For many people, it's easy to forget about Remembrance Day. Although for veterans of the Second World War, it is anything but easy.
This proved true on Nov. 11 this year, when Centennial College had its annual Remembrance Day observance in the Centre of Creative Communication’s Learning Resource Centre.
Guests included a division of the Royal Canadian Legion No. 617 Dambusters Branch, as well as members of the Royal Canadian Artillery and the II Polish Corps.
Jack Rhind, a veteran of the Royal Canadian Artillery, spoke about fighting at the Battle of Monte Cassino in 1944 about 80 miles southeast of Rome, Italy. The battle, in which the Allies struggled to expel Nazi forces from Italy, was one of the most costly conflicts, dubbed by some as "the first D-Day."
Rhind reminisced on how he felt when the Allies finally attained success, after four long and hard engagements that resulted in the liberation of Monte Cassino.
"[It was] an unforgettable part of that campaign for those who participated," Rhind said.
"Can you picture going into a village, where people had been suppressed brutally for at least three years, and all of a sudden at that very moment you are going and freeing them?"
It was clear it would be a long time before Rhind would forget the impact the war had on him.
"You can't imagine the emotion," Rhind exclaimed. "You can't imagine the excitement, the tremendous relief, the enthusiasm and the almost undeserved credit that we received in doing this."
Rhind shared an anecdote with the audience about returning 15 years after the war to the battleground of Monte Cassino, at the insistence of his wife.
Upon arrival, Rhind found that although some painful memories will always linger, they can often be replaced.
"When we got there, what had been in my memory was a scene of total devastation: houses in ruins, shell holes everywhere," he said. "I go there [and think] 'this can't be the same place...I must be wrong.'"
"I wasn't wrong," Rhind added.
He talked about how he found a scene of tranquility and beauty, a stark contrast from his memory of the battle.
"The field was green, the trees were in blossom," he said. "The birds were singing, the sky was blue…unbelievable."
"I thought to myself… 'This is the way God meant it to be.’"
While Rhind’s story was evidence that he certainly won’t forget the war, Centennial professor Ted Barris reminded the audience of why it is important no one else does either.
"He's a modest man," Barris said, referring to Rhind as he stepped down from the podium.
"But I think it was he and his comrades that brought back the blue sky and green grass."
Monday, November 17, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I see it everywhere I go.
On television, on the bus, on the computer and in our homes. It’s hard to comprehend the undeniable effect technology has had on how we communicate with each other.
For some, it has been difficult to adapt to change – for others, near impossible. But for a whole generation, technology has utterly and inexorably become a fundamental part of how we communicate. It’s impossible to deny that technology has permanently shaped the way we speak with one another, but to what end? For good or for bad?
There is no doubt technology such as cell phones, BlackBerrys and the Internet have some very positive aspects. We can communicate faster than ever before, to anywhere in the world.
Mothers no longer have to worry about reaching their children, and bosses need not worry about contacting their employees. Businesses are more efficient, and people more social. It would seem that technology only offers solutions to our problems.
Or so it would seem. Despite how far we’ve progressed due to technology, we are also regressing.
I realized this while walking through the subway the other day. I saw an elderly musician – known as a busker – playing a flute and hoping for donations. I also realized that his change box was nearly empty. As I looked around him, I noticed the demographic he was facing – each person walked by texting away on their BlackBerry, listening to their iPod or yapping on their phone.
They were all completely oblivious to the man playing the instrument, some because they could not hear his music, others who simply didn’t care. It’s obvious the poor fellow had no idea what generation he was dealing with.
It struck me then – despite how much we’ve progressed due to technological innovation, we have also moved backwards. With all the technology that is being utilized to make us connect more easily as a community, we are actually becoming more disconnected from each other on a personal level.
Think about it. When is the last time you sent someone a text message or an e-mail instead of calling because you didn’t want to hear their voice and make small talk? Or put on your headphones after saying hello to an acquaintance on the bus, to avoid awkward conversation?
You can see it everywhere you go. People use their electronic devices as an excuse for not noticing the buskers. It’s as if being wrapped in our own technological lives diminishes the importance of the world around us. Sorry, but your headphones aren’t fooling anyone - we know you can see the busker; you’re just too absorbed in your own world to care about him.
On television, on the bus, on the computer and in our homes. It’s hard to comprehend the undeniable effect technology has had on how we communicate with each other.
For some, it has been difficult to adapt to change – for others, near impossible. But for a whole generation, technology has utterly and inexorably become a fundamental part of how we communicate. It’s impossible to deny that technology has permanently shaped the way we speak with one another, but to what end? For good or for bad?
There is no doubt technology such as cell phones, BlackBerrys and the Internet have some very positive aspects. We can communicate faster than ever before, to anywhere in the world.
Mothers no longer have to worry about reaching their children, and bosses need not worry about contacting their employees. Businesses are more efficient, and people more social. It would seem that technology only offers solutions to our problems.
Or so it would seem. Despite how far we’ve progressed due to technology, we are also regressing.
I realized this while walking through the subway the other day. I saw an elderly musician – known as a busker – playing a flute and hoping for donations. I also realized that his change box was nearly empty. As I looked around him, I noticed the demographic he was facing – each person walked by texting away on their BlackBerry, listening to their iPod or yapping on their phone.
They were all completely oblivious to the man playing the instrument, some because they could not hear his music, others who simply didn’t care. It’s obvious the poor fellow had no idea what generation he was dealing with.
It struck me then – despite how much we’ve progressed due to technological innovation, we have also moved backwards. With all the technology that is being utilized to make us connect more easily as a community, we are actually becoming more disconnected from each other on a personal level.
Think about it. When is the last time you sent someone a text message or an e-mail instead of calling because you didn’t want to hear their voice and make small talk? Or put on your headphones after saying hello to an acquaintance on the bus, to avoid awkward conversation?
You can see it everywhere you go. People use their electronic devices as an excuse for not noticing the buskers. It’s as if being wrapped in our own technological lives diminishes the importance of the world around us. Sorry, but your headphones aren’t fooling anyone - we know you can see the busker; you’re just too absorbed in your own world to care about him.
The media world is rapidly changing, and those not ready to adapt will be left behind, says veteran journalist Norris McDonald.
McDonald, of the Toronto Star, was at Centennial College on Oct. 30 to speak with aspiring student journalists about the career they hope to pursue.
