Dear Friends,

Welcome to the first ever edition of edSpective, a weekly newsletter that presents my take on Canadian and world politics, asking Canadians to laugh, to think and to act. I am eddie gillis, an ordinary Canadian with an extraordinary take on the world’s news, path, and hope. My mission:
- to present Canadians with an alternative way to see politics that is all at once hilarious, cynical and hopeful;
- to cut through the distraction in contemporary news media, and to tackle what’s really happening and needs to happen for a better Canada and world;
- and to make Canadians laugh, think, and act.

This week is special for me. One year ago, a man died who remains one of my best friends, buddies, teachers, inspirations, and favourite people. Joe Opatowski lived as fully as anyone could. He hugged strangers. He befriended the homeless. He stopped to see the beauty in everyone and every moment. He loved. I still haven't processed his death, or the gaping hole in my life without his knowing smirk or wise curiosity. I still don't have the right words or way to tell the world about him the way I want to, and I still mourn for the world that it will miss out on the revolution in thought and in deed that he was so sure to bring it. I do, however, remember a posting outside the Henry Miller Library in Big Sur, California, saying that a true memorial to a person is to live his example, for only in that way will a person truly live on. I also remember Joe telling me he wanted to be just like me, but that I would never let him: “you always insisted that I be me.” Joe gave the world all the Joe he could, and edSpective is the beginning of my project to give the world all the eddie I can. It is a risk, which Joe loved. It is my passion, which Joe lived. It is me, of whom Joe will always be a part. edSpective, and all this little project will ever become, is for Joe.

edSpective is also for my partner in life and in love, Jocelyn. All that I become (the good parts) will be overwhelmingly because of her wisdom, her vision, her example, and her love.

That's it for the shout-outs until my Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Let the funk begin.

In Peace,

eddie g

---------------------------------------------------------------------

edSpective October 29, 2005

--The following information is almost all true, with only outrageous quotations attributed to reputable public figures made up unless otherwise noted. Still, the content is not necessarily acceptable to be cited in graduate school essays, so please proceed with caution. --


Openers

PM's soft wood

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was in Ottawa this week to help Paul Martin untwist his panties over softwood lumber. She came bearing pleasantries, talking points, and an uncomfortable resemblance to our new Head of State. She calmly explained to the PM, referring to a comment he made in a speech during his wildman tour through New York, that free trade is by definition NOT fair trade. Still, all Canadian political parties stood on the crowded bandwagon condemning the Americans for not living up to their NAFTA commitments. Ms. Rice retorted that the United States' word is “as good as gold.” Of course, she was referring to the early 70s, when the United States abandoned the gold standard on currency exchange, making the shiny metal worthless when it comes to international trade. So in the end, Condi got away with a fast one, openly accepting that when it comes to trade, the US can arbitrarily change the rules to suit its own needs, and in fact, their 'word' isn't worth squat. Rumours are that she and Mr. Martin's private meetings were dominated by their gigging at this commonality between them.

(Backgrounder: Canada and the US have peed on each other's side of the fence for two decades over this issue, with the US ignoring NAFTA rulings and insisting on negotiated compromises, and Canadian governments quickly backing down for fear of confessing that NAFTA would be better named with “SH” instead of the N. The US claims that Canadian stumpage fees (what governments charge logging companies to cut down trees) are below market rates, and thus an unfair subsidy that makes Canadian softwood lumber producers more competitive than American ones. Of course, the dispute emerges from US producers whining and influencing Congress and the White House (in the manipulative, not-un-financial way US corporations influence the representatives of the people) to impose retaliatory tariffs and duties of varying, substantial levels (15% and more) on Canadian softwood lumber since the early 80s. The NAFTA dispute resolution process, albeit severely dysfunctional, has consistently determined that US retaliation is unfounded and illegal, most recently on 10 August 2005. WTO rulings, most recently 29 August 2005, have argued that the US retaliation, in theory, is not against international rules – only their calculations of tariff levels are wrong. “See?” say the Americans. That NAFTA is a binding agreement between Canada and the US, and thus supersedes other international trade law escapes US logic (as does most all international law), but nevertheless the confusion is used to prolong and delay and insist on some sort of negotiated compromise that shafts Canada. This dispute, however, goes beyond law, numbers and semantics. It's about the infuriating US gall to selectively abide or ignore the rules it imposes on others, alternating between free trade and protectionism to enhance its domination over the global economy, and unapologetically abandoning its own clear commitments. It is the kid who insists that there is no “home-free” in a game of tag, and then calls time-out (often faking a nosebleed) when they get caught. It is also about two vastly different, fundamental ways of seeing resource ownership and management: Canada largely logs from public land (90%), well controlled and monitored with a focus on conservation, at least compared to the American free-for-all system of selling off land for private logging (95%). Don't be fooled: the US would like us to “free the trees” to be cut more easily according to market forces and not subject to concerns for conservation or public oversight. This dispute represents the fundamental difference between our two countries' political values. And it is worth the fight. [e]


