It's the great northwest for me

Reader-submitted question: Why did you stay in the north?

I wish I had a really exciting story to tell you about this, but I don't.

The main reason is that I don't want to uproot my son. I even refuse to move out of this neighbourhood, because his best friend lives across the street. When you're a parent, your child is the most important consideration. His happiness is worth more than mine.

I have a really great job, so I don't need to go anywhere. I'm a writer, and I chose my job very carefully: I wanted a job that would give me the opportunity to write about the issues that affect the north. I also wanted to be part of the solutions in my own small way. The things I write are in books, in brochures and booklets, in ad copy, and in speeches and the things people say to reporters and the people who are sometimes called "stakeholders" (I hate that word). I often meet people who tell me that something I wrote helped them through a particularly difficult time. These people are usually dealing with terrible situations beyond their control. They often can't make plans too far in advance: they need to know what their first step should be. I can only imagine what their lives must be like. I'm honoured to be able to help them in any way I can.

I've been living here almost a decade, and I do sometimes think about moving on. One day, I probably will.

Thanks for your question.

Stacey's visit

Stacey left this morning, and we already miss her.

I am the last of my crop of CBC girls: the young women who came to the Arctic in 1999 and 2000 to work for the MotherCorp after graduating from King's or Carleton. If Stacey hadn't been working there, I probably wouldn't have applied for the job at CBC North. We've been friends forever: we met in 1995, in our first year of journalism school. After we graduated, she moved to Inuvik, and our friend Jaime moved to Rankin Inlet. I worked my way around the east coast for a while, taking short-term contract after short-term contract. Eventually, I found permanent work at the station in Inuvik. I started on the same day Cindy did: she'd been working for the paper here in town, but wanted to try radio. A few others started within the next couple of months, including Sally.

There's always a new crop of CBC girls.

Everyone else has now left the north. Stacey, Jaime, Cindy and Sally all moved away. Josee moved away, and Vanessa moved away, and the other Megan moved away, and even Mack the Hack moved away (although he's not a CBC girl: he's more of a NOPW queen).

I'm the only one left.

I miss my girlfriends.

Canadian Blog Awards

Voting ends tomorrow, so I'll be voting today in the Canadian Blog Awards. But first, I'm going to go to Darcy's to see who won the northern voting bloc.

If you want to vote for me no matter who won the northern run-off, you can use both of these links:

• Best Blog
• Best Blog Post Series
  

If you want to join our voting bloc, please go over to Darcy's first. I'm totally serious. As much as I'd like to be recognised, I don't want you to throw your vote away if another northerner can use it to get into the finals.

After the Best NWT Blogs contest ended, a reporter asked me about the purpose of the contest. Saskboy can correct me if I'm way off, but I don't think these contests actually tell anyone who has the best blog in Canada (or the NWT, in the case of our smaller version). You couldn't decide that, anyway. They tell you who has the most readers who are willing to vote. However, I think they're worthwhile because they draw attention to blogs in general. Every time I take part in one of these contests, I find a new blog I've never heard of before but continue to enjoy. For example, I was certain I knew who had the best photo blog in the north until Darcy pulled the northern nominees together: I'd never been to Kluganoch Corner before. (That photo of the eye is amazing.)

I love it when northerners get recognition for a job well done, and that's why I'm participating in the northern voting bloc. Please consider voting today: it will only take a few minutes and the link is at the top of this post.

Canadian Blog Awards: The Northern Round

SPECIAL NOTE: Saskboy, look away. :)

OK, remember the Canadian Blog Awards? Yes, as Mongoose would say, that waste of time where people get together to give awards to each other? (Zach Wells would probably compare the CBAs to the Governor General's Award for Poetry.)

Well, we northern bloggers are trying to pool our resources to get one of us into the finals. Last time, we sent one vote one way and another vote another way, and Small Dead Animals, Daveberta and Yarn Harlot drove right over us. Clearly, that's not working.

Here's the process:
1) During the nomination stage, anyone can nominate any Canadian blog in one or more categories (New Blog, Best Post, etc.).
2) All nominations are reviewed to make sure they fit into the category. For example, you can't nominate this blog for Best Feminist Blog: although I am a woman, I don't write about feminism. The nominations that make the cut are put into a poll, and everyone has several days to vote.
3) The top five vote-getters are put into a second poll. The winner of that round wins the category.

