oh harry, you let me down

No, this is not a blog entry about Prince Harry and all his roguish antics that appear to be coming to an end now that he has served in Afghanistan. It is about Harry Rosen. And it is more than just the brand Harry Rosen, it is how that brand relates to Mr. Rosen himself.

In the latest round of procrastination efforts, I was looking through the society photos on the Globe and Mail. Yes, I know. I don't need a lecture. Anyways, I saw the following picture of Mr. Harry Rosen himself, taken at a swanky society event.

Note: this photo belongs to the Globe and Mail.

Now, I know I am going to be accused of being harsh, but Mr. Rosen, what's with your tie. It's tied nicely, and certainly appears to be long enough. Why on earth is the short narrow end not tucked into the handy that piece of fabric that keeps it behind the other part of the tie.

If your name is synonymous with men's fashion in this country, is it too much to ask for you to make sure you set a standard. It's one thing around the house, but at a society event where you are going to be photographed, please, for all of us who look to you as a standard, please, please pay attention to the small details.

Harry, you let me down. It's not quite worth a withering look of disapprovaltm, but it's close.

a letter to the snails...

Dear Snails:

You probably think this letter isn't about you. You're wrong. How can you know? Ask yourself: "Am I Student Not Actually In Law School?" If the answer is yes, you're a snail.

It's not quite a term of affection, but an more of an easy and quick descriptor. However, we do restrain ourselves and do not call you snails (a) to your face or (b) while we are slumming on the rest of campus. No, it is only when you enter the hallowed halls of the little law school on the prairie that we refer to you as snails.

For example, today I found myself in the position of being the only law student in a row of forty desks in the Law Library; I was surrounded by science students. There was no respite to be found in the law student lounge which was full of commerce students taking up all the available tables and chairs.

We understand that as law students we are incredibly cool and you want to be like us. It's a burden we have come to accept. However, it is simply going too far. We need our space; being this cool is a lot of work and we need some down time. A chance to relax in our lounge with other law students, where we can take a break from being so cool.

Despite your little death glares, we will not feel guilty for asking you to be quiet and to not do your science group work in the middle of the law library. The law is a solitary mistress, she does not like groups. We must work individually our noses in books briefing cases, interpreting 100 year old cases, and writing papers. Quiet helps immensely.

We also understand that our shiny new, environmentally-certified building makes us even cooler and current. You poor commerce snails, we feel for you. Yes, you had a shiny new building, but ours came along and all of a sudden yours looks old and gray. However, we paid for our new building; students and faculty donated money so we could have our own space. It's one thing to use our library, but our student lounge and our classrooms, they are for us. We need the space. We spent a term as refugees with no home on- or off-campus. Angelina Jolie was actually considering adopting us, we were in such a state.

Please give us some time to enjoy our space. If you really want to be like us, write the LSAT and then you too can spend three long years within these prison walls, oops hallowed halls. Plus, you will lose your snail status and be able to look down on those annoying people in the law lounge who used to be you.

Sincerely,

Those of us actually in law school

memo to parents

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing some schoolwork. I'm not at home to avoid the noise of renovation taking place on the other side of my wall. I don't expect quiet while working at Starbucks. In fact I find the general din of conversations and baristas yelling out orders comforting and quite conducive to work.

However, there are limits. I understand that most parents work full-time and therefore don't get to spend as much time with their children as they would like. On weekends, they want to spend as much time as possible with them. I get that. I don't mind you bringing your very young children and infants to Starbucks when you want a coffee. That's cool. What I do ask, is that you do not bring toys that make noise. Is it too much to ask that you consider the perspective and desires of those of us without children who don't want to be subjected to their toys making noise.

I understand the need to bring toys to keep them happy and avoid your child having a meltdown in the middle of Starbucks. Just bring their favourite stuffed toy. There is no reason to bring a toy that broadcasts across the entire cafe. I could even hear it while I was in the washroom.

So to the parents behind me who seem to be clueless to the rest of the world around then, a withering look of disapproval(tm) goes your way.

it's only fair

A little piece of me is dying inside while I write this post, but I figure it's only fair that I write it. Brace yourselves folks, I'm about to write something nice about Air Canada.

Like most Canadians, I have a love/hate relationship with Air Canada. Okay, most Canadians just have a hate relationship with Air Canada, but I must admit mine is more love/hate.

There are times that I actually do love Air Canada. For example, the fact they offer direct flights. From the middle of the prairie, to get to the parental units, I have to fly west first, then retrace my steps back east if I fly Westjet. Hmmm, maybe that's why they call it Westjet.