Dryden shuts out kids

Speaking of one's word, Ken Dryden won a Stanley Cup within two months of joining the Montreal Canadiens. It's been fifteen months since Dryden has been in the Liberal Cabinet as Minister of Social Development, and we're still waiting for any action at all on a national child care program. The new “goalies can't come out of the net” rule is only for active players, Kenny Boy. Maybe finishing his NHL career as president of the futile Maple Leafs rubbed off on him. Are we going to wait until 2067 for a simple public pre-school program? [e]


Parliament Hill K1A 0A6

Screw the “OC”: finally we have a decent replacement for Beverly Hills 90210 – all the “he said, she said” garble about who’s going to bring who down and trigger an election. Nothing about actual governing or policy. Finance Minister Ralph Goodale postponed his plan for substantial corporate tax cuts because it wouldn’t help the Liberals politically. No guff. Only bank economists, the Council of Chief Executives, CEOs, Monte Solberg and the 20 or 30 other Canadians who got through university with no electives outside the Economics department want more corporate tax cuts. After the gargantuan 28% to 21% handout a few years back led to a swelling of profits and offshore accounting instead of the promised jobs, at last Canadians see through arguments about “competitiveness” and “job growth” when it comes to giving rich people and companies more money. They know that banks, insurance companies, petroleum and other huge industries raking in obscene profits don’t need more breaks, and wouldn’t create more jobs even if they did. Maybe soon they’ll be demanding that the Government stand up to corporate Canada, to lower their emissions, to create jobs instead of profits, and to bring their offshore revenue home and pay the taxes they’re currently assessed. I would love to see the confusion on Monte Solberg’s face when he can't find that in his So You Want To Be a Neo-Conservative Playbook. [e]


Chicken Soup for the Ladder-Climbing Soul

Don Boudria, the last remaining member of the federal Liberals' Mulroney-pestering 'Rat Pack', and whose stance and character as Government House Leader in the late 90s and early 00s was more meritorious of the rodent moniker, released his memoirs: From Kitchen to Cabinet. Referring to Mr. Boudria's meteoric rise from a Parliamentary restaurant busboy to Cabinet Minister, the book reaffirms one of life's greatest lessons: that anyone, no matter who you are, can go from rags to riches – from low-end job to a life of luxury and ritzy perks in cottage country – and the fastest way to do it is to join the Liberal Party. [e]


Liberal Scandal: Part Oh-Now-I've-Lost-Track

Richard Mahoney, Paul Martin's hack running for the Libs in Ottawa Centre, was added to the list of PM pals who've lobbying without registering with the Lobbyist Registrar. Mr. Mahoney, Executive Assistant to Martin when he was Finance Minister, claims his own assistant tried to register him online, but that the paperwork had not yet gone through – that is, it got lost until the Globe and Mail called to confirm that Mahoney was registered, and the mix-up was then conveniently discovered. The media is rightly outraged that the Liberals and their friends are flouting lobbying laws at will. What the media – and Canadians – seem to take for granted is that it's somehow legal for the Liberals and their friends to make boatloads of money exploiting those friendships to push random corporate interests (in Mahoney's case, satellite radio) in the highest echelons of our Government. Warren Kinsella, top aide and self-described “ass-kicker” for PM Chrétien, has recently held closed-door meetings with the Ontario Liberal Cabinet to water down polluter-pay environmental legislation. Three other very high-ranking Liberals (including former Ontario Premier and brother of the Trade Minister, David Peterson) also pushed satellite radio, which was on the verge of rejection for lack of Canadian and French-language content before being mysteriously approved shortly after the Liberal lobbyists' interventions. This institutionalized, legalized racket of switching between Parliament and corporate lobbying (and registering to do it on-line?) is tacitly accepted as the way things work: politicians and public servants slithering into a second, richer career influencing public policy in the favour of whoever comes along with a suitcase full of cash. And we thought Liberals wanted power to serve the public good (ed: actually, we didn't ever think that).

