Protecting our northern marine and alpine ecology

2006 Alaska

Aug 14, 2006 - 491 Photos

Fearteeth (part 1)

I've been terrified of dentists since I was a child. I didn't even know how badly I was terrified until I started hyperventilating while writing a letter asking friends for recommendations. I've been putting it off for twenty years, with excuses like "it's not that bad," or "I can't afford it now," or "where could I take a half-day off of work?" Even when my teeth started turning black, even after the second tooth cracked and left a fragment in my chewing gum.

I know when I ran out of excuses: April 2006 I don't know why I finally stopped putting it off in August 2006, but I did. I wrote the aforementioned letter, and had a panic attack before I could sign my name on it. So I called my mother and asked "did a dentist... /do/ anything to me as a kid? Some kind of abuse that I would block out? Because I'm acting like a traumatized patient here."

"Oh sweetie... no, no, but you do have good reasons," and she went on to explain things that I barely remember. Like the first dentist, who never believed that his patients feel pain (the clawmarks on my father's palms said otherwise). Or the second dentist, who chastised me for needing "six times what an adult uses" in novacaine, and showed off the needle when I told him I'm scared of such things. He also tried to give me unnecessary fillings: thankfully, his hygenist backed me up when I told him he was reading the X-rays wrong.

My mother went on to explain something that did affect me, but I don't remember: bad dentistry broke up my family. She experienced a neck and jaw injury that needed dental work, but the first dentists she went to made things even worse. For years she was paralyzed with pain, unable to work, depressed and unavailable emotionally or even socially. My parents were already estranged, and this was a major contributor to their divorce, and it took a long time for my mother and I to reconnect once her teeth and jaw were fixed by a proper dentist.

So, when the black teeth made me scared to pull my lower lip down, or even give a full smile, a dentist was something I was "supposed to do," but I never really considered it, and I thought about how people survived without dentists... my life wasn't in immediate danger, so I don't need to go. I cracked a tooth on a nutshell, but no nerves were exposed, so I'll just let it go with more careful toothbrushing. A second tooth cracked a year later, while I was chewing gum, and I nearly flipped out psychotic-style on the bus... but I devised a rational explanation as for why this was a sign that I would have no more tooth problems, and I ignored it. (The tooth fragment, embedded in chewing gum, made me so phobic that I had to dispose of it outside my own home.)

When I thought of the inevitable (or can I avoid it?) dentist visit, I had visions of blood streaming down my chin, of whole teeth shattering or disintegrating under the inspection pick, of a man with thick black rubber gloves with two-handed pliers and a knee on my chest pulling out a wisdom tooth (only to say "one down, three to go..."), and hours-long spelunking excursions known as "root canals" that would leave my jawbone as hollow as a bird's bone and shattering the next time I trip and fall.

The fear was so overwhelming, I never told anyone about the black teeth and I even lied to my family, lovers and girlfriend about the cracked teeth. My girlfriend told me that one of my most admirable qualities is my honesty. Three weeks ago I shamefully admitted to her that I lied about my teeth. I risked the trust between me and my girlfriend (third longest relationship ever, soon to be second-longest), just because of my fear of dentistry.

I have no idea how I overcame all of this and ended up in a dentist's waiting room two weeks ago.

( ...part 2 forthcoming... )

Slouching Towards Bethlehem

by Peter Fruchter, August 2006

During a recent interview on British Television, Benjamin Netanyahu was asked

"How come so many more Lebanese have been killed [in the conflict with Hezbollah] than Israelis?"

Netanyahu's reply:

".. in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima. Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?"

How humiliating. Poor interviewer.

The humiliation was entirely deserved, however. Had the interviewer not been so inadequate he would not have asked such a silly question. On the subject of casualties, he would indeed have asked another question. A better question.

What the interviewer ought to have asked is this: How is it that Hezbollah, considered a terrorist targeter of innocent civilians, killed more Israeli soldiers than Israeli civilians – whereas the top-notch I.D.F. military, although claiming to avoid targeting innocent civilians, wound up killing more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah combatants? Why should we not conclude, by the numbers, that I.D.F. is the terrorist organization – and that Hezbollah is the legitimate military?

Now that would have been a question worth asking. And I don't know what Netanyahu's answer would have been. But I do know that answering this question is critical. Even though nobody asked.

How is it that terrorist Hezbollah killed more Israeli soldiers than civilians? For sure not for lack of trying to kill Israeli civilians. Hezbollah did its utmost, but it has proven itself incompetent at killing Israeli civilians. It shot, what? 4000 Katyushas into Israel? And it managed to wound or kill less than 1000 Israelis. That's total incompetence. It takes Hezbollah at least 4 Katyushas to manage wounding or killing one Israeli civilian.