I hate the forced frivolity that accompanies a Westjet flight, and love the cool, detached almost snoblike service on Air Canada. I love Aeroplan. Unlike others, I've had a handful of Aeroplan flights, including first class which have been great.

Most of my complaints with Air Canada are related to activities on the ground. Such was how the latest go round began. My trip to Toronto for a national mooting competition got mixed up and had me leaving 12 hours early, smack in the middle of a night class. I wanted to change my flight so I wouldn't miss class, and also have the chance to fly out with everyone else.

Unfortunately, as the flights were booked for us, I didn't have the original credit card information so I had to make changes over the phone and not online. I called once, waited almost half an hour to find out fares had gone up, and it would cost close to $200 more with the new fare and change fees. Not only is there a $40 change fee, but also a $25 fee to talk to a person. I hung up.

Anyways, I waited for a seat sale and one came up yesterday. A lower fare was available on the flight I wanted. I called once, was told to expect a 30 minute wait and hung up. Called again a while later and was told to expect a 45 minute wait; hung up. Waited a little longer, called and was told to expect a 30 minute wait; I stayed on the line.

After 70 minutes on hold, hearing the same ads repeat every four minutes, I was less than impressed when I finally got a person. I gave my confirmation number and told her I needed to change my seat after pointing out I had been on hold for 70 minutes. In fact, she corrected this and told me it was exactly 76 minutes. Not off to a great start.

So she proceeds to tell me that my booking was a web booking and I could save the $25 fee if I made the change on the web site. What a revelation! I explained again that if I could have done that I would have, and wouldn't have had to spend 76 minutes on hold. I explained to her that I didn't have a problem paying $25 to speak to a person, but I did have a HUGE problem, paying $25 to speak to a person after waiting 76 minutes.

After an explanation of a snow storm in Toronto, and all flights being cancelled, I was like "whatever" just change my flight. I decided that rather than asking to speak to a manager, I would just start drafting emails that would be sent to every Air Canada email address I could find and complain after the fact.

So this Air Canada agent, a french woman, stunned me in the end. She changed my flight, did advance seat selection and informed me that she would not charge me the $25 fee to speak to a person. What? Really? Without even throwing a full-scale fit? What's up with that? Nice way to steal my thunder. I said "thank you, I appreciate that," and began deleting the draft email I was furiously typing away to good ol' Robbie Milton.

So Air Canada, you have a good, smart customer service agent with an actual talent for customer service; I have to give you credit for that. We all know that if that hadn't happened, there would have been a scathing entry about Air Canada on the blog today. It's only fair that I share the good along with the bad. This time you've spared yourself from a withering look of disapproval(tm).

step on over to the other side

I'm a little behind on the Sarah Hampson bashing although her "Merry Ex-mas" piece had me all riled up and throwing around the withering look of disapproval(tm). However, you'll be glad to know the little sister has taken up the challenge and you can read her take on Ms. Hampson's most recent piece here.

However, the withering look of disapproval has been cast at politicians lately. Today, its back to old Stephane Dion. I guess when most people in your own party don't support you, you start looking to supporters in other parties. I've blogged before about the suicide, errr mutual support pact between Dion and Elizabeth May. Mr. Dion, much like Ms. Hampson has gone and done it again.

Mr. Dion appointed a sitting NDP MLA to run in the March 17 by-election for a federal seat here in Saskatchewan. Yes, one of those MLA's who was just re-elected two months' ago. Yes, she's quitting provincial politics two-months later and is aiming for the big show.

According to press reports, it appears Ms. Beatty got used to being in cabinet, and doesn't like the view from the opposition benches in Regina. So she's swapping/shopping for a view from the opposition benches in Ottawa in hopes she'll be back on the government side quicker than the at least four years she'll have to wait here. Hmmm, a guess a promise of a cabinet post was made, however really, who are we kidding, if you're a liberal and elected in the west, you're pretty much guaranteed a cabinet post

You think considering that they started talking about this six months ago (yes before the Sask election) she would have come up with a better message, but I'll give her points for being honest about the reason, although she certainly was not honest with the electorate about her intentions.

As for the Liberals, when will they learn. Yes I understand Stephan Dion has made a commitment to get more women in his caucus, but are there no liberal women? If there are, I certainly can't imagine them sticking around (i.e. Belinda) with Mr. Dion seeming to only find women he likes in other parties. Maybe Lizzie and Joan can sit together once they're both elected (tee hee, that's funny, Elizabeth May elected, tee hee).

