Continuing in the recent vein of media criticism, the NYT has yet again provided a gem of an article on issues that are pertinent to all who work with the output of the media industry.

Charles Hoyt, “Public-Editor: The Dangers of the One-Sided Debate,” New York Times (NY: June 24, 2007).

The op-ed page of The New York Times is perhaps the nation’s most important forum for airing opinions on the most contentious issues of the day — the war in Iraq, abortion, global warming and more.

”We look for opinions that are provocative,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page. ”Opinions that confirm what you already thought aren’t that interesting.”

But some opinions provoke more than others. Two very different columns by guest contributors, one last week and one last month, caused enormous reader outcries and raised important questions. Are there groups or causes so odious they should be ruled off the page? If The Times publishes a controversial opinion, does it owe readers another point of view immediately? And what is the obligation of editors to make sure that op-ed writers are not playing fast and loose with the facts?

The most recent column was by Ahmed Yousef, a spokesman for Hamas, the party elected to lead the Palestinian government and a group dedicated to the destruction of Israel. He wrote Wednesday about ”What Hamas Wants.”

Many readers were outraged, complaining that The Times had provided a platform for a terrorist. One, Jon Pensak of Sherborn, Mass., said that allowing Yousef space in The Times ”isn’t balanced journalism, it is more the dissemination of propaganda in the spirit of advocacy journalism.”

Well, yes. The point of the op-ed page is advocacy. And, Rosenthal said, ”we do not feel the obligation to provide the kind of balance you find in news coverage, because it is opinion.”

David Shipley, one of Rosenthal’s deputies and the man in charge of the op-ed page, said: ”The news of the Hamas takeover of Gaza was one of the most important stories of the week. … This was our opportunity to hear what Hamas had to say.”

I agree that Yousef’s piece should have run, even though his version of reality is at odds with the one I understand from news coverage. He wrote blandly, for example, about creating ”an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences” with Israel without mentioning that Hamas is officially dedicated to raising ”the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine,” which would mean no more Israel.

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

Rosenthal and Shipley said that, over time, they try to publish a variety of voices on the most important issues. Regular op-ed readers have seen a wide range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have a lot of other information to help judge Yousef’s statements.

This wasn’t the case, however, with a May 21 op-ed by Nina Planck, an author who writes about food and nutrition. Sensationally headlined ”Death by Veganism,” Planck’s piece hit much closer to home than Yousef’s. It said in no uncertain terms that vegans — vegetarians who shun even eggs and dairy products — were endangering the health and even the lives of their children. A former vegan herself, Planck said she had concluded ”a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.”

Her Exhibit A was a trial in Atlanta in which a vegan couple were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty in the death of their 6-week-old son, who was fed mainly soy milk and apple juice and weighed only 3.5 pounds. The column set off a torrent of reader e-mail that is still coming in — much of it from vegans who send photos of their healthy children or complain bitterly of being harassed by friends and relatives using Planck’s column as proof that their diet is dangerous.

If there was another side, a legitimate argument that veganism isn’t harmful, Planck didn’t tell you — not her obligation, Rosenthal and Shipley say. But unlike the Middle East, The Times has not presented another view, or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for 16 years. There has been scant news coverage in the past five years.

There is another side.

Rachelle Leesen, a clinical nutritionist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told me that Planck’s article ”was extremely inflammatory and full of misinformation.” She and her colleague Brenda Waber pointed me to a 2003 paper by the American Dietetic Association, the nation’s largest organization for food and nutrition professionals. After reviewing the current science, the A.D.A., together with the Dietitians of Canada, declared, ”Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.”

Planck said she was aware of the A.D.A.’s position but regarded it as ”pandering” to a politically active vegan community.

I won’t rehash the scientific dispute in a case in which Planck has her experts and the A.D.A. paper cited more than 250 studies, but I think The Times owes its readers the other side, published on the op-ed page, not just in five letters to the editor that briefly took issue with her.

I even question Planck’s Exhibit A, poor little Crown Shakur, who was so shriveled at his death that doctors could see the bones in his body. His death, she wrote, ”may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.”

Maybe, if by nutrition you mean a discussion about whether you feed a baby anything at all.

