Dear Britney Spears,

What...the hell...is wrong with you?

I am pretty sure that Glen is going to have something to say about this, but please let Ms. Prudence McPrude take a whack at you before Mr. Prudential Prudie starts in. (Unlike Glen, I actually enjoy innuendo.) (Hehehehehe...I said "innuendo".)

Fishnets are not so expensive that you should continue to wear them after large holes form in them. You can get them at department stores for $12. Heck, I would have given you mine if you'd asked. They're still in the original packaging, although I can't quite remember why. Oh wait: I do remember. It's because they make women look like skanks, even when we are running for President or in charge of the Supreme Court. There is no way to look dignified while wearing them. It is like wearing a flashing sign that says MAKE ME AN OFFER QUICKLY, I'M OUT OF CRACK.

Maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe it IS possible to look dignified while wearing fishnet stockings. Perhaps it's all about the total look. For example, having your butt hanging out of your hot pants is super classy. It's definitely an option for the modern office. I could wear those with my SLUT T-shirt the next time I go to the jail.

I don't know what the hell that thing on your torso is, but it appears to be Fonzie's jacket, shrunk in the wash and set upon by rabid wolves. And honey, we all know that you went nuts and shaved your head. I suggest that you try one of the following:

1. Get a short haircut that will be easy to take care of.
2. Find someone who isn't blind to fix your weave.

And the crowning glory: the stripper pole. I was already a bit annoyed about stripper poles today because Canada's Newspaper Of Record printed a giant picture of Lindsay Lohan rubbing her butt on one to illustrate a story about the horrible movie industry that is profiting from the objectification of fragile young women. (Seriously. It is like they think we are all idiots who can't see right through this.) The latest talk is that stripping is empowering. Riiiiight. I can follow this logic to a certain point: the men in a strip club are definitely being taken advantage of, but not by the women on the pole. The dirty old club owner's having the last laugh; the strippers are just there to line his pockets and the men are so dumb they don't know the difference. What a GREAT thing for Ms. Spears to be photographed humping! This is going to do wonders for her career.

Family

I figured that it was time to change the image of our family over there on the right side of the screen, considering that it now bears only a passing resemblance to us. However, this was easier said than done.

I got a reasonable Michael:
and a reasonable me:


but was unable to do one for Steve. You see, Steve's hair does not seem to correspond to anything in the South Park universe. So I stuck one of the Skipper's hats on him:

As you can see, he does not look happy about this. Steve never wears hats.

I am forced to conclude that he should get a haircut. It is the only solution to this problem.

You ask, I answer

Reader-Submitted Question: Did you go to journalism school with Rebecca Eckler? What's with the intense hatred?

OMG like that is so not true and I am gonna sue you for spreding leis about me. Like I siad before I do not hate her I am just super-jelous of her becasue of her amazing stardom and the fact that she gets tons of book deals wehn I am just as good of a writer and i still donot have a single book deal.

It is ok though I am probably not going to sue you because I am SUPER SPIRITUAL now and I was takling to my preist and he said I should let go and let God. I totlaly thoughtt that should be ona sign somewhere because it is so freaking deep. Like YEAH HATERS I have a preist now to give me spiritul advice and not one of those guys who hurts little kids either -- gross!

So yeah I am just gonna let go and let GOd and that is gonna be my new like moto because it will keeep me from beign jelous all the time. It was like eating me up insdie, you know? So now I can just forget aobout al of that stuff that was bothering me and just be super-spirital without having to pary all the time becasue that is really not good for my knees when i spend so much time at the spa getting them pummised.

Thanks for asking but I really dont know her at all I am just a writer in Canada and she is like ALSO a writer in Canada and people were like saying that she spoak for young women in my genration and I was like OMG i so wish that was true because then I woud be just like her! If I could just get a boost from a celibaty like her that wouldbe exactly what my patehtic writing career would need!

You better take care if I find you've been creeping 'round my back stairs

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: THAT'S A LIE!!! I KNOW YOU DID IT!!11!!!