Also, once again, knowing this was in the works for months, don't you think the Liberals could have planned their communications a little better? "Stephane Dion has made it a priority to elect more women; Stephane Dion thinks this is a great candidate." Are you thinking Stephane Dion now talks about himself in the third persion? (Glen thinks that would be swell!) Fear not no, Mr. Dion, who was so committed to this candidate and trashing the democratic nomination process, was not available for comment and a liberal senator (and former national campaign chair) was trotted out to do all the talking. It's time to whip out PR101 again.

First off, if Mr. Dion was so committed, make him available. Have him stand up, accept and explain his decisions. Don't trot someone else out to do it for him. The Conservatives are trashing him as a weak leader, and when he makes a "bold" leadership decision, trot him out to show and defend it. Don't send out a senator who use quotes like "bite the bullet" when describing the decision.

If you are committed to this decision, be proud. Don't say you "bit the bullet". Have Stephan Dion say "I made a commitment to change the representation of women in our party, and when required I'll make unpopular decisions to keep that commitment. That's what a leader does."

"Yes, Ms. Beatty is a New Democrat MLA, but she is a smart, talented aboriginal woman whose voice and ideas need to be heard in Parliament. I'm pleased she feels like the Liberal Party is the best party to hear her voice and help address the needs of aboriginal people and all Canadians. Her joining with us reflects her commitment to helping her constituents and reflects the change I have brought to the Liberal Party."

That's just one suggestion of what could be said. I'm sure there's others. But all of them are better than saying "Ow, we bit the bullet." So for that, and just cherry picking generally, Senator David Smith and Stephane Dion get the withering look of disapproval(tm). And Ms. Beatty gets one of her own, for being less than forthright with her constituents.

great expectations

This is truly blogging on the run, well blogging on the rails anyways. I'm currently riding viarail from Toronto to Ottawa to see a friend from up north who moved to the nation's capital.

I'm a little less than impressed with my train voyage so far. I started this morning in my hometown in the suburbs outside of Toronto. The plan was to catch via in the hometown, switch trains in Toronto and then off to Ottawa. With all of the advertising via has done about how taking the train is the human(e) way to travel, I think my expectations had been raised beyond via's ability to meet them.

I expected something different than you typical voyage on Canada's national airline or that other perky airline. First off, via is "arrive 30 minutes before" or "one hour before" if you want to check baggage. Ok this is a little better than the airlines, but not much.

As I arrived the requisite amount of time in advance, I'm then told the train is running 20 minutes late. It ended up being 30 minutes late. The reason for these delays, "A large number of passengers and bags". Maybe via's advertising has been too successful and they can't meet the demand they have created.

Unfortunately, although I was continuing on to Ottawa on the same train we had to get off and reboard the train (although we were allowed to leave our luggage). I took a short stroll around union station only to find that the lineup to board my train ran the full length of the departure area, up the ramp and into the main part of the station. Some of these people had to be lined up at least an hour before the train was scheduled to leave. It's beginning to seem a lot like an airport.

I can't understand the rush, people have assigned seats, there's no advantage to standing in line. Speaking of seats, my window seats selected in advance were changed with no notice by via when I picked up my tickets.

Finally, all those annoying people who I thought only flew, appear also to take the train. Such as the a-hole in 11C who has his chair reclined to the point where his head is in my lap, or the person who broke out a harvey's meal right beside. Both were victims of the withering look of disapproval(tm).

Maybe via is a more human way to travel, but the problem is that it still includes other humans. I don't think I'm cut out for mass transit.

she's at it again

I guess maybe Ms. Hampson has realized her pieces have been a little one-sided and has decided to write her current piece on what women of a certain age want in men. However, not to fear, this does not mean she has reduced her dependence on ego stroking, cliches and stereotypes. Alright, you know the routine, go read it, you know you want to, then use the back button to come on back.

First off, Ms. Hampson works in a coy little story to show that despite her recent divorce she's still 'got-it'. Why else for the story about being hit on by a creepy, old married man. Ms. Hampson, I think it's time you got the "old creep-o-meter" re-tuned, because if it didn't flicker on the dying man saying he didn't have to be 'married' that night, then it's broken.

Later in the article, it's said that men "...should feel like your favourite pair of sweatpants." Nice, maybe Ms. Hampson was feeling guilty for last week's comparison of women to car seats and old leather and tried to balance the analogy scale.