Last time, we weren't coordinated at all, and we all lost by a mile. While most of us would probably like to be recognised, we cannot waste our votes on a blog that has no chance of moving forward in the category. (Think of Survivor.) That sounds cold, but I include myself in that. Don't vote for me if Townie Bastard has a better chance of winning.

Darcy at Way Way Up is pulling all of the northern nominees together. If we can decide who to support in each category, we have a better chance of getting some recognition for northern blogs.

Now, you absolutely do not have to be part of this, and you don't have to vote in the CBAs at all. If you really want to vote for Small Dead Animals, please do that. But if you want to support a northern blog, please go over to Darcy's first. We will have more influence as a group. There is no rush to vote: voting closes November 29th, so we have a few days to hash this out.

"In the first place..."

The contest is over, but you can still vote in the "readers' choice" poll. Please vote ONCE for your favourite entry. The judges will return tomorrow with a decision.

I have a backlog of reader submissions, mostly related to journalism. Be patient as I work my way through them.

Reader-submitted complaint: In the first place, the CBC is not a spokesman for the ruling party, but under the 1991 broadcasting act, is to fulfill several roles including:

• actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
• contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
• reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.

Unfortunately, that does not make the CBC a spokesgroup for a political party, and more likely demands that many who lead the company are actually opposed to what would be considered by American conservatives as conservative ideals.

I was going to leave this to speak for itself, but I decided to respond after a ton of people contacted me about it.

You know one of the best reasons NOT to comment anonymously? If you post anonymously, you can't delete your comment after you realise how incredibly idiotic it is. Don't expect me to take it down.

You appear to be having trouble with reading comprehension, so I will state the obvious: I am often sarcastic. If I say something that is obviously false, like that the CBC speaks for the federal government, I am probably not being serious. Look for clues, like statements that I did my research by watching Fox News. Let me also reassure you that I am familiar with journalism ethics and the CBC's mandate.

Thanks for your complaint. If you are determined to hate my blog, perhaps you shouldn't come here.

Reflecting Canada to Canadians

Tonight, I am handing my blog over to the CBC's national election team.

HI! Welcome back to our continuing coverage of the national election. We are your number-one source for analysis.

But not yet! There won't be any results yet! Nosiree!

Instead, let's look at Twitter!

Ah, I see here that someone has twittered, uh, tweeted, uh, twitted about the election! "ZOMG the Tories are goin DOWN." And here's another one: "Cant wait for the Libs to be out." Real talk from real people. You know, WE'RE on Twitter, too!

It's still too early for us to actually tell you anything, so let's head over to our panel of thoughtful analysts. That's what you come here for.

BORING GUY #1: I predict a Conservative minority.

BORING GUY #2: I predict a Conservative minority.

BORING GUY #3: I predict a Conservative minority.

Wow, those were refreshing perspectives. We still can't give you any results, so let's check out our Facebook page!

Ah, someone has posted on our wall! "Thanks CBC for covering this election so well." Boy, we really appreciate your support. You can go to our Facebook page and become a fan of CBC. You've heard about Facebook, right? Remember, we're there! We are NOT out of touch!

And now let's get back to the twits! Reading these disjointed sentences is real journalism for the 21st century. "Dont count the greens out yet its May Day!" "Screw the election I'm getting a beer." "How come nobody on Twitter supports the NDP?"

Hey, why are you changing the channel?

"Just curious to know..."

Reader-submitted question: ...if you are also eligible to vote in the upcoming Canadian election.

No, I'm not eligible to vote in Canada. I hope you guys all voted, though.

I am not a Canadian citizen. I was born in Maine and moved to Montreal in the 1980s. My parents did all of the paperwork for me and my brothers. They decided that we would all retain our American citizenship and be Canadian permanent residents.

Throughout the nineties, I sometimes thought about getting dual citizenship, but whenever I called the American government to ask about it, I was told that it wasn't allowed. Since then, I have learned that the Canadian government will accept me as a dual citizen. My (admittedly crude) understanding is that the American government would consider me an American, and the Canadian government would consider me both American and Canadian.