The prosecutor argued — and the jury believed — that Crown’s parents intentionally starved him to death. News coverage at the time said that the medical examiner, doctors at the hospital to which Crown’s body was taken and an expert nutritionist testified that the baby was not given enough food to survive, regardless of what the food was.

Charles Boring, the Fulton County prosecutor who handled the case, told me it was ”absolutely not” about veganism. Planck and Shipley said they were aware of the prosecutor’s contention. Shipley said, ”We were also aware, though, that the convicted couple continues to insist that they were trying to raise their infant on a vegan diet.”

But the jury didn’t believe them, and leaving that out put Planck’s whole column on a shaky foundation.

Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get only one side, that’s not debate. And that’s not healthy.

The Quebec government has finally decided to recognize my dire need for economic support and is awarding me both loan and bursary money for the upcoming year. I am over-joyed. Ecstatic. Walking on clouds. I will be able to afford a gym membership AND have time to go. I might not end up murdering someone from the stress. I just might actually have the time to make a friend or two… what a novel concept.

Whoopee for me!

Today we woke up and did the unheard-of : we forewent breakfast. We were in a hurry to make it to TKTS (in the hopes of getting tickets to Second Stage Theatre’s Eurydice - we’re dumb), but found time to stop in at Macy’s and oogle the wooden escalator (i also bought two pairs of footless tights - this was the main clothing purchase of the trip. i know you are impressed with my self-control). We arrived at TKTS after a stop at the bank and got tickets to see Chorus Line. Zach had performed in Chorus Line, but had never seen it.

It was now about 10:45am and we were hungry. Off to Hell’s Kitchen we trekked and stopped at Mama’s Empanada’s (53rd and 8th i think). WOW is all i can say. The meat empanadas were fantastic, but it was the dessert empanadas that really through me for a loop. I ordered fig and cheese and i thought my eyes were going to roll out the back of my head. For $8 we were stuffed and satisfied. Well, sort of satisfied. We still had time to kill so we wandered around Hell’s Kitchen and eventually ended up in Cold Stone - an ice cream place that does, in fact, manage to compete with Ben and Jerry’s. My parents had recommended stopping in and it was worth it.

After much debating and continued searching for an electronic organizer that Zach was on a mission to find for a friend/family member, we ended up sitting on a set of steps on the street where Mme. Tussaud’s is (41st?) and crowd watching. The number of tourists who walk into the urban environment fully-equipped with fanny-packs, sunvisors and a huge camera strapped across their shoulders astounds me. I am not obsessed with not being “a mark,” but honestly, why don’t you just put a neon sign over your head that screams “MUG ME! I’M FROM A SMALL TOWN AND AM UNACCUSTOMED TO LARGE GROUPS AND THE URBAN LANDSCAPE!”. Lordie.

Chorus Line is far from my favourite musical. I am happy we went because i had never seen it and the music was very enjoyable - i have been fixated on getting a boob job ever since hearing the Tits and Ass number - but there was really no plot. Zach was very apologetic about this development, but i don’t honestly see how it can be construed as his fault that i like my stage performances to be primarily plot-driven. It was a good performance.

After Chorus Line we ate some of Eric’s nuts, purchased from a street vendor, while subwaying over to the Strand where i discovered Heaven on Earth. We had to walk through Washington Square Park again (to our enjoyment) where we encountered a troupe of actors promoting an off-broadway production of Dario Fo’s An Accidental Death of an Anarchist which i had read and loved in CEGEP. We decided we would go after dinner.

18 miles of books was no joke at the Strand. I even got Loeb editions of some of the Latin works i have been itchin to look at. I bought a t-shirt, but not the Spiegelmann limited edition because ZAch thought there was something wrong with using the Maus figure on store merchandise. He brow-beat me. I am a yuppy.

We walked over to Frank’s, which was recommended by Let’s Go, but stopped at a Belgian Fries place where the sauces were just fantastic. This was all in the East Village which i think both of us agreed was our favourite borough in NY. We talked with a couple from New Jersey (and their doggie) while munching on fries. They were big fans of Montreal and we gave them some suggestions as to where to eat on their next trip - SCHWARTZ’S?!

Frank’s was a big let-down. We ordered the gnocchi (and split a plate) because the guidebook said it was their speciality. Now, the bread and olive oil provided for free was scrumptious. The tables were too close together. The waiter was difficult to get a hold of. The gnocchi was horrible. I have made better gnocchi and i will never make gnocchi again it turned out so badly. We were a little disappointed, but the fries had been fantastic and we had a play to get to so there was no point in getting upset or down.