P.S. The “rusirius.com” web site, dedicated to online news about satellite radio, is psyched about Mahoney's role as lobbyist for the industry, because Mahoney is “a close friend of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin” and “is expected to [...be] offered a cabinet post should he win.” [e]


McGuinty pulls a Mulroney

Ontario's governing Liberals are continuing their campaign to distance themselves from the old Conservative government by unfreezing tuition fees. The move follows with other non-Tory policies such as de-listing eye exams and physiotherapy from public health care, opening new nuclear power plants, reneging on promises to protect greenspace, and using embarrassingly pathetic whining to get more cash from the federal government. Said Premier McGuinty, “This is not intended to give the finger to struggling university students. It's more like pulling down their pants from behind and punching them really hard in between their ass cheeks. You see, the Tories say 'Fuck you', and then they fuck you. We Liberals prefer to tell you we're okay dudes, and then we fuck you when you least expect it.”*

* I have no evidence that the Premier said this exact quote, but I am as sure as Conservatives aren't Progressive that he has said something like it during one of his raucous Cabinet pub parties. [e]


No brainer what Bush does best

George Bush reversed his established policy of nominating people diametrically wrong for the job in question, by nominating Ben Bernanke to replace Alan Greenspan as Chair of the Federal Reserve. Mr. Bernanke is chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, a former Reserve governor, and a Princeton University economist. Most impressive about this nomination, though, is that: (1) Bernanke has studied the field (economics) in which he will be working, (2) he has never expressed violent disdain for the institution to which he has been appointed, and (3) he has never pressed the President to invade a weak, oil-rich country. Excitingly, the right-wingnut National Review called Bernanke a “Keynesian” who does not believe that economic growth is without “limits,” unlikely to support more and deeper tax cuts, and apparently does not substitute the word “God” for “market”in casual discourse. Of course, they're pissed. Those who fear that Mr. Bush has changed his ways need not worry. Among his upcoming nominations* are:
- Monsanto President and CEO Hugh Grant as Secretary of Agriculture
- Philip Knight as Secretary of Labor
- Kermit the Frog as Secretary of Defence (a puppet regime, to be sure)
- Shell Chemicals CEO Jeroen van der Veer as Chief Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
- Snoop Dogg as Chief Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (shoulda gone with Eminem)
- Oliver North as Ambasador to Nicaragua
- David Duke as Head of the Center for Race Relations
- Pat Robertson, who recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as the Head of the
National Endowment for Democracy
- Coca-Cola President and COO Donald Knauss as the Director of the Food and Nutrition Information Center (after
finding Ronald McDonald was “not available” according to a recent White House communique)
- Jennifer Lopez as Honorary Chair of the National Healthy Marriage Initiative (replacing Reagan appointee Elizabeth
Taylor)

* These nominations, thanks be to everything that is good and beautiful in this world, are fictitious. [e]


Today's Puzzle

Match the qualifications required with the appropriate nominated post within the US administration.
WARNING: Orange Alert difficulty. We don't actually have the answer code** – only one man knows the logic behind this puzzle, and that's why he's the most powerful man in the world. [e]

Qualifications
1. Intensely opposed to the United Nations
2. Poster Boy for neo-conservative worldview and economics
3. President's personal lawyer
4. Holds stock options in Lockheed Martin
5. Lawyer for Delta Petroleum
6. President of Arabian Horse Club
7. Lost his Senate election bid to a dead guy
8. Partner and lobbyist for defence contractor that gets EVERY contract
9. Executive or Board of Directors member for multiple corporations

Nominations
A. Head of Federal Emergency Management Agency
B. Attorney General
C. Vice-President
D. Secretary of the Interior (including environmental protection)
E. Ambassador to the United Nations
F. Head of the world's largest "poverty reduction"
G. Secretary of Transportation
H. Labor Secretary
I. Supreme Court Justice