It appears to be just a matter of doing the paperwork and taking a test, but I haven't bothered. Yes, go ahead and lecture me. I know, I know. I have all of the rights a Canadian citizen would have, except that I can't vote. If I was excited enough about one of the candidates, I might fill out the paperwork, but I'm just not.

I am allowed to vote in Maine or to get an absentee ballot from the Dexter town office using my last American address. That's what I did. In fact, I voted for the ticket that I think will be best for both the US and Canada, so in a sense, I was looking out for both countries with my vote.

Thanks for your question. I'm now bracing myself for the complaints that I am a traitor who couldn't be bothered to fill out the form that would make me a Canadian.

Canadians: Stop reading my blog. Go and vote.

"I think I've been slow to understand your question."

The election's in a few days, and Canadians are buzzing about this video. Stephane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Conservatives say it shows that Mr. Dion is not ready to lead. Liberals say it shows that Mr. Dion, who has hearing problems and was working in his second language, did not understand a question that was a bit harder to understand than it needed to be.

The question, as asked by Steve Murphy: If you were prime minister now, what would you have done that Mr. Harper has not done?

This is your standard "what would you have done about this problem?" sort of question, although my version of the question is definitely simpler than the way Mr. Murphy phrased it. The leader of any national party should be able to answer this. Mr. Dion did answer, but as you can see from the video, he had several false starts.

I am interested in this video for what it says about journalism ethics. (Yes, I've been writing about this topic a lot lately. I'll move on to something else eventually, I promise.)

This is called a "do-over". In taped TV and radio interviews, it's common to ask questions a second time if the person asks to start over. There are no real rules about when this is appropriate, but in general, it is done if the person does not understand the question or catches himself in an error that was only a slip of the tongue. ("Did I just say there are fifty dogs at the shelter? That was wrong. There are only fifteen dogs at the shelter. Can we start that again?") There is an agreement between the interviewer and the interviewee that the flubbed bit will be edited out of the final product.

In this case, the CTV team agreed to start again. Not just once but several times. Then the producer decided to break the agreement with Mr. Dion.

It could be argued that one do-over would have been overlooked, but that in this case, it was news that the candidate asked for so many do-overs. I think that's why CTV did this.

But still, this is a clear example of a network breaking its word. Interviewers need to be above that. If Mr. Murphy and his co-workers felt they were taking part in an interview that itself was news because of the way it was conducted, they should never have agreed to edit those parts out.

Journalism relies on trust. The public must be able to have faith in the news media, but trust is earned, not given away. If the reporter agrees to edit certain things out, he has to do that. If one do-over is permitted but three are not, the reporter has an obligation to say so: he can't make any agreements that would lead the interviewee to believe otherwise. CTV screwed this one up from the start.

I honestly don't know what this video says about Mr. Dion's ability to lead, but I do know what it says about CTV.

Elsewhere on the Interweb:
Geoff Meeker
Offal News

The apocalypse

Last week I was distracted by attacks on my personal and professional integrity, so I did not write about a pressing journalism issue that needs to be covered. I apologise and will get back to my normal blogging.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Holy crap, I agree with Russell Smith.

As loyal viewers of Fox News know, the Canadian government launched a shameful attack on Sarah Palin a few weeks ago. The ultra-left-wing Conservative government funds a state broadcaster called the CBC. (In an oh-so-liberal attempt to fool voters, the extreme liberals rebranded their party as "Conservative". Typical leftists.) The CBC speaks for the government. And that's why it's extremely offensive that they published a column that was very critical of Ms. Palin. How dare they?

Okay, here's what actually happened.

Heather Mallick is a Canadian columnist. She did indeed write a column that was very critical of Ms. Palin. It was over-the-top offensive, in fact. Some of it was clearly supposed to be funny, but other parts were completely inexcusable.

Ms. Mallick is not a CBC employee; she is a freelancer. This column was posted to CBC.ca, as have other columns she has written. Fox News went nuts, and its viewers sent hate mail to Ms. Mallick and the CBC.

The CBC stood behind Ms. Mallick at first, saying that she is an opinion columnist and her job is to express her opinions.

The ombudsman received over 300 complaints, and decided to investigate. He found that there were problems with the column, because it presumed to offer facts that could not be substantiated. "Facts" like these: Republican men are sexual inadequates! Ms. Palin's supporters are white trash!

The CBC caved. They apologised and retracted the column.