One of the many themes that McDonald touched upon was how the media landscape is quickly changing, and that the new breed of journalists need to embrace change if they hope to survive.
"Be open to change," McDonald said. "Don't graduate from here and get a job wherever, and say 'great, this is where I’m gonna spend the next 15 or 20 years of my life,’ because it’s not gonna happen."
McDonald said new journalists should take advantage of the industry’s ever-changing nature.
He talked about how being capable of utilizing technology is an excellent asset in the new media world, a skill that many in the old generation lack.
"One of the problems we have at the Star is that we have an aging staff," McDonald said.
"We have people who have worked here for 25 or 30 years, and are not even interested in getting involved with the Internet and learning new skills."
According to McDonald, his definition of a journalist is someone "interchangeable in the media."
For Norris, the ability to quickly switch between different jobs and positions is a fundamental part of being successful in the media industry of 2008.
Ted Barris, Professor at Centennial College and former colleague of Norris McDonald, seemed to agree, when he talked about Mcdonald's ability to adapt even in the most awkward situations.
"He could simply change tracks," Barris said. "From the reporting rooms and the editorial rooms at the Whig Standard, and then in his underwear from his kitchen, he'd deliver the news that was relevant and pertinent to people"
While McDonald emphasized the importance of adjusting to change especially in media, he also noted that it's necessary to be able to do so in any industry.
"It doesn't matter whether it’s journalism or whatever else you do in your life, we're heading down a mountain and the snowball is getting bigger and bigger," McDonald said. "The whole world is changing, not just the journalism world, everything is changing."
McDonald, of the Toronto Star, was at Centennial College on Oct. 30 to speak with aspiring student journalists about the career they hope to pursue.
One of the many themes that McDonald touched upon was how the media landscape is quickly changing, and that the new breed of journalists need to embrace change if they hope to survive.
"Be open to change," McDonald said. "Don't graduate from here and get a job wherever, and say 'great, this is where I’m gonna spend the next 15 or 20 years of my life,’ because it’s not gonna happen."
McDonald said new journalists should take advantage of the industry’s ever-changing nature.
He talked about how being capable of utilizing technology is an excellent asset in the new media world, a skill that many in the old generation lack.
"One of the problems we have at the Star is that we have an aging staff," McDonald said.
"We have people who have worked here for 25 or 30 years, and are not even interested in getting involved with the Internet and learning new skills."
According to McDonald, his definition of a journalist is someone "interchangeable in the media."
For Norris, the ability to quickly switch between different jobs and positions is a fundamental part of being successful in the media industry of 2008.
Ted Barris, Professor at Centennial College and former colleague of Norris McDonald, seemed to agree, when he talked about Mcdonald's ability to adapt even in the most awkward situations.
"He could simply change tracks," Barris said. "From the reporting rooms and the editorial rooms at the Whig Standard, and then in his underwear from his kitchen, he'd deliver the news that was relevant and pertinent to people"
While McDonald emphasized the importance of adjusting to change especially in media, he also noted that it's necessary to be able to do so in any industry.
"It doesn't matter whether it’s journalism or whatever else you do in your life, we're heading down a mountain and the snowball is getting bigger and bigger," McDonald said. "The whole world is changing, not just the journalism world, everything is changing."
Friday, October 24, 2008
Knight Rider
Knight Rider, the iconic 1980s television series starring David Hasselhoff, is back – although without much of a bang.
The original series had Hasselhoff playing Michael Knight: an undercover detective who is saved from the brink of death to fight crime. Michael is given a new identity and equipped with high-tech equipment for his detective work.
However, the real star of the show was Knight’s car KITT (Knight Industries Two Thousand). The car was equipped with artificial intelligence, a missile defense system, as well as an “alpha circuit” option that allows the car to drive automatically. The mix of sci-fi technology and “Lone Ranger” style vigilante justice was a massive hit, and it’s now being presented in a 2008 series to appeal to a new generation.
Unremarkably, to a generation (myself included) that has grown up on a steady diet of Facebook, iPods, and HDTV, the novelty of a super futuristic car that talks isn’t really that exciting anymore. Despite this, the car is the focal point of the action, and it can’t help but come across as tiresome and contrived.
The show has a heavy emphasis on action, with the usual doses of (cheesy) romance and drama thrown in for good measure. The role of the protagonist is reprised by Justin Brueing as Michael Traceur, the estranged son of Michael Knight, and features Val Kilmer as the voice of KITT.
The show opens introducing Michael, and his ‘friend’ and fellow investigator Sarah Graiman, played by Deanna Russo. As expected, both protagonists have the quintessential chiseled good looks, and it makes you wonder if Knight Rider is just another transparent superficial drama, or if being a supermodel is a prerequisite for the job.
The plot thickens when Michael is poisoned, and must find an antidote to cure the potentially lethal virus. To do so, he takes part in what may or may not be an assassination, and finds himself in many sticky situations along the way. Luckily, he has his godly vehicle that can withstand bazooka missiles, dodge car crashes, and all but single handedly save the protagonist's life on more than one occasion.
Ultimately, the car is the show's only saving grace. It is admittedly fun to watch the car transform into “attack mode”, where it can unleash its flamethrower or rockets at will, or into “turbo mode”, which allows the car to go fully airborne.
Unfortunatly KITT is pretty much all Knight Rider has going for it. The characters are shallow, and the romance scenes cringe worthy. The plotlines are recycled, and fancy explosions just aren’t enough to keep the attention of this generation’s youth.
There are some really corny moments in this program that completely dismiss the prospect of me taking it seriously – one that springs to mind is when Michael hopelessly professes his love to his significant other seconds before flatlining. You can’t really get anymore unoriginal than that. If Dark Knight hopes to appeal to a new demographic, it needs to bring something fresh to the table, because we’ve all seen the same James Bond style action scenes a thousand times over.
The original series had Hasselhoff playing Michael Knight: an undercover detective who is saved from the brink of death to fight crime. Michael is given a new identity and equipped with high-tech equipment for his detective work.
However, the real star of the show was Knight’s car KITT (Knight Industries Two Thousand). The car was equipped with artificial intelligence, a missile defense system, as well as an “alpha circuit” option that allows the car to drive automatically. The mix of sci-fi technology and “Lone Ranger” style vigilante justice was a massive hit, and it’s now being presented in a 2008 series to appeal to a new generation.