There are two things I cling to:

1. Journalism is a noble profession.
2. Smoking pot for years will not turn you into a paranoid freak.

Okay, so I don't actually "cling" to the second one, but it is relevant to today's discussion. Actually, I have lost my grip on both of these things over the past few weeks.

One of the editors of Name of Paper Withheld is leaving his job and going to work for a local diamond mine. This has brought about a flurry of talk about the "dark side", and I think I've had just about enough of it.

Perhaps someone could explain to me which of these jobs is closer to the dark side:

1. Providing factual information to the public.
2. Writing stories that mix facts with misunderstanding, speculation and rumour, passing all four off as facts and ignoring any facts that don't fit with what you think the story must be.
   

I mean it. Please tell me which is closer to the dark side, because I'm very interested in your answer. TELL ME RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT!!!

Hmmm. Maybe I am coming a bit unglued myself.

I understand the pressures journalists work under. First, they need a story. Never underestimate this. Journalism is a tough business, and reporters are expected to file stories every day, whether there is anything happening or not. That old joke about the slow news day is real: a desperate reporter will start asking questions about the weirdest things if there is no actual news. (What? When it's smoky outside, people should stay inside if the smoke bothers them? Hold the front page, we've got a scoop!)

Second, they need a story. Yes, this sounds like the same thing as the last paragraph, but I promise that I have not completely lost my mind. A true story is not just something to fill a hole at the top of the hour. A true story has a beginning, middle, and end. It has characters and some type of action. CBC is totally on the "story" bandwagon, and their reporters will tell you that they tell stories for a living. (This is very important to them.) Other reporters will call it a "piece", but the idea is the same. A really good story includes some sort of struggle. This is why the news is full of crime: it is not because crime is unusual, but because it falls neatly into the "story" format, complete with characters and a beginning, middle and end. Best of all, there is no pesky research for a reporter to do: the details are spoon-fed by the prosecutor.

Third, the story needs to be understandable. This is where I usually start to get annoyed. You see, most issues are not black and white. Usually there is a lot of gray, with some red and blue thrown in for good measure. However, this does not make a good story or an understandable story. Watch the local news and you will almost never see anything like this: There is no typical client. Many have complicated needs, and we can't help them with all of their problems. In fact, unless they take responsibility for changing their lives, we can hardly help them at all. (Funny, I don't think that's hard to understand at all.) Complicating details are left out, and others are summarized into something that is understandable but not quite true. I call this "more punchy, less true" journalism. In fact, if you call an editor to complain about this, he will argue that a) it really is true or b) nobody would ever understand the difference.

Fourth, the characters need to fit into one of about six different journalism stereotypes:

• The harried small-business owner
  
• The ne'er-do-well
• The angel
• The expert
  
• The uncaring authorities (usually but not always the government)
  
• The maverick
  

If the characters don't fit into one of these categories, the story won't work. Deadline journalism is not about shades of gray, and characters can't be three-dimensional. Some details will have to be ignored for the sake of the story. (There are bigger issues at stake here, people: Journalism itself requires it!) If a person is cast as an angel, for example, everything he says will be completely true. He will be long-suffering but never to blame for any of his troubles. And remember: the true angel in any news story is the reporter herself for having the courage to shine a light on the tragedy.

Journalists, of course, will never admit to any of this. They are usually convinced that they can explain complicated issues better than those so-called "experts". Knowledge isn't power, it's suffocating! In fifteen minutes, a journalist can learn everything he needs to know about an issue to be able to explain it to people.

Right. And I'm the one on the dark side.

Culture shock

Steve and Michael went for a walk on "the track" the other day. "The track" is not actually a track; it is the path that was left behind when the railroad was ripped out of the Newfoundland landscape. This path runs near his parents' house and I suppose that if you put your mind to it, you could follow it all the way across the island.

I have no fond memories of "the track": unlike some of my friends, I never took part in any hanky-panky on or near it. I'm sure my brothers have some interesting stories to tell, though.