The play was fantastic. I REALLY liked it. I think Zach was more ambivalent, but who made him an expert on theatre? LOL. It was stage-managed by a French-Canadian. The male actors were quite pretty to look at (Zach agreed on this point), and, i thought, played the Commedia dell’Arte written by Fo with a good degree of honesty.

Back to the hotel we were heading in order to change before heading to what we thought would be HEAVEN, a guy club playing with a Dante-esque motif. We wandered into a bookseller in front of NYU first though and, wow, i needed a truck to get all those books home.

Heaven was not no longer in business. We went in anyways, danced for three hours, drank some beers, made fun of some queers, and walked back.

Our third night in the city that never sleeps we were in bed by 3:30am.

Friday July 13th, 2007

This morning when we got up we ate at a restaurant that was NOT written up in Let’s Go - New York. I know you are shocked. The Venus Restaurant (on 8th avenue heading towards the 23rd street subway station) was a nice meal. We chose the place because there were casts of marble friezes on the walls. The omelettes were packed with veggie goodness: feta, avocado, spinach, yum, but the potatoes were bleck. Not worth the extra space in our stomachs that could be filled later with scrumptiousness.

So, after fuelling we hopped on the subway and ended up at the Northeast corner of Central Park where we proceeded to wander around aimlessly (to my great consternation as i was sure we would not be able to follow the schedule - my fears were well-founded you will see) through the North Woods, perhaps the least frequented area of this massive green space. We encountered a middle aged woman who was walking her dog not a on a leash. The black lab had decided to jump into a waterfall and was busy trying to haul out a log three times her size. She was very amusing and quite obviously enjoying herself. Her master was a little flabbergasted at this show of youthful energy, but also amused. We sat watching the “pup” for a while and took pictures in front of the falls.

We then spent about an hour and a half wandering around on the jogging and walking paths (checking out cuties and commenting on different body types as Zach and i are rather vain and shallow) in an effort to come out of the park at the South East corner and then make it to the MoMa before 3pm 2pm. In order to follow our schedule, at 81st we had to leave the actual park and walk along Fifth as fast as we could considering the state of my very blistered feet.

We arrived at MoMa with about ten minutes to spare and throw ourselves very ungracefully upon the couches in the lobby. We discovered that it was at 5pm4pm, not 4pm5pm, that the MoMa starts letting people in free. Of course, we were too exhausted to walk anywhere with this extra time. After much mulling, we decided to go get a fruit smoothie ($3!!! So Good! So Healthy!) from a stand across the street and then call a cab to head over to the Buttercup Bakeshop (sister to the famous Magnolia Bakeshop in the Village) in the Upper East Side.

The Buttercup Bakeshop is a must-visit if you are in NY. It feels, for me anyways, the way Tiffany’s feels for Holly GoLightly in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Everything is perfect. The cupcakes are divine. DIVINE. You can watch the baker making the little treasures through a window. I tried Buttercream with Vanilla frosting Red Velvet and German Chocolate. They were so good i bought the very expensive cookbook. I have yet to try it out, but am looking forward to it nonetheless.

We got back in the cab and wandered around the MoMa for a while. Highlights were, as ever, the Jackson Pollock’s. My feet were stil sore, so i spent a considerable amount of time watching the different people’s reactions as they turned the corner and came face-to-face with both the Demoiselles d’Avignon or the Waterlilies by Monet. We had a lot of fun complaining about the seven different white paintings on the wall and evewn enjoyed the black painting just because it was different!

After the MoMA, we walked to Abercombie and Fitch where Zach spent what seemed like forever (not because he was dawdling, but because that is the STUPIDEST STORE EVER) shopping in a poorly-lit, over-crowded store with music blasting at CLUB levels. I like the clothes at A&F - but would never pay that money nor spend another hour there if i can help it.

We got on the Subway and headed over to Comic Strip Live to watch our prepaid comedy show. According to Zach, the first comic was exactly like me, which i can’t decide is a compliment (because it would mean that i’m funny and lord knows that wouldbe the first time anyone has ever accused me of that) or an insult because she was so acidic. There were four comics in all and the first and last were best. We were a little tipsy from our mandatory two drinks and wandered over for some sushi across the street.