What intrigues me is how although being a piece on what women want, it really seems to be tips on how women should compromise, balding, that's ok, a little paunch, that's ok too, things like career and success aren't too important. It's fascinating to see this.

Last week's piece was positioned as rules for women about what men want in women of a certain age, so why she didn't write this piece as rules for men is beyond me. It would seem more fair, rather than this piece which puts the emphasis on women looking past things in men that men may not be prepared to look past in women.

For example, women of a certain age, according to last week shouldn't talk too much about their children. It's against the rules. However, women should "pay attention to a man's relationship with his children from a previous marriage." It's important for women to know he plays a meaningful role with his children, but she's not supposed to talk about hers. If he does have a meaningful relationship with his children, I imagine he'll want to know that a woman he's interested in has good relationships with her children. But no, she can't talk about that, it's "against the rules".

You may also note that everything a woman should be looking for in a man, how he talks about his ex, his relationship with his children are predicated on a previous relationship. What about the single older man, oh wait, that's right, we're talking about Ms. Hampson, and she's the founding memberof the "if they're over 40 and never been married than they are not dating material" club. ARGH!

I mean really, once we all reach a certain age, male or female, aren't we looking for something other than the rules and games of our youth when we didn't know any better. Ms. Hampson is doing nothing other than trying to bring back those silly days of youthful relationships and trying to plant them on a completely different point of our lives, where we want to be and in fact are past them.

oops, she did it again

Now calm down everybody, not to worry. This is not a Britney Spears post. You may recall I declared this blog a britney-free zone ages ago. No, the she I am referring to is Sarah Hampson. Oh yes, the columnist of the Tim Horton's relationship, and the if you're 40 with no failed marriage behind you you're doomed on the modern dating scence has struck again. How many times am I going to have to give her the withering look of disapproval(tm)?

It appears Thursdays are Ms. Hampson's days to work out her being single issues and wax pathetically, not poetically on the modern dating scene. To begin with, go read her latest column "The Rules (for Women of a Certain Age)". Go on, I know you want to, it's like a car wreck, you know you shouldn't but you can't look away.

Now, maybe Ms. Hampson is trying to be ironic and poke fun at the original authors of The Rules, but if so well she missed the mark. Given her recent set of articles this all seems quite serious.

Not happy with the "single-single" label she set for single people several weeks ago, Ms. Hampson introduces a new term, the recycled singleton. Maybe this term belongs to those in the 40 and over with a failed marriage club. The fact that you are a recycled singleton indicates that you're not "single-single", but that yes you have taken Ms. Hampson's so-called leap of faith and have a failed marriage behind you. Recycled singleton is like code, sending a signal that you haven't always been single so you're more desirable than the single-single.

So what advice did Ms. Hampson receive that she felt was so important to share with her readers, how about this golden tip "Do not embrace the muu muu." Wow, that's earth shattering, who would have known. You're like a Russell Smith for women, providing valuable fashion advice. Nice to see you're not playing into cliches and stereotypes at all Ms. Hampson.

Ms. Hampson goes on to quote a certain older gentlemen who provides this nugget about dating older women:

To meet an older woman with those attributes is like sitting in a broken-in seat in a car. New leather is slippery. But a broken-in seat, well, there's nothing more comfortable and nothing more personal.

Now, I wonder if Ms. Hampson included this to drive women out of the dating scene, because who isn't going to be turned off dating if there are men like this out there. Maybe Ms. Hampson is looking to get rid of some of her competition by keeping them out of the 'pool' all together.

Other nuggets from Ms. Hampson, lost the bitterness, dating isn't therapy and don't talk too much about your kids. Don't be a drama queen. Also, you may be a powerful, successful business women, but don't be any of those when you're dating. Are we still at this level in our society? If so, then I truly do feel sad, but I find it had to believe that Ms. Hampson's singular view of the world reflects reality.

I think it's only fair that at some point there should be The Rules: For Men of A Certain Age. In my view there's only one, men of a certain age or weight should not wear a speedo, and I think we can all agree on that.

maybe 40 is not the new 20

Months ago I speculated about 40 being the new 20, but as part of its recent holy-way on singles, the Globe and Mail seems to think otherwise. Go on and read this piece, it's called "Still Single after 40? Sounds suspicous.

The basic premise of the article is that its better to have married and split then never to have married at all once you are in your 40s. That's ridiculous. I'm not sure where this whole single-bashing trend at the Globe comes from but I'm surprised.