During their walk, Michael made an exciting discovery. There were strawberries GROWING OUT OF THE GROUND. This was a big deal. Steve and I grew up in places where we could pick berries all summer long, but Michael has never seen this before.

What, am I not good enough?

Seriously, I can't handle this any longer.

Rebecca Eckler has got religion. Yes! This might be too funny for words, but I'll try.

Ickler still doesn't know how to pour milk over cereal, so she was out for breakfast with her daughter the other day. Being a little girl, Rowan brought three stuffed animals, which of course was hideously embarrassing, so Eckler was trying to look in another direction. That's how she saw a blind woman who needed her help. Most normal people would have helped anyway, but you have to understand that this was a major breakthrough that ought to be trumpeted from the rooftops.

However, some things never change. Even though Rowan was RIGHT THERE, Eckler didn't bother to talk to her or even mention that there was a third person walking along with the blind woman for goodness knows how long.

Get it? Eckler is SUPER GOOD NOW. And as proof, she has decided that she wants to go to an ashram. Excuse me while I fall over, clutching my sides from the pain of laughing too hard.

I'm not sure she understands that an ashram is not an extra-quiet spa. The main benefit seems to be that there are no ashrams in Toronto, where her daughter lives. She wants to go to California, because there are no icky Indian people with germs there. Whoops! I meant that California's closer than India, so she could see Rowan more often. Wait, that can't be it, either. This is the woman who says goodbye to her child but kisses the dog.

Facebook's good for something after all

Michael looks like a young offender in all of Cousin Charlotte's posed shots from Sean's wedding, but this shot of the Elms boys is just too cute to pass up.

It seems to me that David should be about twelve years old, but you will recall that I am still suffering from the delusion that Ben is Michael's age. That's David's daughter, Leah.

Sean was a year ahead of me in high school, and everyone used to confuse him with Steve. This is probably because he has a bigger personality than Steve does: while Steve will sit quietly in the back of the room, Sean will demand loudly that someone join him as he dances on the table. If you never get close, he's definitely the one you'd remember. From time to time someone would ambush me near homeroom and say she didn't know I was going out with that Elms guy -- how long had we been together? Surprised, I would stammer out some variant of "a year", and Little Miss Cheerleader would be halfway down the hall before I figured out that I had just started a rumour that Sean was cheating on whatever girlfriend he had at the time.

Sean moved to the NWT soon after we did and was living with us throughout my pregnancy and after Michael was born. If this was a "bookended" news story, this is where I would triumphantly close the loop by noting that he used to work at the young-offender facility, but you, dear readers, deserve better than that. Sean quickly proved himself to be the best substitute teacher in town as well as the only uncle Michael knew as a baby. He kept us well-stocked with tiny Maple Leafs jerseys and homemade baby-sized hockey sticks. I was really sad when he moved out of our house: after fourteen years, he is like my brother too.

By request

I pulled this off Cousin Charlotte's Facebook. I refuse to believe that Michael is really this big. Can he really pick other children up? This has to be trick photography, like those pictures of the Loch Ness Monster.

What's in my MP3 player?

This is for the benefit of those who always think the worst of me. Excuse me: I feel like coughing.

Every now and then I fall apart

Apparently I promised to lend Deathly Hallows to Glen when I finished it. I do not remember this, but his description of the circumstances of our agreement does sound vaguely familiar, and I am disinclined to do battle with anyone who seems to enjoy contract law as much as he does.

I am going to put most of this in white text, but I'll break it up so you can choose to read one section and not another. Highlight the white space to read what I've written.

Unanswered questions:
I've pored over enough interviews to be expecting certain things that were never delivered in this book.

