featured among its guests Michael Moore, Ralph Nader and former Canadian prime minister Kim Campbell. In that episode Maher and Moore pleaded (literally) with Nader to not run in 2004 and dilute the Democratic vote, as he had in 2000.

I don’t know if it was intentional that they had Campbell on, or if she just happened to be hanging around the studio that day, but she brought some Canadian perspective to the discussion, specifically the benefits of having more than two parties.

American politics are so radically polarized that nuance and reasonable compromise seem hopelessly outdated concepts. There are two parties: Democrats and Republicans. You vote for one or the other. You believe one or the other, regardless of what they’re saying or doing. Many times even your preferred news network favours one or the other.

Based on my observations, rational political discourse in the US is all but vanished. Sound argument is a waste of time. Neither party spends time saying what they think is right; what’s important is contradicting the other guy. Politician A can spend his whole career saying the sky is blue; if their opponent politician B suddenly says the sky is blue (no doubt claiming some sort of unique insight for being able to make such a determination), politician A will surely claim the sky is red.

To wit: Cash for Clunkers. In case you don’t know, Cash for Clunkers is an American program offering consumers rebates on new cars when they trade in a much older model. Essentially it’s an economic stimulus program which benefits troubled American car manufacturers and helps the environment (to a limited degree, anyway) by taking inefficient cars off the road. Now have a look at my last sentence, and the three key points therein: 1) economic stimulus; 2) supports big American business; and 3) benefits environment. Now, while this is a Democratic initiative, 2 of those 3 key points are the bread and butter of Republicans and fiscal conservatives everywhere. For the most part they don’t care about reducing carbon — or, at least, their talking points tell them not to care — but that form of economic stimulus is essentially a tax break for consumers and a free revenue boost to automakers, and Republicans love them some tax breaks. Unless it’s Democrats who suggest them.

To wit: this clip from The Daily Show. Watch from about 1:10, where news networks explain how well the Cash for Clunkers program has worked to date. Note the reaction from Fox News and house Republicans. All of a sudden the idea of tax breaks seem like anathema.

Rather than go on with more examples I’ll just quote a comment left on this Economist graphic:

The commenter’s name, by the way, is “The Other Guy” so five’ll get you ten this guy keeps a copy of Unsafe At Any Speed on his bedside table.

“American politics of Coke-vs.-Pepsi has been throwing off the stale stench of disfunction [sic] for quite some time. Dem-Rep bifurcation is slow, superficial, and has been predictably producing less than adequate results, and that’s a charitable phrasing.

A third party, even or perhaps preferably a small yet significant one, needs to step forward to inject a degree of instability.”

Now, I’m not suggesting the Canadian political system is perfect by any means, and certainly having too many political parties can have some frustrating side effects (constant minority governments, the Bloc Quebecois, etc.) but I’d have to think it’s healthier than the slapfight happening south of the border. Politics is a huge, hairy topic, far too complex to boil down to a binary choice between 0 and 1, let alone to declare that 0 or 1 is the only answer you will give for the rest of your life.

In closing, let me just say: Coke sucks, and you should never ever drink it.