Doesn't mean, of course, that Israel didn't suffer heavy civilian casualties – but it was due to the sheer number of Katyushas Hezbollah fired at Israel. Firing 4000 Katyushas, some are bound to hit targets. But the sheer number of Katyushas fired reflect the competence of Hezbollah's Katyusha suppliers – Iran and Syria – and underscore the incompetence of Hezbollah firing the Katyushas supplied to them. Put it this way: in Israel, three times more bushes were hit by Hezbollah than civilians.

So, as much as Hezbollah targets Israeli civilians, it is 3 times better at killing bushes. Burning bushes everywhere. Incompetent. But how, then, did Hezbollah manage to kill more Israeli soldiers? And how is it that I.D.F. wound up killing more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah combatants?

The answer to these questions is in how and where Hezbollah shoots from.

Hezbollah shoots at Israel right from the homes, schools and hospitals of Lebanese civilians.

And Hezbollah has bunkers. Great bunkers. Terrific bunkers. Deep concrete bunkers. Interconnected with tunnels. Bunkers and tunnels they've been digging the past 10 years.

Clever. As if they knew this day was coming 10 years ago.

So, of course, after Hezbollah shoots at Israel, they duck to their bunkers again. And then it's hard for Israel to hit them when shooting back.

Almost impossibly hard.

But the lebanese civilians, from whose midst Hezbollah shoots at Israel in the first place, have no bunkers. And for sure Hezbollah doesn't invite them into theirs.

So they get hit when Israel shoots back. The Lebanese civilians get hit. Instead of Hezbollah. Even though it's Hezbollah shooting at Israel, not the civilians.

What could they be thinking? Hezbollah, that is. Why would they dig bunkers, then shoot at Israel from among Lebanese civilians, then duck into their bunkers and leave the civilians outside to get hit when Israel shoots back? Why would anyone do anything like that? Are they crazy?

Well.. maybe. In the sense that government by fundamentalism in the 21st century is crazy. But, crazy or not, it's diabolically clever. I understood it when Nasrallah apologized for Hezbollah killing Israeli–Arab children. So how does a fundamentalist leader apologize? Well, he expressed his regret. And he reiterated that the Israeli–Arab children killed by Hezbollah were martyrs to the cause.

That's when I got it. The fundamentalist view on civilian casualties. Where Hezbollah's coming from. What they're thinking.

Civilian casualties are Ok for them. If Israeli – well, that's more than Ok. That's great. That's what they're after, that's who they target. But Lebanese casualties are Ok too. Like the Israeli–Arab children. They're martyrs to the cause.

And that's the answer. Hezbollah has forced a great spilling of civilian casualty blood onto the table of conflict. And although Nasrallah would no doubt have prefered if Hezbollah had proven more competent at spilling Israeli civilian blood, he loses no sleep over the Lebanese civilian blood spilled. Far as he's concerned, it's all good.

From Nasrallah's perspective, it's a win-win situation. Shoot at Israel from among Lebanese civilians, then duck into bunkers and leave the civilians to be mowed down if Israel returns fire. It's win-win. On one hand, maybe Israel will not return fire – for fear of hitting innocent civilians. Bonus! But, on the other hand, if Israel does return fire, that's no loss either. The civilians mowed down by Israel's returning fire become martyrs to Hezbollah's cause. Their deaths conflagrate the flames of Islamic support. Their deaths smoulder and enflame the embers of international resentment against Israel. Bonus!

And for Israel, it's lose-lose. If they shoot back, they often hit innocent civilians. But if they don't shoot back – what then? Simple. If they don't shoot back then they lose the shooting war. And if ever Israel loses the shooting war with Islamic fundamentalism, it's game over. For all time. If that ever happens there won't be no talk of civilian casualties. We'll be talking about the Israeli civilian survivors. The few of them that may survive.

Lose-lose. But Israel must shoot back. For them, it's the lesser of the two evils. Because if they don't, it's game over. For all time.

There is a simple, historically proven solution. One that worked. The only one that ever worked. Recognition of Israel's right to exist.

It's historically proven. That's what Sadat did. On behalf of Egypt, he acknowledged and recognized Israel's right to exist. And the recognition was genuine. Since Sadat's recognition, Egypt hasn't been shooting at Israel. Should any Egyptian shoot at Israelis, he'd not be aided and abetted by Egypt. In Egypt, he'd be acting criminally. It'd be no different, an Egyptian shooting at Israelis, than if he were to shoot at fellow Egyptians. Criminal. Same as an Israeli shooting at Egyptians. Criminal.