What did Dudley see when the Dementors attacked him?
Who does magic late in life?
What was the veil?
Why did we get so many subtle references to time that never paid off? For that matter, what was up with the constant references to hurt fingers?
If Regulus drowned in the cave, how did Lupin know he was dead and how many days he'd stayed alive after leaving the Death Eaters?
How did the Potters defy Voldemort three times?
Weren't we supposed to see more of Ginny Weasley's power?
Why were Harry's eyes so important? Just to reinforce that Snape would see Lily every time he looked at Harry?

Pacing:
I read a few reviews that claimed the pacing was really fast, but I thought the story dragged in several spots. There were chapters and chapters of Harry and Hermione just sitting around doing nothing, and then all of Snape's back story was revealed in about five pages. Come on! I deserve better than that!

Epilogue:
ARGH. You have GOT to be kidding me. This is what she's been hiding in a vault for the past 17 years? Sorry, but this was really lacking.

Revealed Secrets:
I figured most of these out, thanks to my scrutiny of the earlier books. I even knew what the last Horcrux was, despite the fact that it had never been described before HP7. Something about the subtle reference in book six made me take note, and as soon as they mentioned Ravenclaw's crown I knew I was right. That felt good.

But I was incredibly wrong about Harry being a Horcrux. I thought there was no way this was possible, and I scoffed at people who clung to the theory. It turned out that they were exactly right. Honestly, I have no idea how they figured this out, because it seemed so incredibly unlikely to me. A Horcrux created by accident that can be destroyed without physically destroying the object it's in? Please explain to me how this is possible, because I don't get it. I've spent so much time convincing myself that it wasn't real that I really don't understand how this could work. The only thing I can come up with is that it is related to the look of triumph: Harry can't die because Voldemort is still alive, so the only thing that can die is that bit of soul.

Deaths:
I do not get upset when characters die, because the deaths are supposed to add something to the story. I am confused about Lupin, Tonks and Fred, though: their deaths moved the story along only to show that nobody would be safe, and we'd had plenty of that already when Mad-Eye died.

I'm not sure what the point of creating Tonks was. She was a great character in book 5 (although just a bit player in the movie) but it seems like she had no real role and could have been pulled out of the story without missing a beat. Cindy says she thinks Tonks' role was to show Lupin that he could be loved, but I still think there needs to be a bigger purpose than this. Any of the other characters could have done that.

Overall:
Yes, I sound really negative, but I really did like the book. I think I just need to wait for an interview with JKR to explain some of my lingering questions. This probably won't happen unless she does another interview with The Leaky Cauldron, so I won't be holding my breath. On the other hand, I can look forward to many more stories that "break" the news that she came up with the story on a train, wrote in coffee shops and never told anyone the story for 17 years. (Way to go, Mainstream Media!) It is not the best of the series -- "Prisoner of Azkaban" has always been my favourite -- but I did enjoy it. Now I will have to go back over the other six to find all of the clues I missed along the way.

END OF SPOILERS (but no promises about the comments box).

Charming witches is more than just wandwork

I really ought to stay away from the religious nutcases, but if I did, I'd have to shut Uriel down, and that would be no fun at all.

I can never get over the crazy people who pop up every time a new Harry Potter book comes out, and I closely follow the antics of parents who try to ban the books from local schools. They really don't seem to understand that the spells don't actually work and that they are the only ones who think it is real.

I knew that the series would end with voluntary self-sacrifice to save others. This is not just because I am a geek who studied previous books; it is also because I am a geek who read every JK Rowling interview I could get my hands on. She has often been asked how she feels about the crazies, but she usually gives a very pat answer about the books being fiction. But one day she said something different. The interviewer had asked if she was a Satanist or some such nonsense, and she responded that she was a Christian and that knowing that, anyone who had read the books should be able to figure out where the story was going.

I'm going to give my readers a little more time to finish the book before I talk about the details. Yes, I will be doing that: you have been warned.

If I squeeze you too hard, God knows I'll break you

Well, it's over. I have finished the last Harry Potter book. I waited at the bookstore for hours last night with Fisher and a few other adults, but mostly a bunch of kids. Yes, I felt a little bit geeky, but I gave up any pretensions of being cool long ago.