Unremarkably, to a generation (myself included) that has grown up on a steady diet of Facebook, iPods, and HDTV, the novelty of a super futuristic car that talks isn’t really that exciting anymore. Despite this, the car is the focal point of the action, and it can’t help but come across as tiresome and contrived.
The show has a heavy emphasis on action, with the usual doses of (cheesy) romance and drama thrown in for good measure. The role of the protagonist is reprised by Justin Brueing as Michael Traceur, the estranged son of Michael Knight, and features Val Kilmer as the voice of KITT.
The show opens introducing Michael, and his ‘friend’ and fellow investigator Sarah Graiman, played by Deanna Russo. As expected, both protagonists have the quintessential chiseled good looks, and it makes you wonder if Knight Rider is just another transparent superficial drama, or if being a supermodel is a prerequisite for the job.
The plot thickens when Michael is poisoned, and must find an antidote to cure the potentially lethal virus. To do so, he takes part in what may or may not be an assassination, and finds himself in many sticky situations along the way. Luckily, he has his godly vehicle that can withstand bazooka missiles, dodge car crashes, and all but single handedly save the protagonist's life on more than one occasion.
Ultimately, the car is the show's only saving grace. It is admittedly fun to watch the car transform into “attack mode”, where it can unleash its flamethrower or rockets at will, or into “turbo mode”, which allows the car to go fully airborne.
Unfortunatly KITT is pretty much all Knight Rider has going for it. The characters are shallow, and the romance scenes cringe worthy. The plotlines are recycled, and fancy explosions just aren’t enough to keep the attention of this generation’s youth.
There are some really corny moments in this program that completely dismiss the prospect of me taking it seriously – one that springs to mind is when Michael hopelessly professes his love to his significant other seconds before flatlining. You can’t really get anymore unoriginal than that. If Dark Knight hopes to appeal to a new demographic, it needs to bring something fresh to the table, because we’ve all seen the same James Bond style action scenes a thousand times over.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
TIAF (Unfinished)
The Toronto International Art Fair celebrated its largest event to date last Monday, although some critics have expressed mixed opinions on its commercial success.
The annual fair, in its ninth year, is the largest of its kind in Canada and among the largest in North America. It takes place at the Metro Convention Centre, and is backed by several large corporate sponsors, including The Royal Bank of Canada, The Globe & Mail, and Pioneer.
Sarah Close, a spokeswoman for TIAF, says the event organizers were pleased with the steady growth of the event, but are still mindful of its grass roots.
“We’re always thinking about growing and expanding, but at the same time we want to maintain a level of intimacy,” Close said. “Our main goal is to be an international player among the art fairs.”
This year, TIAF eclipsed its previous mark of 15,000 visitors and boasts of over $15 million in sales, as well as more than 100 galleries from 14 countries.
Despite the public interest in the fair, some art critics such as Wayne Baerwaldt, director and head curator of The Power Plant, an art gallery in Toronto, have questioned the commercial motivations.
“I don’t see why it has to be lead by a commercial sector,” Baerwaldt said. “There are other art fairs, which in my opinion play a greater role in shaping art history, that are not lead by commercial interests.”
He said he feels that massive art fairs compromise the true value of the work.
“I think it’s a skewing of values and beliefs in contemporary art,” Baerwaldt said.
Even with the criticism, some supporters, like exhibitor Brian Torner, co-director of Lausberg Contemporary art gallery, says the fair will continue to grow regardless.
“It’s become more international, it’s received more media attention and public interest,” Torner said. “We don’t have a very dense landscape of art fairs in Canada…I only see a fair like this growing.”
The annual fair, in its ninth year, is the largest of its kind in Canada and among the largest in North America. It takes place at the Metro Convention Centre, and is backed by several large corporate sponsors, including The Royal Bank of Canada, The Globe & Mail, and Pioneer.
Sarah Close, a spokeswoman for TIAF, says the event organizers were pleased with the steady growth of the event, but are still mindful of its grass roots.
“We’re always thinking about growing and expanding, but at the same time we want to maintain a level of intimacy,” Close said. “Our main goal is to be an international player among the art fairs.”
This year, TIAF eclipsed its previous mark of 15,000 visitors and boasts of over $15 million in sales, as well as more than 100 galleries from 14 countries.
Despite the public interest in the fair, some art critics such as Wayne Baerwaldt, director and head curator of The Power Plant, an art gallery in Toronto, have questioned the commercial motivations.
“I don’t see why it has to be lead by a commercial sector,” Baerwaldt said. “There are other art fairs, which in my opinion play a greater role in shaping art history, that are not lead by commercial interests.”
He said he feels that massive art fairs compromise the true value of the work.
“I think it’s a skewing of values and beliefs in contemporary art,” Baerwaldt said.
Even with the criticism, some supporters, like exhibitor Brian Torner, co-director of Lausberg Contemporary art gallery, says the fair will continue to grow regardless.
“It’s become more international, it’s received more media attention and public interest,” Torner said. “We don’t have a very dense landscape of art fairs in Canada…I only see a fair like this growing.”
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Once upon a time, Canada was one of the top five donors in reducing poverty internationally.
30 years ago, we contributed 0.57% of our Gross National Income (GNI) to Overseas Development Assistance. Under the Liberal Government of Paul Martin, it plummeted to 0.26%. Canada is no longer amongst the top 5 leaders in the fight against poverty.
In fact, we barely make the top 15.
In 1968, Lester B. Pearson was chairman on a board dedicated to International Development (ID). His recommendation was that wealthy countries should dedicate 0.7% of their GNI to ID. The World Bank and The United Nations both supported his recommendation. Canada should be striving to reach this goal.
Today, Canada only contributes 0.3% of its total GNI, not even half of what Pearson called for.
In 2008 poverty is as big an issue as ever. Three billion people live on less than $2 a day, and an estimated 800 million people go to sleep hungry every night. To many Canadians, it may come as a surprise that our role in fighting poverty is actually declining rather than increasing. But poverty is something that is not just a global issue, but a Canadian issue as well.
In Ontario, 1.3 million people live in poverty. For one of the world’s wealthiest countries, this is an astounding number. A year ago, during provincial elections, Ontario Liberal MPP Dalton McGuinty promised to include a poverty reduction strategy as one of his main priorities. He said it would be in place by the end of the year. This goal has yet to be met.