Sushi was good. Our glasses had interesting sayings on them: I could murder a pickled egg.

We headed back to the hotel and were in bed, our second night, by 1am.

I believe in gun control, but i am also willing to recognize that PERHAPS the Second Amendment isn’t all wrong…

The author of this article in today’s New York Post has clearly misunderstood the concept of self-defence.

Anti-Gun Goofs

by Michelle Malkin

SEN. Joe Biden is the embodiment of snide. Snide is the embodi ment of the left-wing attitude toward gun owners. So when snide Joe Biden confronted a YouTube user who asked Democrat presidential candidates about gun control during a debate Monday night, what unfolded was a Teachable YouTube Moment - the caught-on-tape embodiment of ideological snideness toward the Second Amendment and those who defend it.

“Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Mich.,” the YouTube citizen-questioner began. “To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe.” Townsend then pulled out his Bushmaster AR-15. “This is my ‘baby,’ purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views. Thank you.”

Noting that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has “one of the highest NRA ratings,” CNN host Anderson Cooper asked Richardson to respond first. He ran so fast from his record, you could see the Road Runner puff of cartoon smoke billowing at the base of his podium.

“The issue here, I believe, is instant background checks,” Richardson sputtered. “Nobody who has a criminal background or is mentally ill should be able to get a weapon.” He babbled for a few more painful seconds about “attacking poverty, bringing people together, dealing with those kids in the ghettos that are heavy users of gun violence,” while the liberals in the audience sat stone-cold silent.

Not a peep from Richardson about the fundamental right to self-defense, of course.

Cooper rescued him by turning to The Smirk from Delaware. “Sen. Biden, are you going to be able to keep his ‘baby’ safe?” Snide Joe grabbed his opening: “I’ll tell you what: If that is his baby, he needs help.”

Biden threw red meat to the blue audience - and was richly rewarded with loud applause.

Showing off his lawyerly credentials, he continued to wallop the YouTube gun owner: “I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun.” Why? Because he showed affection for his possession? Because he’s an enthusiastic hobbyist?

Because he talked about his gun the way Paris Hilton talks about her Chihuahua or Brad Pitt talks about his Ducati or Al Gore talks about his Priuses and compact fluorescent light bulbs?

The audience roared with laughter at Biden’s mockery of the gun owner’s mental health. So much for politically correct sensitivity toward the mentally ill, eh?

“I’m being serious,” Biden chuckled. “Look, we should be working with law enforcement, right now, to make sure that we protect people against people who don’t - are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they’re either mentally imbalanced and/or because they have a criminal record, and . . .”

Cooper interrupted Biden’s rant, but he stuck in one more jibe at Jered Townsend, the YouTube gun owner: “I hope he doesn’t come looking for me.” More laughter.

Did any of the other candidates pipe up to defend the gun owner? Not a one. Biden’s snark and smarm spoke for them.

The Democrats remain the party of gun-grabbers. Its leading presidential candidates view gun-owners as crackpots and nutballs, and treat the Second Amendment as a nuisance to be circumvented and cured. Big Nanny, not bedrock constitutional principle, rules.

The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by taking arrogant potshots at gun owners in a nationally televised debate. A recent Gallup Poll showed that roughly one in three Americans who live in the Midwest and South owns a gun; 27 percent of independents and 23 percent of Democrats identify themselves as gun owners. A majority use their weapons for crime prevention.

Who in the Democrat Party speaks for them?

Are the majority of women gun owners who own a gun for self-defense “mentally imbalanced,” too?

The Dems can enjoy Biden’s YouTube-able wisecracking now. But come general election time, it may be Second Amendment defenders who get the last laugh.

This is the assault rifle in question - it is not designed to protect people, but to kill - and in mass numbers. I don’t think anyone that asks a candidate a question while holding one of these should be taken seriously… I mean, c’mon… you really think you have a RIGHT to own that? What exactly are you going to do with it? If you lived in Iraq, maybe, but this isn’t a handgun or a hunting rifle… You do not have a right to have the ability to commit a massacre. But then again, i’m not only a left-of-centre, but also a Canadian. What do i know?

2 friends, 4 days, little money, lots of food: Heather and Zach in NYC during July 2007.