** These nominations, so help us all that is good and beautiful in this world, are true. The answer code:
1E – John Bolton
2F – Paul Wolfowitz
3I – Harriet Miers
4G – Norm Mineta
5D – Gale Norton
6A – Michael Brown
7B – John Ashcroft
8C – Dick “Halliburton” Cheney
9H – Elaine Chao [e]


ed Musing

I traveled to New York City by bus this weekend, across the border between Canada and our friendly southern neighbours. I regularly correct my fellow Canadians when they rag on Americans for being rude, arrogant, and ignorant of the rest of the world. I have met enough Americans who are polite, humble, and aware of the world – and enough Canadians who are the opposite – to dispel the generalization. I do, however, concede that the stereotypes are founded in our national myths, and most pointedly in our border and customs officers. It's not just the mocking smirk of George Bush and his Chief of Corporate Graft Dick Cheney that make me uneasy walking into a US border station. It's also the “What makes you think you have requisite greatness to enter the world's greatest great place” worldview (which I'm sure is mandated and heavily trained-into-ya) on the faces of the glorified, armed bouncers. An eight-year-old has an easier time buying beer than a non-Canadian has entering the US. There's the fingerprinting, the mug shot, the $6 immigration form, and the intense questioning and search. They seek any clues, even in orange folders with phone bills in the depths of a briefcase, that would indicate an intent to permanently squat and suck on the teet of the world's 7th greatest nation to live in. They also seek drugs, knives, guns, or other things readily available in the first five miles inside the border. But their comprehensive search that sets us back an hour in our overnight bus trip has a loophole: our jackets. It's mid-October, and we all have bulky coats with pockets. Make sure you get that side pocket with the hankie in her backpack, but forget her crack-filled jacket pocket because it has a Magnum handgun in it. The display of bravado is designed to intimidate us and convince us how privileged we are to be Americans for a day. But far from putting forward the best face of the American people and screening for bad guy terrorists and drug dealer, it actually pushes me – a pussy peacenik, as Trey Parker would say – one small step closer to becoming a terrorist. I can only wonder how reaffirmed a real terrorist feels coming through those gates: “Not only are these people arrogant assholes who worship their fundamentalist neo-conservative leaders, they are surprisingly lax. And to top it off, those jerks confiscated my grapes.” [e]


edSposé: Ottawa's Pesticide Ban

On Wednesday, the Ottawa City Council voted to impose a partial ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. Partial because it exempts the “essential” use of pesticides on golf courses, that last remaining shelter against oppression of the rich white man. Apparently prostate cancer hasn't gotten us by the golf balls yet, and why don't you try driving one of those golf carts over regular grass.

The Ottawa Citizen's Randall Denley rails against the ban, positioning City Council as succumbing to a vocal group of uninformed lobbyists and those classic ne'er-do-wells of public health, doctors. Health Canada says the herbicide 2,4D is safe, he argues. Health Canada also said Vioxx was safe, while Vioxx was giving thousands of Canadians heart attacks. Of course science is inconclusive, that's why they call it the precautionary principle, and for goodness sake, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario supports the ban. That's like questioning Mr. Dressup – do NOT mess with the tickle trunk, buster!

Although he fails to see logic in the whole “pesticides are toxic and linked to cancer, so we shouldn't spray them in our air” argument that naïve laypeople spew, he shows a moment of rare clarity: “all but two percent of pesticides are used by farmers [...] The city ban will do nothing to change agricultural use. That perfect apple you ate today was certainly sprayed with pesticides.” His premise is flawed, sure: just because “A” is only a small proportion of dangerous “X”, does not mean it should be ignored. All but two percent of mass murderers are men under the age of 50, but that doesn't mean we let be the 80 year-old woman with a machine gun in a grocery store. Secondly, I ate a pear today, and so did many of the Ottawans he's addressing.

But maybe Denley is on to something. Is the fight against cosmetic pesticides used on city lawns our society's last stand against cancer-causing toxins? No matter the statistic: we eat far more pesticides on our food than we spray on our lawns. Yet we as a society senselessly under-support organic agriculture (without using chemical pesticides or genetic modification). Are we ready to accept that our daily choices play a role in the cancer crisis – that our stubborn reluctance to change our ways is directly harming us and our kids?