In return for genuine recognition, Israel ceased occupying the Sinai. It returned the Sinai peninsula. It returned more land than it was left with.

Who does that? Who gets dragged into shooting wars, wins those shooting wars, captures and occupies more than double the territory originally had as surety against future shooting wars – and then returns more territory than afterwards remaining? Who does that? Isn't the rule that stronger nations war upon and occupy territory of weaker ones? Isn't the historical rule that might makes right?

Israel does that. Israel breaks the historical rule. Israel returns territory captured and occupied in self-defence.

But why? Does Israel win against overwhelming odds with such impunity it can afford to toss away what it has haemorrhaged to win? Nope. That's not it. Sure, the victory in 1967 was with impunity – due to spectacular intelligence. But not in 1973, when attacked on the holiest day of their year. Caught with their pants not even down. Caught with their pants lost. And not in 1948. How they won in 1948 is difficult to conceive for an atheist – like me.

So Israel must really hope the shooting stops. Despite winning every shooting war to date, they must hope the shooting stops badly enough to have returned the Sinai – returned more land than afterwards remaining them. And not like they had that much land even with the Sinai, either.

All this, knowing if shooting starts again they might lose. Lose and exist no more in flesh.

All this, despite history's injunction: that might makes right. That winning is everything.

Wow. Now that's hoping. The kind of hoping that may – just may – shape some future other than that dictated by our sad and vicious history.

The solution is so simple. Take advantage of Israel's hoping. And remember Sadat, for crying out loud. He took advantage of Israel's hoping – even knowing it would cost his life. That's not just martyrdom. Not just heroic. It's decent. He was the best of us all.

Remember Sadat first. As you remember your martyrs, remember Sadat foremost. He was the best of us all. And remember one more thing. Remember the Palestinian people – the people without homeland. The people who suffer today as the jews once suffered. Remember the Palestinian people – and help the Palestinian people. Not by schooling and rewarding their suicide-murdering anyone disagreeing your fundamentalism –murdering all you believe better off dead or submitted to perpetual dhimmitude. That's not helping. That's destroying. Help the Palestinian people secure their homeland.

Remember the Palestinian people. Help them secure their homeland. Remind them to take advantage of Israel's hoping – hoping for peace. But don't stop there. What, will you allow Israel the sole generosity to your Arab brothers? Don't stop there. Let the Palestinian people make their home also in the Sinai, connecting the West Bank with Gaza. And why not also a little from Syria? Why not? Some crumbs from your tables of plenty – why not? Have they not suffered enough for you?

Remember the Palestinian people. Remember your martyrs. Remember how you called them to leave before your shooting started in 1948. You promised victory, you promised they would return to the spoils of Israel genocided. But you haven't delivered. Not even close. So take some responsibility. Help them. Allow them the crumbs of your tables.

So simple, the solution. Remember Sadat. Remember the Palestinian people. Recognize Israel.

Air travelling tips for 2006

I spent 14 hours travelling from Anchorage, Alaska back home to Toronto, Canada yeesterday. With the bonus loss of 4 hours, all told I lost a full waking day. This trip happened less than a week after the world banned flying with gels, liquids, and pastes. And I was on the vacation end of travelling without checkable luggage, just a Roots knapsack and a MEC bag. From this experience, here are a few tips I'd like to share with the wayward traveller of 2006:

1. No beverages? No problem. Many travellers were concerned about dehydration on the long flights. And while bringing on your own beverages was banned, the flight authorities did not ban empty bottles. I brought my trusty water bottle, emptied and innocent, onto the plane, and immediately asked the flight attendant to fill it up. There I sat with a full beverage throughout the flight, happily hydrating.
   
2. No toothpaste? On the redeye? Think again. Modern gum plus your toothbrush can work wonders. Grab that pack of sugar-free, and chew up a couple pieces rapidly and throughout your mouth. Then pop back to the lavatory, spit it out, and brush. It isn't perfect. But it'll do for now. Apparently, the flight authorities (FA) haven't figured out that gums could be as dangerous as pastes and gels. And until they do, chew.
   
3. Footwear is always suspicious. Consider wearing shoes that can be very easily removed. There are several styles in fashion this year that make for easy flying. Try a pair of flipflops or Birkenstocks. Or those odd ugly plastic colourful clogs that are circuling through the elite and redneck circles alike this summer. Easy to slip off and back on again through the security checkpoint. And who wears gel inserts in Birkenstocks? And remember to bring socks on board. For some reason many planes circulate cold air through the plane from ankle level beside the window seats. There is nothing worse than a frozen pair of ankles when you awake.
   