Some, including Dalton McGuinty, would say that a movement to fight poverty would not be financially viable currently due to the economic instability in the world markets. In a recent press conference, Premier McGuinty commented on the slow progress of his poverty reduction plan.
“Given the state of the economy, it may very well mean that we won’t be able to move as quickly as we would have liked,” McGuinty said.
But is this not the same premier that said “I believe it’s one of the best tests of government…How are we treating those who are less fortunate?”
Recently, a coalition named Make Poverty History produced a video called “On the Record”. The video aimed to raise awareness of poverty in Canada in urban, rural, and aboriginal communities. Four out of five leaders from major Canadian parties were featured in the video outlining specific anti-poverty legislation – both global and domestic.
The only leader not to appear in the video was Stephen Harper – showing not only his lack of leadership, but also his complete lack of initiative to tackle poverty.
“So far we haven't heard anything from Stephen Harper,” said Dennis Howlett, co-ordinator of Make Poverty History. “The whole point was to get specific commitments from party leaders.”
It is evident that under the Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada’s role in fighting poverty is not only inadequate, but actually diminishing. The NDP government under Jack Layton is the only party urging the country to reach the Point Seven target. We as Canadians should support the NDP in order to change the insufficient role Canada plays in fighting poverty.
30 years ago, we contributed 0.57% of our Gross National Income (GNI) to Overseas Development Assistance. Under the Liberal Government of Paul Martin, it plummeted to 0.26%. Canada is no longer amongst the top 5 leaders in the fight against poverty.
In fact, we barely make the top 15.
In 1968, Lester B. Pearson was chairman on a board dedicated to International Development (ID). His recommendation was that wealthy countries should dedicate 0.7% of their GNI to ID. The World Bank and The United Nations both supported his recommendation. Canada should be striving to reach this goal.
Today, Canada only contributes 0.3% of its total GNI, not even half of what Pearson called for.
In 2008 poverty is as big an issue as ever. Three billion people live on less than $2 a day, and an estimated 800 million people go to sleep hungry every night. To many Canadians, it may come as a surprise that our role in fighting poverty is actually declining rather than increasing. But poverty is something that is not just a global issue, but a Canadian issue as well.
In Ontario, 1.3 million people live in poverty. For one of the world’s wealthiest countries, this is an astounding number. A year ago, during provincial elections, Ontario Liberal MPP Dalton McGuinty promised to include a poverty reduction strategy as one of his main priorities. He said it would be in place by the end of the year. This goal has yet to be met.
Some, including Dalton McGuinty, would say that a movement to fight poverty would not be financially viable currently due to the economic instability in the world markets. In a recent press conference, Premier McGuinty commented on the slow progress of his poverty reduction plan.
“Given the state of the economy, it may very well mean that we won’t be able to move as quickly as we would have liked,” McGuinty said.
But is this not the same premier that said “I believe it’s one of the best tests of government…How are we treating those who are less fortunate?”
Recently, a coalition named Make Poverty History produced a video called “On the Record”. The video aimed to raise awareness of poverty in Canada in urban, rural, and aboriginal communities. Four out of five leaders from major Canadian parties were featured in the video outlining specific anti-poverty legislation – both global and domestic.
The only leader not to appear in the video was Stephen Harper – showing not only his lack of leadership, but also his complete lack of initiative to tackle poverty.
“So far we haven't heard anything from Stephen Harper,” said Dennis Howlett, co-ordinator of Make Poverty History. “The whole point was to get specific commitments from party leaders.”
It is evident that under the Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada’s role in fighting poverty is not only inadequate, but actually diminishing. The NDP government under Jack Layton is the only party urging the country to reach the Point Seven target. We as Canadians should support the NDP in order to change the insufficient role Canada plays in fighting poverty.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Drugs
It's unlikely Andrew Gelfand would have guessed pricking his finger on a cactus in a drug induced haze would change his life.
“I was sitting on a couch and I was really high, and I was trying to grab a glass of water and instead kept grabbing a cactus,” Gelfand said.
According to Gelfand, it was then that he realized his life needed a major overhaul.
“It hit me then, if I didn’t do something about this I'd probably be sitting in the same place when I was 50,” Gelfand said.
“I couldn’t deal with that… I wasn’t ready to just sit on a couch and do drugs my whole life.”
Gelfand said he initially started doing drugs when he was 12 because it provided an escape from his problems.
By the time he was 16, he was addicted.
“Everyone has hard times when they’re a teenager, and everyone has their own methods of escaping,” Gelfand said. “That was just the one that I found.”
Gelfand said that one of the things he was trying to escape was what he saw as social isolation.
“I came from a very upper middle class white neighborhood which was not big on the whole diversity thing,” Gelfand said. “And me not being exactly like everybody else, I wasn’t really socially accepted.”
Gelfand attributes learning from the lives of others as the reason for him deciding to turn his life around.
“What helped was that I saw where it was leading the lives of a lot of people I knew,” Gelfand said. “They were in there 30's and 40's and were still doing drugs like they were in high school.”
“It took me a long time, but I realized that wasn’t what I wanted for myself.”
“I was sitting on a couch and I was really high, and I was trying to grab a glass of water and instead kept grabbing a cactus,” Gelfand said.
According to Gelfand, it was then that he realized his life needed a major overhaul.
“It hit me then, if I didn’t do something about this I'd probably be sitting in the same place when I was 50,” Gelfand said.
“I couldn’t deal with that… I wasn’t ready to just sit on a couch and do drugs my whole life.”
Gelfand said he initially started doing drugs when he was 12 because it provided an escape from his problems.
By the time he was 16, he was addicted.
“Everyone has hard times when they’re a teenager, and everyone has their own methods of escaping,” Gelfand said. “That was just the one that I found.”
Gelfand said that one of the things he was trying to escape was what he saw as social isolation.
“I came from a very upper middle class white neighborhood which was not big on the whole diversity thing,” Gelfand said. “And me not being exactly like everybody else, I wasn’t really socially accepted.”
Gelfand attributes learning from the lives of others as the reason for him deciding to turn his life around.
“What helped was that I saw where it was leading the lives of a lot of people I knew,” Gelfand said. “They were in there 30's and 40's and were still doing drugs like they were in high school.”
“It took me a long time, but I realized that wasn’t what I wanted for myself.”
Club Nights
When Mariya Stepina shivered on an icy curb in Toronto’s downtown core at 1:30 A.M., she knew it was going to be another rough night.