It took me eight hours to finish it. I am not going to give away plot details here, but if you do not want to read anything about the book, STOP RIGHT NOW. This is especially important if you have talked to me about theories, because I am going to discuss my reaction to the book.




I mean it.




Since you're still here, I'm going to assume that you are taking on responsibility for not being spoiled. In fact, if you're worried about learning the ending, I'd advise you to stay off the Internet until you've finished the book.

I've been a fan for years now. One of those weirdo fans who searches for clues and is openly mocked, even by friends. I've had theories for years and have scoured the earlier books, looking for hints to the ending. So I wasn't really caught up in the recent backlash against the New York Times when the paper printed an early review of the book. I already had a pretty good sense of what would happen. The only thing I learned from the review was what the Deathly Hallows were, and this wasn't a huge blow.

But I definitely had my theories, and I knew that today it would all be over. I resisted the temptation to jump to the back of the book. I admit: I did look at some early spoilers, but I found them very unsatisfying. There were lists of characters who would die, but all of the lists were different, so there was no way to know which was right. In any case, the list does no good to anyone who likes to read: what's important is how the death moves the plot along. I had a list in my head anyway, and I was reasonably certain that I was right, based on clues in the earlier books.

Well, I was right about many things, but incredibly wrong about one of the biggest issues that has been batted around ever since book six. Actually, when book six came out, there were five big questions:

1. Who is RAB?
2. Is Dumbledore really dead?
3. Is Snape evil?
4. Is Harry a Horcrux?
5. What's the last Horcrux, and where is it?
   

I was convinced that I knew the answers to all five questions. It turns out that I got four out of five right. Well, to be totally honest, I wasn't convinced on one of the questions. I was reasonably certain, though, and with this one, I think that's as far as anyone could have gone. My geekiness has paid off. Yes, there was a gleam of triumph in my eye as each secret was revealed.

However, I got the ending wrong. Through years of study, I had worked out the pattern the books were taking, and had a general sense of how it MUST end and how it would have to happen. I solidified this into a theory of how the climactic scene would end. If I do say so myself, it was a pretty good theory that strung together several of the loose ends that had never been really explained but that I was reasonably sure I had figured out.

Unfortunately, I was wrong. Not about the pattern or the loose ends or how the end would come, but my theory about the scene was wrong. This is hard to take, because I was very sure. It is related to my error from the five big questions: I was so sure about that one that I got the ending wrong. Yes, I am a bit annoyed with myself.

I also got the list of deaths wrong. I had used clues to work out a list of people who would die, and I was very close, but missed a few and guessed a few others incorrectly. This is sort of spoilery, so if you want to see my list, highlight the space below. I repeat: this is NOT a list of the people who actually die, it is the list of people I thought would die.

Voldemort: Duh.
Snape: I had an elaborate theory about how this would happen.
Lupin: I thought that all of the Marauders would be dead at the end of the series.
Wormtail: He has to repay his life debt to Harry.
At least one of the Weasleys, with my money on Ginny: There are so many of them that it seemed at least one of them had to go, and I thought Ginny was the logical choice because she's Harry's girlfriend and because of a clue in book five.
Draco: I thought he would run away from the Death Eaters and be killed.
Hagrid: It just seemed like Hagrid's time to go.

And now it's all over. No more theories and no more clues. I'm not sure how to feel.

Congratulations, Sean and Adrienne

______________________________

A note about this video that is completely unrelated to today's festivities but will be seared into my brain as long as I live:

I first saw this video when I was about sixteen. My best friend throughout high school was a second-generation Brit whose mother and grandparents had moved to Bay Roberts years earlier. She was a huge fan of Rowan Atkinson, and was keen to show me samples of his stand-up comedy.

But there was a catch.

You see, before I was allowed to watch the video, I had to answer a skill-testing question that had stumped her, her mom and her grandmother but that she was fairly certain I would know: "What's fellatio?"