Wednesday July 11, 2007

Our bus was scheduled to leave at 10:30pm. This meant that I was supposed to arrive by 9:30, but there was traffic on the way home from work, my cat wanted cuddles and the Ville-Marie Tunnel was closed on the way back into town because of those lovely fireworks I have yet to see this year. This means I was ten minutes late. Luckily, Zach was not, so he saved me a spot in line before dashing off to pass his paycheque the minute I arrive.

The bus ride down was relatively uneventful. When asked by U.S. Customs what was in NYC, we responded, “What isn’t?” It’s a response I am particularly proud of considering it was past midnight and I was past my prime hours of wit (if I have any to begin with).

Sleeping pills are a wonderous invention. We didn’t even get up at the pit stops.

Thursday July 12, 2007

NYC’s Port Authority is quite the monstrosity. Intimidating as hell it takes a page from McGill’s books by not placing maps of the building’s lay-out in even remotely strategic places. We didn’t get lost though. Just felt a tad bewildered, which Zach OF COURSE blamed on the sleeping pills rather than having been jostled around on a bus for 7 hours to be thrown into an urban swamp of unfamiliarity.

Found the Chelsea Star Hostel with little problem and then headed out, on foot, to the EJ’s Luncheonette on 72nd where we split a plate of gy-normous flapjacks (yummers) and each consumed a black-and-white milkshake.

Fueled up on sugar, we wandered over to the Met another 10 blocks away. We made a bee-line through the “new” Roman and Greek sections (Andromeda and Lucrezia were highlights), actually did our best to avoid the medieval section (but I ran into both a stunning wooden Madonna and Child and bronze “La Frileuse” [see pictures]) before heading up the stairs into the European Painting Sections.

My thoughts on the Met, after having now been privileged to visit the Rijksmuseum, the Louvre, the Musee D’Orsay and the Uffizi galleries are as such: It has a beautiful collection with works from most of the great artists – but not the masterpieces by those artists. I kept turning corners and not recognizing works by artists I can usually pinpoint from miles away. I didn’t know I was looking at either a Rubens or a Botticelli…how can you not recognize a Rubens?

Luckily, the special exhibition they had was the Clark’s Brothers’ Collection of Impressionists. Woot! Renoir and Degas among others. I was pleased. Very pleased.

We decided to go down to 14th St. (Soho) to shop for Zach (with relatively little success mind you). We lost track of the time and realized we were not going to make it to our Comedy Club (tickets already bought and reservations made) so we walked through Washington Square Park (avoiding the lecturing epistemology-guy to Zach’s chagrin) and went for showers at the hostel.

Dinner was pizza at Arturo’s in the Village. It was a bit of a let-down. VERY good, but not worth the money. Maybe it was worth the ambience of jazz in the background, low lights and the Village crowd. I am undecided. We gave our leftovers to a homeless guy and headed back to Washington Square Park to listen to some free music before heading in for the evening.

Our first night in the city that never sleeps saw us in bed by midnight.

“There is no political centre” has become a banality. It’s unfortunate. There is a centre, just depending on what side you’re on, and because extremism is just about the worst thing a Westerner can be accused of, it is denied.

CIJR classifies The New York Times as a leftist newspaper. The American media considers The Globe and Mailto be leftist. There is no sense of perspective, no degree of shading in this ridiculous political spectrum.

I love NYT. The writing is of a fantastic quality and a obvious, concerted effort is made to take the middle ground.

I share with you a recent editorial i enjoyed…(and yes, this LEANS left, but it isn’t exactly socialist. In fact, i would argue it is exactly what liberal democracy is all about - this argument in the news)

Published: July 15, 2007

Congress and President Bush are engaged in a profound debate over what the founding fathers intended when they divided the powers to declare and conduct war between two co-equal branches of government. But on one thing, the Constitution is clear: Congress makes the rules on prisoners.

At least that is what it says in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” And it is good that Congress seems finally ready to get back on the job. This week, the Senate will consider a bill that would restore to the prisoners of Guantánamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in court.

The Senate and then the House must pass the bill with veto-proof majorities. But that is only a start. The White House and its Republican allies have managed to delay consideration of bills that would finally shut the prison at Guantánamo Bay and begin undoing the damage wrought by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That national disgrace gave legal cover to secret prisons, kangaroo courts and the indefinite detention of prisoners without charges in a camp outside the United States.