She wasn’t dressed for the weather.
“I felt so low after eight months of commitment, sitting there in my skirt and tank top, in the cold freezing,” Stepina said. “I was shocked at the level of disrespect I had experienced.”
Mariya Stepina is one of many who works in an industry that often offers such obstacles.
Despite this, she is determined to stick to a cause that she feels is right for her. Stepina is no activist. She’s not a crusader. She serves drinks.
“You’d be surprised how much of a toll being a waitress can have on you, physically, and emotionally,” Stepina said. “It’s not an easy job.”
Stepina, a Seneca college student, works at Jean Machine weekdays and serves drinks on weekends to help pay for tuition and cover living expenses.
She says although the money is good, the position is unstable and she is often subject to offensive treatment.
“I got fired on the spot from Guvernment for not showing up one Saturday due to family obligations,” Stepina said. “I was given no chance to explain myself and my supervisor got me escorted off the property and told the doorman specifically ‘Do not let this girl back in.’”
Stepina said after paying 40$ to get back into her workplace, she went to talk to the owners of The Guvernment, Charles Khabouth and Oscar Amar.
After a lengthy talk, her money was reimbursed and they apologized for her supervisor’s behavior. They said they wanted her to work there and would call her within a week to get her a new position.
They haven’t called back.
“The shooter girls are treated as disposable at the Guv,” Stepina said. “Girls get hired and fired very often. All the waitresses have second jobs because they know this one isn’t reliable.”
It is evident that Stepina is not the only one employed in the club industry that faces a hard time at work.
Rob Steckler, a promoter for B & A Promotions, and a former bouncer for six years, says he switched from being a bouncer to a promoter because of the stress factor.
“When I managed as the head door man it was always a headache” Steckler said. “There’s a lot more money in promotion and a lot less headache.”
Steckler said he feels the ever present risk of injury isn’t worth the position as a bouncer.
“The crowd these days have no respect for anything,” Steckler said. “There’s fights, people throw bottles. You have shootings these days, stabbings.”
While he says the danger factor is not there in promotions, the job still has its difficulties.
“It can be stressful too, wanting to fill up the club and make it a busy night,” Steckler said. “There’s a lot of pressure on you to hit your numbers.”
Chris Kerr, who DJs under the name Ill Whisky, has also turned to hosting and promoting events to establish his name in the Toronto club scene.
Kerr feels the job is often underappreciated, and promoters are like the underdogs of the club industry.
“I doubt club goers think about how brutal it can be, spending your Saturday nights outside of a club at 2 or 3 A.M, handing out flyers to drunks who for the most part just toss them aside,” Kerr said.
Despite this, Kerr said he is dedicated to his job because he is passionate about the music and loves to share it with others.
“Rarely, you’ll get someone who says ‘Hey, I really enjoyed your last performance. I’m looking forward to your next one,” Kerr said. “That makes it all worthwhile.”
Although Stepina expressed some discontent with the club industry, she continues to work as a waitress.
She says she enjoys serving drinks, but is discouraged by the way waitresses are treated by patrons and administration alike.
“Sometimes I look forward to work because the club is glamorous and all and I get to meet a lot of cool people,” Stepina said. “But part of the job is just dealing with guys who have no respect for women. It’s as if serving drinks makes you less of a human or something.”
Stepina said that the part of the job she likes least is the disrespect she encounters towards women.
“I’ve had to deal with harassment, people calling me names,” Stepina said. “I’ve had to deal with drunks and people on drugs hitting on me or touching me inappropriately.”
Stepina told about how once a patron took a picture under her skirt without her knowing.
Security confiscated his phone and escorted him out of the club, and found he had taken many similar pictures of other girls that night.
“I took a lot of emotional baggage home with me that night” Stepina said. “It was degrading, I felt low after being treated like that. And it shouldn’t be that way.”
--end--
She wasn’t dressed for the weather.
“I felt so low after eight months of commitment, sitting there in my skirt and tank top, in the cold freezing,” Stepina said. “I was shocked at the level of disrespect I had experienced.”
Mariya Stepina is one of many who works in an industry that often offers such obstacles.
Despite this, she is determined to stick to a cause that she feels is right for her. Stepina is no activist. She’s not a crusader. She serves drinks.
“You’d be surprised how much of a toll being a waitress can have on you, physically, and emotionally,” Stepina said. “It’s not an easy job.”
Stepina, a Seneca college student, works at Jean Machine weekdays and serves drinks on weekends to help pay for tuition and cover living expenses.
She says although the money is good, the position is unstable and she is often subject to offensive treatment.
“I got fired on the spot from Guvernment for not showing up one Saturday due to family obligations,” Stepina said. “I was given no chance to explain myself and my supervisor got me escorted off the property and told the doorman specifically ‘Do not let this girl back in.’”
Stepina said after paying 40$ to get back into her workplace, she went to talk to the owners of The Guvernment, Charles Khabouth and Oscar Amar.
After a lengthy talk, her money was reimbursed and they apologized for her supervisor’s behavior. They said they wanted her to work there and would call her within a week to get her a new position.
They haven’t called back.
“The shooter girls are treated as disposable at the Guv,” Stepina said. “Girls get hired and fired very often. All the waitresses have second jobs because they know this one isn’t reliable.”
It is evident that Stepina is not the only one employed in the club industry that faces a hard time at work.
Rob Steckler, a promoter for B & A Promotions, and a former bouncer for six years, says he switched from being a bouncer to a promoter because of the stress factor.
“When I managed as the head door man it was always a headache” Steckler said. “There’s a lot more money in promotion and a lot less headache.”
Steckler said he feels the ever present risk of injury isn’t worth the position as a bouncer.
“The crowd these days have no respect for anything,” Steckler said. “There’s fights, people throw bottles. You have shootings these days, stabbings.”
While he says the danger factor is not there in promotions, the job still has its difficulties.
“It can be stressful too, wanting to fill up the club and make it a busy night,” Steckler said. “There’s a lot of pressure on you to hit your numbers.”
Chris Kerr, who DJs under the name Ill Whisky, has also turned to hosting and promoting events to establish his name in the Toronto club scene.
Kerr feels the job is often underappreciated, and promoters are like the underdogs of the club industry.
“I doubt club goers think about how brutal it can be, spending your Saturday nights outside of a club at 2 or 3 A.M, handing out flyers to drunks who for the most part just toss them aside,” Kerr said.