4. Douglas Adams knew where his towel was. So should you. Bring one, or a large pillow, as carry-on. Towels can be used for almost everything from a pillow to a blanket to a sack. And pillow cases make for nice sachels. You can fly sleeping in comfort all snuggled up with a cushioned head.
   
5. Pastes and gels. There's a word used only by drug and personal hygiene companies. But what is paste, beyond the tooth? Acfcording to Princeton, paste is:
   "any mixture of a soft and malleable consistency". while gel is: "a colloid in a more solid form than a sol". These substances can easily be added to or substituted for. A solid form of any of these can however travel with you, for now. Consider taking a solid bar of toothpaste with you. Solids aren't banned, yet. You can often buy such products in health and organic stores.
   
6. Consider FedEx. Before you leave for the airport, package up your banned items and have them shipped to your desitnation. This applies especially for those things that may be soon banned from checked luggage as well. For a few dollars, FedEx will ship anything anywhere, and you're assured that your precious cargo will actually arrive, often before you do.
   
7. Yes, I smoke. So far, a book or box of matches is allowed in your carry-on. Drop your lighter in your checked in luggage, or leave it behind. Matches may be old-fashioned, but after a 7 hour flight, but you can light up right away ourside the nearest airport exit. For connecting flights, keep in mind that only about half the airports in North America have a smoking lounge inside. Everyone knows where it is. Just ask. For those airports that prohibit all smoking, the journey out and in again through customs can't be skipped, but since you are already streamlined to do this, it may be worth it to stave those cravings off. Just be very sure you have your photo ID and boarding pass with you, and that you really do have enough time. And you can get a permit to carry a zippo lighter. Seriously.
   
8. My glass nail file - long, pointy, and rather dangerous looking - nevertheless has made it through dozens of airport security checks without question. Fascinating.
   
9. So far books and clothes are allowed. But consider the future of naked travelling. How close to naked are you comfortable with while travelling? Sounds odd, but we sure are heading in this direction. I like flipflops, a bathing suit, socks just in case, a sweatshirt and shorts. A small paperback is handy, or a puzzle book although pencils may become questionable. See if you can shave some of these items off. The less you have with you, the farther you'll go.
   
10. And remember, since you'll be the happiest and most comfortable passenger on the flight to share these tips with your fellow travellers. They'll be happy to have met you. What goes around, comes around.
    

If you have more tips, please add them here. Enjoy your travelling, and watch for the 2007 list.

The Taste of the Danforth

For 3 days the Danforth is shut down to traffic and given over to what looks like the 'Ex, complete with booths touting everything from Gillette razors to soft drinks. The food is mostly appalling. I went there to mail a parcel (my closest post office)

Out and About in TO

This ad of Bush that Paul and I found while walking around in TO (Bathurst+Dundas-ish) is hilarious:

One thing very hot weather is good for

If it’s at least 35 Celsius outside, you can bake cookies on a car dashboard, just like Sandi Fontaine of Bedford, New Hampshire.

URGENT: WEATHER MESSAGE

Washington Post
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page C01

STYLE WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC 1140 PM EDT TUE AUG 1 2006 . . . EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 PM EDT THURSDAY . . .

VERY HOT CONTINENTAL AIR MASS FROM THE PLAINS WILL CONTINUE TO BUILD SLOWLY TO THE EAST . . . EXPECT CONDITIONS TO BE HOT. DAMN HOT. JUNGLE HOT. SATAN-IN-A-SPEEDO HOT. ANGRY-GOD HOT. PETS MAY OPENLY CURSE. PEDESTRIANS MAY COMBUST. HAVE A NICE DAY.

-- John Newland

I am a heavy user

The Daily, StatsCan

General Social Survey: The Internet and the way we spend our time
2005

Heavy Internet users lead a considerably different lifestyle than individuals who do not surf the Web, according to a new study examining its impact on Canadians.

The findings come from the 2005 General Social Survey on time use, which asked respondents to provide a detailed account of all of their activities over a 24-hour period.

Heavy users (those who spent more than an hour on the Internet during the day) devoted less time to socializing with their spouse or partner, as well as their children and friends. And they tended to stay at home, showing less interest in outdoor activities than non-users.

They also devoted significantly less time than non-users to paid work and chores around the home, as well as less time sleeping, relaxing, resting or thinking.

What is striking is the amount of time they spent alone. Moderate Internet users (those using the Internet for five minutes to one hour during the diary day) spent about 26 more minutes by themselves than non-users during the diary day. But heavy Internet users were alone nearly two hours (119 minutes) longer than non-users, even when comparing people from similar-sized households.