Shutting Guantánamo Bay will not be easy — and it will not be enough. Of about 375 inmates, the administration says only about 80 can be charged under the Military Commissions Act. Along with Guantánamo the entire law needs to be scrapped. Prisoners against whom there is actual evidence of crimes should be tried either in military or federal courts. Mounting an effective prosecution may be hard, since these prisoners were held for years without charges and some were tortured. But it is up to the administration’s lawyers — who helped Mr. Bush create the problem by allowing indefinite detention and torture to begin with — to deal with it.

Human rights groups say there are about 30 inmates who should be released but have legitimate fear of persecution or torture if sent home. The administration reportedly has already sent back some vulnerable prisoners, after obtaining what it must know are worthless assurances of their safety. Congress should require notice of such transfers, real guarantees of protection for released prisoners, and a review of the deal by outside judicial authority.

That leaves around 265 prisoners who have been held for years in violation of American and international law because Mr. Bush decided they were illegal enemy combatants — even though most were captured while fighting the invasion of Afghanistan. Under pressure from the courts, the administration created Combatant Status Review Tribunals to rubber-stamp that designation. These tribunals must be disbanded and their rulings reviewed by courts. Inmates who are not security risks should be released, and the others held under normal articles of war.

President Bush, of course, wants Congress to simply endorse his arrogation of power. The Times reported recently that the White House is seeking support for legislation that would permit the long-term detention of foreigners on American soil without charges or appeal, just on Mr. Bush’s say-so. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “the biggest challenge is finding a statutory basis for holding prisoners who should never be released and who may or may not be able to be put on trial.”

Challenge? The very idea is anathema to American democracy. Congress did harm enough by tolerating Mr. Bush’s lawless detainee policies, and then by passing the Military Commissions Act. Giving the president a dictator’s power to select people for detention without charges on American soil would be an utter betrayal of their oath to support and defend the Constitution, and of the founders’ vision of America.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

i had a little drink about an hour ago and it went right to my head…”

My grandmother, the queen of abolition, used to sing this song to us as kids when it was late and, as she would so amusingly put it, we were holding our eyelids up with toothpicks.

Last night i went to visit an old friend from high-school in Ste. Anne de Bellevue which is a very considerable distance from my current home base. I had a beer for dinner. Only one, but the song still applies.

Trying to get home was a nightmare. There was a huge accident that prevented me from accessing the road that led to either of the two highways out of that little town and back to Montreal…so i drove ten minutes along the river in a 30 km/hr zone…to discover an on-ramp blocked off for construction. I turned around again and drove another fifteen minutes down the road to the next on-ramp…lo and behold it too was blocked off for construction…another fifteen minutes later i got on the 40 (the 20 was AGAIN blocked off at St. Charles’). I hate Quebec’s road construction.

It decided to start to pour while i was driving on a temporary road separated from oncoming traffic only by those flimsy orange pylons. It was pouring so hard i could no longer see more than ten feet in front of me, but there was nowhere to stop. A filthy, likely smog-based, grime had accumulated on the windshield preventing it from shedding water. I ALMOST said a prayer, but thought better of it.

What should have taken 40 minutes was extended to an hour and a half. LOVELY.

NYC…how i love thee. Books, i love thee more.

Brought home another shelf of books - and a STRAND shirt to advertise my obsession. I have spent the evening uploading the new books into the bookshelf application on facebook rather than travel-logging. i want some perspective first i think.

Have plans for most of the week already, which doesn’t bode well for productivity. My admission package arrived from U of T today. I must pick courses, register and pay in the very near future…i also need an apartment. Eepers.

Last week-end was awesome! Eric and i went to see Ravi Coltrane play at the Spectrum and were just wowed by the virtuosity of his Quartet. I would pay to see them again anytime.

Saturday i went to the equestrian show with Shiri, her friend Matt, and Eric. It was a bit of a disappointment, so we went to the flea market in the late afternoon and had poutine at Chez Gerard’s before heading in for the FREE Don Ross concert. It too was fabulous!

Today is not only my last day of Latin courses, but also the day Zach and i leave for NYC. I wanted to put up a post so it is clear why i have not been posting - too busy enjoying my summer.

There will be a NYC travel log - don’t you worry. I love writing them too much.