Despite this, Kerr said he is dedicated to his job because he is passionate about the music and loves to share it with others.
“Rarely, you’ll get someone who says ‘Hey, I really enjoyed your last performance. I’m looking forward to your next one,” Kerr said. “That makes it all worthwhile.”
Although Stepina expressed some discontent with the club industry, she continues to work as a waitress.
She says she enjoys serving drinks, but is discouraged by the way waitresses are treated by patrons and administration alike.
“Sometimes I look forward to work because the club is glamorous and all and I get to meet a lot of cool people,” Stepina said. “But part of the job is just dealing with guys who have no respect for women. It’s as if serving drinks makes you less of a human or something.”
Stepina said that the part of the job she likes least is the disrespect she encounters towards women.
“I’ve had to deal with harassment, people calling me names,” Stepina said. “I’ve had to deal with drunks and people on drugs hitting on me or touching me inappropriately.”
Stepina told about how once a patron took a picture under her skirt without her knowing.
Security confiscated his phone and escorted him out of the club, and found he had taken many similar pictures of other girls that night.
“I took a lot of emotional baggage home with me that night” Stepina said. “It was degrading, I felt low after being treated like that. And it shouldn’t be that way.”
--end--
LHC
Physicists hope to make one of the biggest breakthroughs in science since the invention of the word “Eureka.”
The project based in Geneva, Switzerland, is headed by The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
It consists of an international collaboration of scientists, universities, and institutions that aim to emulate the big bang.
Raymond L. Orbach, undersecretary for science of the U.S. Department of Energy, has stated that the creation marks a major milestone for science.
“As the largest and most powerful particle accelerator on Earth, the LHC represents a monumental technical achievement,” Orbach said.
“We now eagerly await the results that will emerge from operation of this extraordinary machine.”
The machine, which has been 15 years in the making, is known as the Large Hadron Collider or LHC for short. An estimated 10,000 people from 60 countries have contributed to the design and building of the LHC.
The most recent progress in the project was the successful testing of the LHC, in which a proton beam circulated in the 27 km underground tunnel where the LHC is housed.
Arden L. Bement Jr., director of the National Science Foundation, said that eagerness for the results in the scientific community runs high.
“With the operation of the LHC, anticipation of transformative scientific discoveries soars to new heights,” Bement said.
The goal of the project is to successfully collide high energy proton beams at nearly the speed of light.
With the collision of these strings of protons, it could create conditions akin to the big bang, and shed light on an elusive particle known as the Higgs boson.
By studying the results of this collision, scientists such as CERN director General Robert Aymar say secrets about dark matter, black holes, and other dimensions may finally be answered.
“The LHC is a discovery machine,” Aymar said. “Its research programme has the potential to change our view of the universe profoundly.”
The project based in Geneva, Switzerland, is headed by The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
It consists of an international collaboration of scientists, universities, and institutions that aim to emulate the big bang.
Raymond L. Orbach, undersecretary for science of the U.S. Department of Energy, has stated that the creation marks a major milestone for science.
“As the largest and most powerful particle accelerator on Earth, the LHC represents a monumental technical achievement,” Orbach said.
“We now eagerly await the results that will emerge from operation of this extraordinary machine.”
The machine, which has been 15 years in the making, is known as the Large Hadron Collider or LHC for short. An estimated 10,000 people from 60 countries have contributed to the design and building of the LHC.
The most recent progress in the project was the successful testing of the LHC, in which a proton beam circulated in the 27 km underground tunnel where the LHC is housed.
Arden L. Bement Jr., director of the National Science Foundation, said that eagerness for the results in the scientific community runs high.
“With the operation of the LHC, anticipation of transformative scientific discoveries soars to new heights,” Bement said.
The goal of the project is to successfully collide high energy proton beams at nearly the speed of light.
With the collision of these strings of protons, it could create conditions akin to the big bang, and shed light on an elusive particle known as the Higgs boson.
By studying the results of this collision, scientists such as CERN director General Robert Aymar say secrets about dark matter, black holes, and other dimensions may finally be answered.
“The LHC is a discovery machine,” Aymar said. “Its research programme has the potential to change our view of the universe profoundly.”
Graffiti Art
A city-wide effort to eliminate graffiti is facing opposition from artists who feel it constricts a legitimate form of art.
Andrew Lane, an aspiring artist attending OCAD, the Ontario College of Art & Design, says the program is not in the best interest of the community.
“I don’t think David Miller really cares about the culture or significance of Graffiti,” Lane said. “He cares about economic and urban expansion.”
The city of Toronto launched the Graffiti Eradication program in 2000 to eliminate graffiti in the city and in suburban areas. In 2005, the crackdown on graffiti intensified when a by-law prohibiting all graffiti was passed.
The by-law, number 123 under the Toronto Municipal Code, made it so that no graffiti was permitted in the city, whether on public or private property. But to artists such as Lane, what the city sees as urban blight, is really urban art.
“The graffiti scene in Toronto has a vibrant history,” Lane said. “It has been very influential globally, in places like N.Y.C and Berlin.”
Lane says part of the reason graffiti is misunderstood is due to the way the city handles it.
In Toronto, graffiti is removed within 72 hours, or 24 hours if it contains discriminatory remarks or anything gang related.
According to Lane, this results in sloppy, mindless graffiti known as “tags” with no real artistic merit.
“People here aren’t exposed to proper graffiti because there is no canvas for it,” Lane said. “All they see are shitty tags with no substance, because who is gonna dedicate themselves to a piece that will be gone in a few days?”
The city says some of its reasons for launching the project are that graffiti makes neighbourhoods less desirable, encourages more vandalism and crime, and makes it seem like rules can be broken without consequence.
However, Lane says these issues can be avoided with mutual co-operation between graffiti artists and the city.
He says if there was regulation of graffiti in designated, private properties, it would give graffiti artists a much needed outlet and a place to develop their art.
“The law says that ‘art murals’ are allowed but graffiti is not,” Lane said. “But whose place is it to define what’s art and what’s not?”
To some, this question is more easily answered than for others.
The issue came up again recently in a Sept. 10, 2008 issue of the Toronto Star when a group was divided over whether city council should be allowed to vote on a selection of public art murals for a Toronto condo project.
Councillor Howard Moscoe was one of the leading advocates of the decision for the city to stay out of the voting process.
