Foot Loose and Fancy Free?

Ok, I'll admit it. That is a truly terrible pun (though not as bad as some on boingboing's article)

"RICHMOND, B.C. — A couple walking their dogs along the banks of British Columbia's Fraser River made the latest in what's become a series of gruesome discoveries of a running shoe with a severed foot encased inside.

It's the seventh such find inside a shoe along the West Coast from Georgia Strait to the northwestern tip of Washington State since August 2007."

This is a map of the area where the feet are being found.

If this finding is confirmed as real, that makes seven feet that have washed up in the area. When you consider how much of the BC coastline is uninhabited and how many wild animals there are who would be willing to cart off something like this before humans found it, the idea that we've found seven is a little worrying. How many more feet are washing up that nobody knows about? And more importantly, where in the world are they coming from?

A lot of theories have been put forth: small plane crash victims, an (unreported?) boating acident in the Fraser, missing fishermen or sailors, Serial Killer, or even the far-fetched Tsunami victims.

The similarity of all the feet being in running shoes can be explained by the tendency of running shoes to be well attached to the feet by laces and by their floating capability. A foot in say, a high heel, would slide out of the shoe, and a boot would likely not float. It is also considered normal for body parts to disarticulate during decomposition - the ligaments holding the limbs weaken and parts simply break off. This would be even more likely in an ocean environment where the currents would buffet the body slightly. Other body parts (hands, etc) might also disarticulate, but without a buoyant accessory like a shoe, they would be less likely to float to the surface.

So, that can all explain *how* the shoes end up on the beaches, but the why and where are still a little confusing. If this were the norm - bodies lost into the ocean returning feet to land - why haven't feet been found before this? Why now?

and just so you're aware...I was planning to end this post on a particularly bad foot pun. Consider yourselves lucky that I refrained!

And everything looks just a little bit brighter

My neighbourhood is normally pretty quiet, especially at this time of night, but right now there are fireworks going off, people outside banging pots and pans and cheering. Downtown Portland has apparently turned into one big party, complete with a conga line stretching multiple blocks. It's exciting and wonderful and joyful, but I can't help but feel just a tiny bit sad.

When was the last time that Canadians got this worked up over politics? When did we last get so fiercely involved in our own government that we took to the streets in celebration over a new leader? We pride ourselves on our democracy and yet this recent election was a joke. Canadians plainly didn't care, and they showed it by not showing up at the polls. Early numbers on the US election are saying as high as 80% turnout, which would certainly shame our dismal 59%.

So, congratulations America, and congratulations Obama. This is an amazing night, and you should be proud.



and yes, there will be more posts this week. I'm sorry for the lack of entertainment, midterms and kennel duties at 7am are kicking my butt this week.

Way To Go....

Good job Immigration. Glad to see you're so determined to protect us Canadians from the immigrants who want to come in and...wait...what? Pay taxes? Go to school? WORK AS DOCTORS?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have a physician shortage?

"A Calgary critical-care doctor's application for permanent residency has been rejected because one of his daughters might be a drain on the health care system.

South African physician Stanley Muwanguzi says his 22-year-old daughter has been institutionalized since she was a toddler and he has no intention of moving her to Canada."

Spin, Harper...Spin!

Audio expert says Cadman tape not altered
"A tape recording at the centre of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party was not altered as the prime minister has claimed, a court-ordered analysis of the tape by Harper's own audio expert has found."
".......The findings may call into question Harper's testimony about the interview during a sworn cross-examination conducted by a Liberal party lawyer in August. The analysis was filed in Ontario Superior Court on Friday by lawyers for the Liberal party, despite attempts by Harper's lawyer to keep the opinion out of the court file until at least next week."

"Kory Teneycke, a spokesman for Harper, maintained that the findings do not undermine the prime minister's case — and in fact can be used to buttress Harper's claims."

The Tory spin machine is making me dizzy.

(full article here)

I know what plagiarism is...do you, Mr. Harper?

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper on Tuesday of plagiarizing a speech from Australian Prime Minister John Howard in a 2003 address in the House of Commons calling for Canadian troops to be deployed to Iraq.

More


What bothers me most about this is the party's refusal to treat it as a matter of any importance. I can easily see the possibility of a less than competent speech writer handing this to Harper, who then delivers it, unaware of its origins. Instead of crying this, or some other logical excuse, the Conservatives are saying "Old news, doesn't matter."
I think it matters a lot.
If I did what Harper has done, I'd be expelled from school. Every student, from high school level and beyond, has the serious and criminal nature of plagiarizing drilled into them on every single paper they write. We know it's wrong.
But more than that, I I think it matters because it says that Harper, on an issue of sending our country to war, not only did not prepare his own speech, he took it directly from another country. Whether that country was Australia, or whether these phrases were taken directly from a briefing from the US, who knows. Either way, I would prefer that the man who wants to be in charge of our country would have the independence to come up with his own thoughts on such a major issue.

I love Margaret Atwood...

and hate Harper....


MARGARET ATWOOD
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail
September 24, 2008

To be creative is, in fact, Canadian

Mr. Harper is wrong: There’s more to the arts than a
bunch of rich people at galas whining about their
grants

What sort of country do we want to live in?
What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we’ve been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it’s a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: the Conference Board estimates Canada’s cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada’s GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”

But we’ve just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen
Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called “ordinary people” didn’t care about something called “the arts.” His idea of “the arts” is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I’m one of them, and I’m no Warren Buffett. I don’t whine about my grants because I don’t get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they’ll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an “ordinary person.” Mr. Harper’s idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or
curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that’s attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. “Ordinary people” pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for “the arts” in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. “The arts” are not a “niche interest.” They are part of being human.

Moreover, “ordinary people” are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. “Ordinary people” have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on … Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and ordinary people” will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia’s Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is “ordinary.” It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It’s the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of “ordinary people.” He’s the “niche interest.” Not us.

It’s been suggested that Mr. Harper’s disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is “ideologically motivated.” Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What’s the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don’t all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers’ money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they’re a mouthy lot and they don’t line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master’s Voice. Maybe that’s why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn’t like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper’s idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It’s an impulse that’s been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!

Adapted from the 2008 Hurtig Lecture,
to be delivered in Edmonton on Oct. 1