It just so happened that I did know what it was, but I was not keen to broadcast this. Fifteen years later, I still get a long way on I don't know what that is and I think you can get germs from doing that. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what to make of the fact that she had no doubt that I would be able to shed some light on this matter, but I suppose that is a post for another day.

In any case, I explained quickly and without much detail. She silently got up from the couch and walked into the dining room, where her mother and grandmother were playing cards next to the baby grand: "Megan knows what it is."

The spotlight burns a hole in me

Boy, it's hard to be me, especially with all of the criticism about what is and is not on the blog. Here I am, trying to reflect community standards so I don't cross any of the invisible indecency lines, but it's really difficult. Apparently Maggie Gyllenhaal's breast is OK, but Paris Hilton's man-boob is not what readers want to see.

You know, it's hard to read minds. Fortunately, my prudish critic has let us know what he would like to see in the blogosphere. And as always, I am doing my best to keep up with the requests.

Yes, I know what you think of me; you never shut up.

Apparently, some of my readers *coughGlencough* are too prudish to be able to handle a picture of Paris Hilton's naked breast at the top of the blog. I live to serve my committed readers (even those who probably should be committed), so this post should be welcome.

Things Paris Hilton makes me wonder

1. When everyone in the entire world has seen her vagina, how can there still be a market for photos of this woman's nipple slips?

2. Is this a market I could get in on, considering that:
a) my breasts are larger than hers;
b) Glen says I don't have the proper physical characteristics to be a Hoffette; and
c) the Girls Gone Wild guy is still in jail?

3. Is it really a nipple slip when she has obviously pulled her top down to pose for some guy with a camera?

If you turn your other cheek to me, you'll find a place to radiate

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle.

Today’s episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Hey, you can’t do that! Misleading pictures are OUR business!

My American readers may have seen a new TV series about ice-road truckers. The series was filmed during the winter and follows truckers as they drive from Name of Town Withheld to the diamond mines several hundred miles away.

Ice roads are distinctly northern. I assume they have them in Alaska, too, but I think of them as Canadian. There are no permanent roads to many communities, so when the rivers and lakes freeze, they become temporary roads.

These roads are not hundred-mile ice slicks; they are built in a way that keeps vehicles from sliding around too much. However, there are always dangers: driving too fast or too close to another vehicle can weaken the road. Ice thickness is checked often to make sure that the road is as safe as possible. The road is flooded with water, then graded and flooded again to thicken the ice. When you drive over it, the road can jiggle up and down like Jell-O. Big trucks can jackknife or even fall right through the ice.

So I’m not surprised that producers would want to do a reality show about these truckers. They work in conditions harder than you or I could imagine. If their trucks break down and they have no heat, they can quickly freeze to death all alone on the ice.

The CBC, naturally, is interested in this show. I suspect that they wish they had had the idea first (something about a mandate to reflect Canada to Canadians), but in any case they are out of the running now. Instead, they’ve been interviewing people who worked on the show. I always like these interviews because I am a geek who likes to peer into the guts of programming.

During my morning coffee I was treated to an interview with the producer of the show. It was standard stuff until the interviewer established that the scary shots of trucks falling through the ice were not, in fact, shot by the production team while filming the show. That led to this question: Don’t you think that’s a bit misleading? I mean, the people who maintain that road take safety really seriously.

Hmmm. What an interesting question! You see, I’ve seen those images, too. Many, many times. I wonder who filmed those shots and who would be replaying them over and over on the supper-hour news. It couldn’t be CBC, could it? Definitely not – that would be misleading! It must have been the reality show’s production team. They probably also filmed the historical shots of people fixing giant scary-looking holes in the road years ago. The CBC would never mislead people into thinking that the road is unsafe and then re-sell the footage, especially not when the engineers who work on the road take safety really seriously. No, that’s what trashy reality-show producers do. Not the national broadcaster. They’re above all of that.

I'm a fisherman's son, got fisherman's ways. I fished with my father in my young days.