“The minute public art becomes politicized, it becomes banal,” Moscoe said. “If you squeeze it through the political process, you get tripe.”
The Metro Place Project, with a budget of $500,000 to fund public art, is judged by a panel consisting of the developer, landscape architect and a number of artists.
Some artists, such as Lane, think powerful corporate interests motivate the campaign.
“Look around you, you can’t go anywhere in Toronto without being bombarded by advertisements,” Lane said. “Billboards, condos, real estate, that’s all this city cares about”.
To other artists, such as Susie Park, another student attending OCAD, the city’s decision to fund public art for a condo project reflects where their priorities are.
“I don’t find it surprising that they did that,” Park said. “Condos make a lot of money; it’s good for the city. Graffiti doesn’t do that.”
Some like Coun. Moscoe, feel art is not prone to consensus and that an artist needs complete freedom of expression.
Not surprisingly, many artists would agree.
“You can’t tell an artist where and when to draw or paint,” said Susie. “That sort of makes it feel like the artist is no longer creating art for themselves, but for someone else”.
Park feels that art cannot be sculpted by the orders of a politician, especially in the case of graffiti.
“The whole point of graffiti is to give life to parts of the city that are dead,” Park said. “The sketchy alley, the abandoned staircase, the places people avoid.”
Park feels graffiti is made to create beauty in places where beauty has been forsaken. She says by only allowing graffiti in certain, designated areas, it defeats the purpose.
For Andrew Lane, the city only allows certain art murals to promote gentrification, and raise property values.
He feels the city is not concerned with fostering the growth of this small art subculture.
“If you look at the art murals in Toronto, most of it is really contrived, like peace signs, or people holding hands,” Lane said. “To Miller, that is art, but the moment someone makes a political piece about poverty or police, it’s graffiti.”
--End--
Andrew Lane, an aspiring artist attending OCAD, the Ontario College of Art & Design, says the program is not in the best interest of the community.
“I don’t think David Miller really cares about the culture or significance of Graffiti,” Lane said. “He cares about economic and urban expansion.”
The city of Toronto launched the Graffiti Eradication program in 2000 to eliminate graffiti in the city and in suburban areas. In 2005, the crackdown on graffiti intensified when a by-law prohibiting all graffiti was passed.
The by-law, number 123 under the Toronto Municipal Code, made it so that no graffiti was permitted in the city, whether on public or private property. But to artists such as Lane, what the city sees as urban blight, is really urban art.
“The graffiti scene in Toronto has a vibrant history,” Lane said. “It has been very influential globally, in places like N.Y.C and Berlin.”
Lane says part of the reason graffiti is misunderstood is due to the way the city handles it.
In Toronto, graffiti is removed within 72 hours, or 24 hours if it contains discriminatory remarks or anything gang related.
According to Lane, this results in sloppy, mindless graffiti known as “tags” with no real artistic merit.
“People here aren’t exposed to proper graffiti because there is no canvas for it,” Lane said. “All they see are shitty tags with no substance, because who is gonna dedicate themselves to a piece that will be gone in a few days?”
The city says some of its reasons for launching the project are that graffiti makes neighbourhoods less desirable, encourages more vandalism and crime, and makes it seem like rules can be broken without consequence.
However, Lane says these issues can be avoided with mutual co-operation between graffiti artists and the city.
He says if there was regulation of graffiti in designated, private properties, it would give graffiti artists a much needed outlet and a place to develop their art.
“The law says that ‘art murals’ are allowed but graffiti is not,” Lane said. “But whose place is it to define what’s art and what’s not?”
To some, this question is more easily answered than for others.
The issue came up again recently in a Sept. 10, 2008 issue of the Toronto Star when a group was divided over whether city council should be allowed to vote on a selection of public art murals for a Toronto condo project.
Councillor Howard Moscoe was one of the leading advocates of the decision for the city to stay out of the voting process.
“The minute public art becomes politicized, it becomes banal,” Moscoe said. “If you squeeze it through the political process, you get tripe.”
The Metro Place Project, with a budget of $500,000 to fund public art, is judged by a panel consisting of the developer, landscape architect and a number of artists.
Some artists, such as Lane, think powerful corporate interests motivate the campaign.
“Look around you, you can’t go anywhere in Toronto without being bombarded by advertisements,” Lane said. “Billboards, condos, real estate, that’s all this city cares about”.
To other artists, such as Susie Park, another student attending OCAD, the city’s decision to fund public art for a condo project reflects where their priorities are.
“I don’t find it surprising that they did that,” Park said. “Condos make a lot of money; it’s good for the city. Graffiti doesn’t do that.”
Some like Coun. Moscoe, feel art is not prone to consensus and that an artist needs complete freedom of expression.
Not surprisingly, many artists would agree.
“You can’t tell an artist where and when to draw or paint,” said Susie. “That sort of makes it feel like the artist is no longer creating art for themselves, but for someone else”.
Park feels that art cannot be sculpted by the orders of a politician, especially in the case of graffiti.
“The whole point of graffiti is to give life to parts of the city that are dead,” Park said. “The sketchy alley, the abandoned staircase, the places people avoid.”
Park feels graffiti is made to create beauty in places where beauty has been forsaken. She says by only allowing graffiti in certain, designated areas, it defeats the purpose.
For Andrew Lane, the city only allows certain art murals to promote gentrification, and raise property values.
He feels the city is not concerned with fostering the growth of this small art subculture.
“If you look at the art murals in Toronto, most of it is really contrived, like peace signs, or people holding hands,” Lane said. “To Miller, that is art, but the moment someone makes a political piece about poverty or police, it’s graffiti.”
--End--
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Fiji Water
Is tap water really that bad?
Is a bit of flouride, minerals, and maybe an ounce of dirt from your tap filter going to result in the world spinning off of it's axis?
It would seem in our day and age we are becoming more and more afraid of our roots. At one point, we lived in caves, eat insects, drank water out of a dirty pond and relished in the earthy goodness of dirt. Now, we spray insects with delightful sprays that contain as many man made chemicals as possible, refuse to drink water unless it's from the other side of the world and in a fancy bottle, and spend thousands upon thousands of dollars buying products to keep us clean from the evil of dirt.