You may already see the problem with this. Ms. Mallick didn't actually mean that Republican men are sexual inadequates: it wasn't presented as a fact at all. Of course she had no substantiation for this. She was making a joke. A rude joke, to be sure, but a joke. I'm pretty sure that men don't have secret meetings in which they promise to be irresponsible with their semen, either.

OK, on to Russell Smith.

As long-time readers know, I have often criticised Russell for being self-important and long-winded. He, in turn, has criticised me for being a bitter, sad lady. However, today I actually agree with him. It's important to get this on the record, because he Googles himself constantly and will want this for his scrapbook.

Russell rightly points out that it is rare for a news organisation not to back a columnist after a controversy, and that many columnists receive hate mail. He also points out that anyone who disagreed with Ms. Mallick was given a public forum to do so. And he is correct to mention that the column was no ruder than things that have been said about Hillary Clinton.

Russell then suggests that the retraction is a sign of something far more troubling: the possibility that our national broadcaster will include more right-wing opinion pieces simply because of the hate mail from another country.

Seriously, go over and read Russell's column. It's a good one.

The CBC should definitely be including right-wing views, and not just on CBC.ca. Our national broadcaster has a mandate to reflect Canada to Canadians. Professional journalists are responsible for making sure that happens. When they screw up, they need to admit it and take steps to keep the problem from happening again.

The problem here wasn't a lack of conservative voices on CBC.ca. It was with the editing of the original column. The column was indeed "viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan."

Viciously personal is not OK -- this is the reason I objected to the statements she made. I do not like it when people take nasty, personal potshots at individuals. In this case, Ms. Mallick went completely beyond anything I'm able to support by attacking the personal appearances of the Palin children. Not cool.

Grossly hyperbolic can sometimes be OK. It depends on the context. I'm grossly hyperbolic when I write as Uriel. Ms. Mallick has made a living on gross hyperbole. It's not as if the CBC didn't know this when they started to publish her columns.

Intensely partisan is totally fine as long as it is balanced with dissenting opinions. It seems to me that CBC is already doing this, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The vicious personal stuff could have been edited out. Calling Bristol "pramface" added nothing to the argument. The "porn actress" comment was completely un-called-for. I actually like to read about candidates' fashion and style choices (Robin Givhan is my favourite fashion writer), but that was not the point of this column. It didn't belong there and should have been edited out. I wish the CBC had seen this.

Bringing hope to Ottawa

A reader has just alerted me to these fan-tabulous T-shirts available for purchase here. She says that stupid Americans have been stopping her on the street, confused because they do not know that Canada has a prime minister.

I just have to figure out which one to get. Our current member of parliament is with the New Democratic Party:
I'm not really a New Democrat, though. Our last MP was a Liberal:
I confess that I like that one. It just looks right.

Although I fear reprisals from the Forces Of Evil for revealing this, I think that the most qualified candidate in this territory is the Conservative. And I like this one:
The Green Obama looks weird. I'm pretty sure I've seen an oil company's logo that looked like this:
And because this is Canada, even the separatists have their own Obama:

How cavalier we used to be

Reader-submitted complaint: There's too much American politics on this blog.

OK. I'll address a pressing Canadian issue.

Not to criticise one of our treasured Canadian cultural artists on a treasured Canadian cultural program, but it sure seems like Jacob Hoggard doesn't have enough breath control to sing this song.

He's always been a gasper, but this is much more extreme than usual.

WOW WOW WOW

Go to Clare's blog and check out the videos of the killer whales that swam into Arctic Bay a few days ago. Just incredible.

Beware of greedy leaders who take you where you should not go

Reader-submitted question: Am I correct in stating that the NWT, like Nunavut, does not have political parties at the territorial level?

Yes. When Nunavut split from us, they took our form of government with them. As far as I know, it is unique.

This tends to be hard for people who aren't from the north to understand, but I will try to explain. I am not really an expert on consensus-style government, but I have picked up the main points over my time living here. We do not have territorial political parties: although elected representatives may personally identify with one of the federal parties, we don't have the same system here.

All of our members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) sit as independents. They do not have any formal links to each other, and they do not run for office based on any unified platform that could be easily summed up with a word or two.