I find it surprising that the writer so easily dismisses common-law living arrangements as not being the same as a marriage. Is not living with someone in a relationship for several years signs of an ability to commit? Just because someone doesn't believe that they need the state or a church to record their relationship doesn't mean they aren't prepared to take the leap of faith. Nope, unless you got married, and in the process likely ended up messing up your life and someone else's (I am talking about now divorced people) you're just not dating material in your 40s.

Everyone has baggage, whether its' from a failed marriage or from reasons for not having been married, I'm not sure what the difference is. Either way I imagine a relationship at that point in your life is going to be complicated regardless of your marriage background. If you've been single, you've become well adjusted to living alone and enjoy your routines, bringing another person in is just difficult. If you've been common-law or married, your dealing with possibly shared parenting, or even if there are no kids, your're trying not to make the same mistakes with your new partner as you did with your last.

We shouldn't be limiting the pool of potential daters and connections with silly rules like these. It's hard enough to meet someone you have a connection with. If you do, don't worry about their past relationships or lack thereof, focus on the one you are having. There's enough baggage to go around, you'll both have it, so check it at the door whatever it is, and start fresh.

As for Sarah Hampson, the author, she gets a withering look of disapproval(tm).

enough with the double-doubles

Okay, this latest Globe and Mail story has me not knowing what to think. Go read it.

At times I want to laugh because it seems silly and sad, but other times it has me seething and shooting the withering look of disapproval(tm) at society for its focus on coupling and the need to label everything.

First the seething: Our society has this constant need to label everyone and everything into little boxes to make it easier for someone else. People who choose or are forced to live outside the little labels just get ostracized, or crammed into some little box where people will judge them.

We have labels for careers, sexuality, relationship status, moods, hobbies, everything. You can't escape them, and for a lot of the time I can't even keep how I'm labeled straight, (no pun intended) let alone anyone else. The worst part is, I know I label other people, either for ease or out of expectations, but I do it.

Now, you can't just be single, you're single-single. Yes, the hordes of coupledom are once again foricing people's singleness down their own throats. Why are we forcing people to label the kind of relationships that they have? Each person's relationship is different, but we keep wanting to force it into little categories or labels.

Now laughter: I find this need to distinguish between different types of singles silly, and almost pathetic. For some reason certain people who choose to live alone need some sort of label to try to fit themselves in the 'couples' club. It's like they are saying: "It's okay, you can talk to me, I'm not single, I'm single-double, somebody loves me; we don't live together, but I'm not like those other ones!"

I can't be the only one finding this laughable. As the article points out, our relationships are beginning to sound like Tim Horton's orders, not mature aspects of our lives.

I think it's great when someone does find someone that they can have a relationship with, but I also respect those people who may choose to remain single. Most of all, we should show some respect to those people who are single, but would rather be in a relationship.

These labels will only make it worse for them, "Oh, you're single-single? How sad, just haven't met the right person yet." Nothing like reinforcing their single status by saying it twice.

As for my label, I'm not going to be drawn into that game.

mr. big stuff, who do you think you are?

I was at the grocery store today picking up a few items and one of my biggest pet peeves happened again. No, it wasn't someone who was surprised at the idea they have to pay; it was a person who insisted on shopping from the check-out line.

Now, when I say shopping from the check-out line, I don't mean this person was humming and hawing over which magazine or candy to buy in the tantrum inducing parent trap that is the check-out display. I mean this person had their basket of goods on the conveyor belt but was proceeding to run around the store and pick up those items she so "conveniently forgot". Seriously, who forgets to grab hot dog buns when you've picked up hot dogs?

If it was one item, maybe I'd be prepared to cut a person some slack, but when you're going up and down aisles, come on! Proper shopping etiquette means lifting your basket off the conveyor belt, putting it aside, giving a little wave to the next person in line, and THEN dashing madly around the store to get your items.

This grocery store is not a large one, and is never overly busy so it's not like a spot near the front of the check-out line is a precious commodity. Particularly in this case where all the woman's items were still in a basket, there was no reason to hold a spot.

I can understand if you have all your items laid out on the conveyor; but even in that case at least acknowledge the inconvenience you are causing to the people behind you. A knowing look, a 'slap-stick style' hand to the head pronouncing what you've forgotten will garner some good will, or at least neutral feelings. Do you think I like whipping out my 'withering look of disapproval'(tm)?

Maybe I'll follow in the footsteps of Mr. Smith and pen a book on etiquette for the modern man and woman: how to navigate your way through society without invoking the withering look of disapproval(tm) from those of us in the know.