I remember in Cairo, Egypt, I once ordered a glass of water, sat and waited for my server. I watched as he took a glass, gave it a very quick rinse and poured my water quickly. When he brought it to my table, I could visibly see what could only be the remnants of someone's lipstick on the glass. I shivered in disgust, and quickly told the waiter. He looked at it, examined it carefully as if it held the answer to life, and then casually shrugged and took it behind the counter, to give it another quick rinse.
His non-chalant response to his unsanitary establishment shocked me; shouldn't he be panicking that I will report this to the food and health agency? Shouldn't he be shuffling on his feet, doing everything he can to assure me it is a legitimate establishment so that I return in the future?
Nah.
He just rinsed it again, not anymore thoroughly than the first time, and brought it back promptly. There it was, on the side of the glass, a lovely set of fingerprints even stained with a little bit of dirt from his glass. I smiled politely and thanked him. I looked at the glass warily, hoped for the best and drank from it.
I survived.
Apparently, a little dirt -won't- kill you, contrary to popular western belief. So why are people so afraid of tap water? Surely the filter must do something. I see people paying ridiculous amounts of money for water, which in my eyes, should be free.
Now, I never thought I would write about water until I actually bought a bottle of 'Fiji' water myself to see what all the fuss was about. For those not familiar with it, the water comes all the way from, predictably, Fiji, and comes in a fancy, semi-unique looking bottle to boot. Cool, I thought. Then I paid the near 3 dollars for a bottle of water. Needless to say, I will never pay for bottled water again (unless I'm in Cairo).
Not only was it ridiculously overpriced, it tasted exactly like I expected it to... LIKE WATER. I admit, I was somewhat hoping for this amazing luxurious water that would blow me away and force me to pledge my allegiance to Fiji water for the rest of my days. But nah, it was just like any other freaking water.
Thus, I ask you dedicated bottle water consumers, what is it that makes you so blindly devoted to bottled water? Is it really necessary to drink water from Fiji, from a glacier in the North Pole, or from an iceberg in the most northerly part of the French Alps? I think not.
I don't think it has anything to do with the health benefits, I think it is just some deep rooted need for us Westerners to try and fill the void in our lives by trying something 'exotic'. How else can we explain the prevalence of caviar, escargo, and bottled water in western civilization? Does anyone actually enjoy eating snails?
OHHHH, this water comes from Fiji, a tiny island in the middle of the pacific ocean that no one has ever paid attention to for the last 50 years until they decided to make it the centre of the world of prestigious waters. Quote, from the website:
"FIJI Water is drawn from an artesian aquifer, located at the very edge of a primitive rainforest, hundreds of miles away from the nearest continent."
WOW.
I am sooooo going to buy it now! It's drawn form an Artesian aquifier at the very edge of a primitive rainforst! WOW!
$*&% OFF. PLEASE AND THANKS.
I don't get what this fascination with exotic water is...I should send all these Artesian water drinkers to Cairo, Egypt...if fingerprints and lipstick stains isn't exotic enough for them, then they should stick to their tap water.
/rant
Is a bit of flouride, minerals, and maybe an ounce of dirt from your tap filter going to result in the world spinning off of it's axis?
It would seem in our day and age we are becoming more and more afraid of our roots. At one point, we lived in caves, eat insects, drank water out of a dirty pond and relished in the earthy goodness of dirt. Now, we spray insects with delightful sprays that contain as many man made chemicals as possible, refuse to drink water unless it's from the other side of the world and in a fancy bottle, and spend thousands upon thousands of dollars buying products to keep us clean from the evil of dirt.
I remember in Cairo, Egypt, I once ordered a glass of water, sat and waited for my server. I watched as he took a glass, gave it a very quick rinse and poured my water quickly. When he brought it to my table, I could visibly see what could only be the remnants of someone's lipstick on the glass. I shivered in disgust, and quickly told the waiter. He looked at it, examined it carefully as if it held the answer to life, and then casually shrugged and took it behind the counter, to give it another quick rinse.
His non-chalant response to his unsanitary establishment shocked me; shouldn't he be panicking that I will report this to the food and health agency? Shouldn't he be shuffling on his feet, doing everything he can to assure me it is a legitimate establishment so that I return in the future?
Nah.
He just rinsed it again, not anymore thoroughly than the first time, and brought it back promptly. There it was, on the side of the glass, a lovely set of fingerprints even stained with a little bit of dirt from his glass. I smiled politely and thanked him. I looked at the glass warily, hoped for the best and drank from it.
I survived.
Apparently, a little dirt -won't- kill you, contrary to popular western belief. So why are people so afraid of tap water? Surely the filter must do something. I see people paying ridiculous amounts of money for water, which in my eyes, should be free.
Now, I never thought I would write about water until I actually bought a bottle of 'Fiji' water myself to see what all the fuss was about. For those not familiar with it, the water comes all the way from, predictably, Fiji, and comes in a fancy, semi-unique looking bottle to boot. Cool, I thought. Then I paid the near 3 dollars for a bottle of water. Needless to say, I will never pay for bottled water again (unless I'm in Cairo).
Not only was it ridiculously overpriced, it tasted exactly like I expected it to... LIKE WATER. I admit, I was somewhat hoping for this amazing luxurious water that would blow me away and force me to pledge my allegiance to Fiji water for the rest of my days. But nah, it was just like any other freaking water.
Thus, I ask you dedicated bottle water consumers, what is it that makes you so blindly devoted to bottled water? Is it really necessary to drink water from Fiji, from a glacier in the North Pole, or from an iceberg in the most northerly part of the French Alps? I think not.
I don't think it has anything to do with the health benefits, I think it is just some deep rooted need for us Westerners to try and fill the void in our lives by trying something 'exotic'. How else can we explain the prevalence of caviar, escargo, and bottled water in western civilization? Does anyone actually enjoy eating snails?
OHHHH, this water comes from Fiji, a tiny island in the middle of the pacific ocean that no one has ever paid attention to for the last 50 years until they decided to make it the centre of the world of prestigious waters. Quote, from the website:
"FIJI Water is drawn from an artesian aquifer, located at the very edge of a primitive rainforest, hundreds of miles away from the nearest continent."
WOW.
I am sooooo going to buy it now! It's drawn form an Artesian aquifier at the very edge of a primitive rainforst! WOW!
$*&% OFF. PLEASE AND THANKS.
I don't get what this fascination with exotic water is...I should send all these Artesian water drinkers to Cairo, Egypt...if fingerprints and lipstick stains isn't exotic enough for them, then they should stick to their tap water.
/rant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