After the election, the MLAs select a premier from among themselves. This is the opposite of the way it's done in the rest of Canada, where the leader of the political party with the most seats automatically becomes the premier. Remember, we don't have parties. There is no easy way to tell if the majority of the MLAs are environmentalists or tough on crime or whatever, so they have no clear leader right after the election. After they elect the premier, they elect the cabinet. Again, this is very different from the way it's done in the rest of Canada, where the premier chooses the cabinet.

It's not really a rule, but our legislative assemblies have generally decided to elect cabinet ministers based on where they're from. I'm totally serious. One third are from Name of Town Withheld, one third are from the southern NWT and one third are from the northern NWT. This is formalised: they do it in three rounds. Regional representation is a big deal: there is a constant concern that Name of Town Withheld is going to take over and get more than its fair share.

The premier then assigns departments to cabinet ministers. He can't remove them from cabinet; he can only take away their portfolios. This happens from time to time. Only the MLAs can remove someone from cabinet. They do this from time to time.

Although question period is what gets on TV, it has always seemed to me that the real work happens at the committee level. Non-cabinet MLAs are assigned to committees that review legislation and budgets. They also meet with cabinet ministers to discuss programs or anything else that might be relevant. These meetings are often held in communities, where anyone can show up to hear what's said or make a presentation to the committee.

Because we do not have political parties, you will not generally find organised opposition to proposed legislation. Federal politicians will push legislative initiatives based on the mandates their parties received on election day. Opposition parties will push back (some of the time). We have no opposition parties, at least not formal ones. I have heard some people refer to the non-cabinet MLAs as the "unofficial opposition", but it really only seems that way if your only experience with the system is watching question period. They do ask questions, but I don't think that automatically makes them the opposition.

I hope this is an acceptable overview. More information about this style of government is available on the Legislative Assembly's website.

Thanks for your question.

Grumpy Old Complaint

Reader-submitted complaint: Oh yeah -- I bet Mr Harper is a real GROOVE MACHINE!

This is in response to my observation that the people at Bill Clinton's inauguration "party", if you can call it that, were losers who could not dance or even clap on beat.

The Forces of Evil still have me under surveillance, so I will say that I am sure that federal cabinet ministers are excellent dancers. In fact, I just met one last week. The attorney general did not bust a move, but he did make his feelings about the former Liberal government perfectly clear. Ask him about crime, and he'll mention the last government. Ask him about gangs, and I'm sure the Liberals will come up somehow. Odd. You don't suppose there will be an election soon?

Also, he had a nice suit. I bet he's a great dancer, because Justin Timberlake usually wears nice suits. I'm also sure he would never pick a song about divorce as his campaign theme song. He's much smarter than that. That would lead to the sort of degeneracy that we are still trying to recover from after years of Liberal rule. The damage will take years to recover from, and a strong hand will be needed. At this point, we cannot afford to lose sight of our goals. We are the ONLY ones who really appreciate the value of a good campaign theme song, and it's a constant struggle. The other parties would probably have "Let's Get It On" as THEIR theme songs. That's why we have to be strong. These things are too important to let slide after we've worked so hard TOGETHER AS A COUNTRY. That's what really matters to Canadians.

Americans: This is Prime Minister Harper:

Argh

Editors at the Paper of Record: Please use some discretion with Leah McLaren's columns. You cannot possibly be contractually obligated to print this garbage.

Leah now informs us that she only SEEMS like a normal person. The truth is that she is a weirdo.

I see.

Even before I read the column, I knew this was going to involve a comparison to a celebrity, and Leah does not disappoint. She imagines herself to be quirky and adorable, just like a character Jennifer Aniston played years ago!

The proof:

• When she was 12, she tried to get people at summer camp to call her Jordan, but they wouldn't go along with it. They thought she was ridiculous. (What a shock.)
  
• She wanted to find a lost ferret. Not because she likes ferrets, but because she thinks other people will think she's eccentric if she has one. It apparently does not occur to her that stealing someone's pet is not eccentric behaviour that would make her look quirky and adorable. Rather, it is the sort of self-absorbed behaviour I already expect from her.
• Who needs a third example? Not Leah/Jordan!

I have no idea why the Paper of Record is publishing this.

Here's something Leah would discover with even the slightest bit of critical thought: Her headline is a lie. She is not a weirdo trapped inside a regular life. She is a boring person trapped inside a pathetic world she has built for herself.