In its latest annual report, the World Health Organization reaffirms that that 80% of cancers are caused by environmental toxins. “Cancer set to be No. 1 killer,” warned the Ottawa Citizen this weekend. The ad under the headline, urging men to go for testing, says, “Hiding from prostate cancer won't make it go away.” A man is pictured, bent over with his head in a pile of sand, wearing golf clothes. Knock, knock, golf boy.

Close to 70,000 Canadians will die of cancer this year. 149,000 will be diagnosed. And the nation's capital still hasn't banned pesticides from our lawns. And we're exempting the ban for golf courses. For those interested in the debate, it's over. Logic dictates that poisons are not good to emit into the air, and t would be better for our health to not. If in 20 years we find irrefutable evidence that pesticides don't cause cancer, I'll come spray your lawn myself. For now, it is wholly irresponsible to not err on the side of precaution.

The key point is that it doesn't hurt us to stop. Your housing value will only go down if you're the only one with an ugly lawn, and your lawn won't be ugly if you use one of the myriad natural, non-chemical alternatives, many of which are offered by the same lawn care companies you now use, like WeedMan in Montreal. Not so sure? Check out www.environmentalfactor.com for simple ideas on how to prevent weeds and insect problems. Now stop being a butthead and let's protect public health – our children, our elderly, our increasingly overwhelmed health care system, even our downtrodden golfers – and prevent cancer. Otherwise you're the bully who keeps punching the smaller kids in the shoulder while claiming that it doesn't really hurt.

And now on we move in the quest to conquer cancer. But wait – we are living in a new age of hope about cancer. Scientific research, we are told, is “getting to the heart” of what causes cancer. Last month, another $20 million was raised for breast cancer research over one weekend across Canada. I'll save you the $20 million and the jogging shoe blisters. Gimme $20 and I'll tell you what causes cancer... pesticides, for crap's sake. What will it take for us to figure that out? It's like waiting for the Gomery Report to tell us whether the Liberals are corrupt or not – we know they are. They are power-hungry, friend-rewarding, cynical grafty bastards who don't care about you, your child care, your health care, your energy bills or making poverty history. And pesticides cause cancer.

Am I being precautionary? Am I advocating the removal of needless chemical pollutants because they just-this-side-of-likely cause the gravest disease facing us today? Yes. Breast cancer rates are far higher in pesticide-coated North America than anywhere else. One in seven men will develop prostate cancer. What more do we need to know? Not spraying pesticides won't solve cancer, but it will likely help – it's like not smoking, not standing naked in your backyard for the whole afternoon, or not eating your own poo.

When it comes to cancer, we’re like boxers seeking a cure for brain damage, or arsonists seeking a cure for smoke inhalation. This may seem insensitive, and it may be insensitive, but someone has to call us on our obsession with finding cures for things that we do little to prevent. We produce and consume so much stuff that we know is bad for us, and then hope to be bailed out by science somewhere down the road.

I'm not saying stop the Runs for the Cure. Cancer will surely hit us no matter what we consume. We have to cover all our bases, and to prolong and improve the lives of those who now and in the future will be affected. But it's quite possible that we're standing outside in a drizzle, pouring buckets of water over our heads and wondering why we're wet. Or maybe we're spending all our money on towels without talking to the guy who's pushing everyone in the lake. Or maybe both.

I’m not saying ban all pesticides. Although the Ottawa Citizen and Washington Post are irresponsibly myopic in wanting to bring DDT back to fight malaria in Africa, there are legitimate circumstances in which the use of chemicals (less toxic than DDT) is a lower health risk than major infestation.

I'm also not saying stop eating all fast food, or make no more plastic. I AM saying, How come we subsidize chemical-laden, corporate agrifood instead of small-scale organic farmers? Why do we accept that our government issues one-tonne challenges to individual Canadians to reduce their pollution, and then refuses to legislate limits on corporate polluters? If we took all that energy of all those Canadians who want to kick cancer’s ass and instead speak up to our Government to shift agricultural subsidies from chemical-based agribusiness to small-scale, organic farming, we’d prevent so many cases of cancer. Heck, you can still have a 5k jog involved, just make it end up at Parliament Hill or your MP’s office.