Despite the reduced face-to-face contact, Internet users were interacting in other ways. Some users, particularly the heavy users, spent a considerable amount of their time on the Web using email or chat groups. They were also more likely to spend time conversing with others over the phone.

The study also found that heavy Internet users during the diary day were nearly eight years younger on average than non-users, while 6 out of every 10 heavy users were men. Just under one-half worked at a paid job, and students and the unemployed constituted a higher proportion of heavy users than non-users.

To take into account these socio-economic differences, time use estimates in the study were adjusted so that comparisons were made among people with similar characteristics. This approach compared people of the same age, sex and education, for example.

Heavy users spent half an hour less on domestic chores than non-users

Internet use takes away from the time that its heavy users devote to both family life and chores around the house, the study found. For example, heavy Internet users spent an average of 33 minutes less time each day than non-users on domestic work, such as child care and housekeeping.

They also devoted less time to a variety of social activities. For example, non-users shared their time equally with household members and people from outside the household. Heavy users spent about one hour less with both sets of people.

Spouses and children in particular bore the brunt. Heavy users spent about half an hour less with spouses and with children than did non-users.

The timing of Internet use also mattered. Weekend use of the Web was associated with even greater declines in time spent with friends and other people outside the household than use of the Internet on weekdays.

Heavy users were less likely than non-users to say they knew "most" or "many" of the people in their neighbourhood. They were also more likely to describe their sense of belonging to their community as "somewhat" or "very" weak.

Although Internet users spent less time with others generally, they identified having about the same number of close relationships with people outside the household as non-users.

Heavy Internet users also devoted less time to participating in active sports, engaging in civic and volunteer activities, and attending sports events, movies and other events.

They did, however, express greater enjoyment for participating in clubs and social organizations.

Internet users avid consumers of other media

Despite the fact that the Internet potentially competes with other sources of information and entertainment, Internet users remained interested in traditional media.

Heavy Internet users and non-users spent about the same amount of time, just over two hours, watching television during the day.

Internet users spent more time reading books than non-users, and moderate users were also likely to spend more time reading newspapers than non-users.

Heavy users report being less stressed

In general, the survey found no difference reported between Internet users and non-users regarding their perceived general health. But there were differences in their levels of stress.

Heavy users stood out because they were less likely to consider themselves to be stressed, rushed or workaholics.

However, many of the differences in stress levels had more to do with the personal characteristics of Internet users than Internet use itself. The study showed that once people with similar demographic backgrounds, work status and income were compared, differences in stress levels between heavy Internet users and non-users disappeared.

In fact, it was the moderate users (those who spent five minutes to an hour on the Internet) who were less likely to be stressed.

Spending time with family and friends a priority for both Internet users and non-users

Given the choice about how they would spend more time if the opportunity arose, Internet users and non-users tended to share similar views.

However, moderate and heavy Internet users were less interested than non-users in spending more time doing outdoor activities. But they were more likely to want to spend time on their crafts and hobbies.

Heavy users were also more likely than non-users to want to spend more time on their studies, but this was linked with the fact that a greater proportion of these users were students.

Although Internet users spent substantial time alone, particularly the heavy users, they did not differ significantly from non-users in their desire to spend more time with family and friends.

In fact, this was the most popular choice for all three groups. More than one-quarter of individuals in each group singled out time with family and friends as their number one priority for spending additional time.

Similarly, even though heavy users spent less time participating in sports, they were no more likely to want to spend more time on sports than were non-users, given the choice.

Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 4503.
The new issue of the Connectedness Series: The Internet: Is It Changing the Way Canadians Spend Their Time? (56F0004MIE2006013, free) is now available online. From the Publications page, choose Free Internet publications then Communications.
For more information about the analysis contained in this report, contact Ben Veenhof (613-951-5067; ben.veenhof@statcan.ca), Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division.
To enquire about concepts, methods or data quality pertaining to the General Social Survey on time use, contact Client Services and Dissemination Section (613-951-5979; fax: 613-951-4378; sasd-dssea@statcan.ca), Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division.

Definitions
Internet use covers personal use of the Internet over a 24-hour period and does not include use of the Internet for other reasons (e.g., work or school).
Non-users are those who did not spend at least five minutes on the Internet at any one time during the day (respondents in the survey were asked not to report activities that were less than five minutes in duration).
Moderate users are those who spent between five minutes and one hour on the Internet during the day.
Heavy users are those who spent more than one hour on the Internet during the day

Bill McGibbon - Being Good Enough

The Singularity Summit at Stanford
Bill McGibben - Being Good Enough

View the entire Podcast at ClickCaster

CLB: Please note this is a test only. A higher quality video will be released in coming weeks.