Here's a column idea for you, Leah: Why do you still, in your thirties, want people to think you haven't changed since you were twelve?

What a boob

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: We've heard it all before.

You would think that by now, store owners would be smart enough to just shut up about not liking breastfeeding. But apparently not.

The story's familiar: A woman is either asked to stop breastfeeding or is shuffled off into a corner. The next day, she shows up with dozens of her closest co-lactationists. (No, that's not really a word.) News spreads and the store looks stupid. Meanwhile, idiots come out of the woodwork to proclaim that breastfeeding is disgusting, or, alternatively, totally fine as long as women are discreet about it.

I am opposed to discreet breastfeeding, mostly because the only people who talk about it are total jerks.

"As long as it's discreet" is code for "as long as I don't know it's happening". People who say this usually mean one or more of the following things:

• They should never be exposed to a baby who is beginning or ending a meal.
• They should never be able to tell that the baby is eating at all. Ideally, they should not be able to tell that the baby even exists.
• Babies should have blankets fastened securely over their heads while they eat.
  
• Babies should eat in the public bathroom. (This is one of my favourites.)
• Anything other than this is basically the same thing as peeing in public.

The alternative to breastfeeding is a screaming, hungry baby. I know which is more disruptive.

Could the CBC possibly suck any more?

Apparently so.

"Joe Clark" (AKA Fake Ouimet) took a look at the small print for the MotherCorp's stupid contest for a new Hockey Night in Canada theme. I knew it was awful, but I didn't realise just how bad it was.

My favourite line is In the event of any dispute concerning the operation of any element of the Competition or these Competition Rules, the decision of CBC will be final.

I repeat: $100,000 is a pathetic offer for a theme song on the national broadcaster's most popular program.

BREAKING NEWS: CBC staff psychologically unhealthy!

Reader-submitted question: Have you seen this?

Yes.

Judging by the number of times people have sent me this story today, this is of keen interest to my readers.

A 2005 survey showed that almost half of the CBC's staff were suffering from high levels of psychological stress related to their working conditions. That's the same year there was a bitter, months-long lockout, so I'm not sure if the survey was completed before or after all of that nastiness. I'm also not sure if it's an accurate reflection of the current situation.

CBC treats its staff really poorly. I am still bitter that they screwed me out of my maternity leave because there were two days I did not work while I was moving to the Arctic. It was a weird human resources thing: I was short two days on paper and they were unwilling to accept that I had probably put in the equivalent of two months of unpaid, unclaimed overtime. I was furious, but unable to do anything about it.

I am not fond of unions, but the situation with management at the CBC is just ridiculous. The stories about people being systematically screwed over are infuriating. When people across the country started to compare notes, they realised that they had all been told the same thing: there was coincidentally only enough work to last the exact length of time the CBC would not have to pay them benefits or convert their jobs to permanent positions! Who would have imagined it?

I'm not sure why they seem to hate their own staff. During the lockout, I heard a lot about the need to be "flexible". This meant that they needed to be able to fire people for no reason at any time. Their solution: converting permanent positions to short-term contracts. They claimed that young people want contracts. You see, young, sexy, carefree people don't want to be tied down to permanent positions with health benefits and pensions. Flexibility is IMPORTANT to them. Only old fogeys with hair coming out of their ears want permanent positions. Dental work is for losers. And really, which would you rather be: young and carefree or old and toothless? Clearly, short-term contracts are for you!

This argument never made sense to me. Sure, I like flexibility. And there is nothing more flexible than the ability to quit my job whenever I want to. That's why I took a permanent job.

They also claimed that they needed to be able to fire bad staff. I would never argue that bad employees should be kept on the payroll. Sometimes people need to be fired. However, the CBC's problem is not that they have no way to get rid of bad staff; it's that they have been unwilling to follow their own rules about disciplining people. The rules were set out very clearly in the collective agreement. People could be fired. And yet, they usually weren't. Why is it the union's fault when management can't get its act together enough to fire someone who deserves to get the axe? The problem was never the collective agreement or the staff. The problem was management.

For another perspective on this story, check out Tea Makers.

Eclipse

Check out Clare's photos of last night's eclipse over Nunavut. Very cool.