And finally, why do so many more people raise money to cure cancer than eat organic food? The mythological price gap is dwindling rapidly, and in the end is bullshit. If eating pesticide-free food is important enough to you and your kids, you'll find something else that you spend money on, and make it happen. By the way, organic vegetables and legume-based proteins are far cheaper than meat, and also don't come with antibiotic overdoses. And the young people at the local natural food store may have more piercings and dirtier hair than you would want, but they don't give you cancer.

This is my first edition of edSpective, and I'm working out the balance between being funny and angry, hopeful and cynical, aiming to come out of it convincing – making loyal readers laugh, think, and act. Besides working out the kinks, if I sound angry, it's because I am. Cancer hits just about every one of us, and I am no exception. Please take this edSposé as my t-shirt, akin to those worn by Run for the Cure participants, reading “I’m complaining for June Rattew.” I love you, Grandma. [e]

[Note: Since I wrote this piece, the half-assed pesticide ban was defeated in a draw vote (10-10) by Ottawa City Council. The debate was bogged down by an attempted compromise allowing people to spray pesticides if weeds covered a given minimum (20-35) percent of their lawn. “Sure, cancer is painful and stuff, but how do you explain that to someone with dandelions on their lawn and no gardening gloves?” councillors were heard thinking. Thankfully, those councillors whose heads were comfortably not up their butt did not allow the ban to be turned into carcinogenic mush. They vote again at next week's meeting. Your concillor's contact info can be found at: www.city.ottawa.on.ca/city_hall/mayor_council/councillors/index_en.html]


This Week's Action Items

Email your MP:

(1) Shift agricultural subsidies from corporate, pesticide-based agribusiness to small-scale, organic family farming. Save the family farm and reduce cancer at the same time! (www.elections.ca – enter your postal code and you get the contact info for your MP)

(2) To Ken Dryden, Minister of Social Development: Get in the game and get us a publicly-run child care system, buddy boy! (drydek@parl.gc.ca)

(3) To Finance Minister Ralph Goodale: Stick your corporate tax cuts where the offshore tax havens shine!

(4) To all Liberals: Stop letting your high-flying lobby boys make you look so corrupt, fellas. We know you're not as bad as you make yourself look! (ed: we don't – you look REALLY bad, and we're watching you) (goodar@parl.gc.ca)

(5) To Premier Dalton McGuinty: Stop punching us really hard between the butt cheeks! RE-FREEZE tuition fees or lower them. Invest more in green energy, not new nuclear plants. Ottawa is giving you billions – use it. P.S. We're onto you – you're Liberals! (dalton.mcguinty@premier.gov.on.ca OR dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org)


Vote with your Dollars:

(1) Buy organic everything, and use natural household cleaners. It's NOT that much more expensive. Skip a dinner out, buy one less outfit this month, buy a couple fewer beers at the pub, ditch your cable TV and rent the odd movie or play games instead, or hell, sell your car to afford the extra $20 / week. You can do it!

(2) DON'T buy Don Boudria's book – he's richer than all of us. [e]


Good News Stories of the Week

(1) By shifting your monthly Ontario hydro bill to Bullfrog Power (www.bullfrog.com), you pay about $30 extra a month to purchase 100% green electricity! You still draw from the main power grid, but your money pays for 20% wind power and 80% low-impact hydroelectric, instead of nasty coal or nuclear – a direct way to vote with your dollars! When you factor in the environmental costs of the latter two power sources, you are actually saving a boatload: come on, cheapskates, do it for Momma Earth!

(2) There were more bike sales than car sales in the US last year, the first time since the energy crisis of the early 70s. This phenomenon is attributed to the high costs of gas and cars, and although folks are not switching their car for a bike, they are choosing a bike over a second car!

(3) The US Government set aside $3.5 million for cycling trails – only slightly less than 0.002% of the cost of the War to secure Iraq's oil. Not bad!

(4) The NDP is finally making a campaign out of the Canada Pension Plan's (CPP) grossly unethical investment plan. We all unwittingly and unwillingly invest in tobacco, weapons, and other nasty corporations through our public pension fund. This will be an easy campaign to join: stay tuned! [e]

** E-Mail me your Good News Stories!** edspective@yahoo.ca
** If you are interested in your very own copy of edSpective: UnCut, with all the original swears that I couldn't leave in here for my Grandma, my Mom, or that person looking for a new column for their national newspaper to see, e-mail me!** edspective@yahoo.ca