Like It Is

Before you read my new post below…

I’m off to England on Friday for a couple of weeks. Two wonderful weeks visiting home, family and friends. Yay! I’ve been looking forward to this for ages. We - Huzza and I - are counting the sleeps!

I’ll be checking in on Like It Is – as of course we’re going to have hi- speed Internet access – but I will be taking a break from my regular posting schedule. Well, that’s the plan, unless I find something I absolutely have to blog about. Like mothers with strollers on the Underground… heh! You never know. Seriously though, I’ll be out and about a lot and it’ll be really good to re-charge the batteries and just do whatever I want for two weeks.

And in fact I hope to be able to visit and read some of your blogs.

Keep up the conversations – and if you find anything you think I might want to blog about or that you might want to see us tackle, send along the link and your blog link if you have one. I’ll be posting a continuation of “No Kid” this week.

Merc and anyone who wants to… you’re on troll duty! Have a blast.

See you all after the 23rd!

Hurrah! Hurrah!! On Sunday July 1st at 6 a.m. GMT England joined the rest of the UK in banning smoking inside most public spaces – pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants, offices and factories. Great - and it’s about time too.

No more having to breathe in nasty, second-hand smoke from some smoker who doesn’t give a fig that I am inhaling their smoke – just so long as they can light up. No more going to a pub or restaurant – only to come home stinking of cigarette smoke, making it essential to wash all clothes worn as well as wash my hair.

My eyes won’t sting, and looking at my friends or partner won’t be done through an acrid blue haze will be a thing of the past. I won’t have to move away from overflowing ashtrays, or gingerly move them to the next table. I won’t have to brush ash from the seats. I won’t have that feeling that my food is coated in a liberal layer of second-hand smoke – ugh. And I won’t have to endure the “lighting up” persons who seat themselves next to or near to me, with me trying unsuccessfully to waft away their smoke drifting towards and over me. I won’t have to worry about whether second-hand smoke is going to affect my health sometime down the road. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: England, banning smoking

With a childfree person, who doesn’t like kids? Nope. In foster care? No. With a parent?

Sadly, yes.

If this horrifying report is to be believed, with its parents. The story should carry a health warning – e.g. contains graphic disturbing detail. Come to that, some parents ought to carry a health warning. Having kids is a no-brainer. Really, it is, because almost no thought is required. But ensuring they come to no harm from their “loving” parents appears to be a lot harder. Perhaps advising some people not parent at all should be mandatory, instead of pressuring everyone to reproduce and ruining the lives of countless children (and their subsequent children). But read Fury over child torture case and see what you think. This is my take.

Britain’s child protection services will face severe criticism this week, when a couple will be sentenced for torturing their four year old daughter, writes the Observer. (Yes, you read correctly).

Kimberley Harte, 23 and Samuel Duncan, 26, poured boiling liquid over the child’s hands, ripped out her hair, kicked her repeatedly in the groin and locked her in the toilet over seven terrifying weeks of the worst abuse experts said they had ever seen. Read the rest of this entry »

Beckham says his move to the US has nothing to do with money or celebrity. I’m inclined to believe him. David Beckham doesn’t need the money. I doubt he could spend all the money he gets in royalties alone in his life-time I hope he got some of that $250 million up front because I doubt he’s going to see most of it.

Galaxy owners defend Beckham move

So what is it all about? Huzza (that’s my husband) suggested a couple of things and it clicked.

Remember the summer? During the World Cup? Who did Becks hang out with during the World Cup? None other than TomKat. (aka Tom and Katie Holmes). Read the rest of this entry »

Each time I think I’ve heard it all, I come across something to remind me, that no, I most certainly have not heard it all. Far from it.

This story for example.

A convicted murderer, who is serving a life sentence is arguing that he has the right to father a child by artificial insemination. He and his wife got married in 2001. Wife is now 48 and free, having been in prison along with her husband.

But husband will be in jail until at least 2009. By which time wife will be 51 and, as far as the couple are concerned, she will be too old to conceive naturally. The prisoner himself is now 34. Apparently it has been argued that as the likelihood of natural conception for her will be low, she should be given access to IVF facilities. Immediately.

What is wrong with this picture? Read the rest of this entry »

“Emma Burnstall had her first baby in her 20’s, her second in her 30’s and her third in her 40’s”. The question the Guardian article asked is “What are the pros and cons of having three children over three decades?” Good question, although nowadays when I hear of people having more than a couple of children I sincerely hope they don’t in the next breath start blathering on about the environment, how it’s in danger and all they are doing to “save” it.

Burnstall does talk about several pros and cons, but I changed the question around and instead asked “how many fuckwitted, selfish reasons for having kids can you identify in this article?” But I offer you some assistance dear reader, (although you probably won’t need it) in identifying above mentioned fuckwittery and selfcentredness of Ms Burnstall.

I have selected excerpts that leapt out at me and really had me going as I read them. I’ve also added some thoughts responses of my own. The next time anyone calls a childfree person selfish, they should really be told exactly where to go.

You can read the original article in its entirety here courtesy The Guardian Online.

Here’s the quick and dirty summary:

She had one baby. Husband didn’t want another, but she talked him into it. Then she badly wanted a third baby so she “talked him into that one” too. And readers can now admire her or pity her (depending on your viewpoint) for having three kids in three decades even though she feels overall the kids have been the losers.

Following are the excerpts that I chose from Emma’s story. My responses are in bold and I’m sure you’ll have your own, feel free to add them in the usual way.

“My husband and I chose to have big gaps between our babies. It’s not that we sat down in our early 20s and planned out three children. Rather, our firstborn was a surprise, Read the rest of this entry »

Wow! I don’t know about you, but I always get excited about a brand new year. I say goodbye to the outgoing year that will soon be no more – with thanks for having come through it, and not too much dwelling on the fact that now we’re a year older – at the same time as I look forward to welcoming in the brand new year.

At work today, we left early, with everyone saying “Happy New Year and “See you you in 2007!” Then there’s the one minute before midnight, doing the countdown when we step from one year into another…

Being a Brit abroad, with my family in England I mark the start of the new year twice. At 7 pm in Canada it will already be 2007 in England and we’ll have wished everyone there a happy new year, before we celebrate the new year here in Toronto.

The New Year brings to mind those things.. called Resolutions. I don’t make new year resolutions because somehow I never ever managed to keep them in the past. For some strange reason fwhenever I made new year resolutions the action set up a corresponding and immediate invitation to break them. By the time March came around they’d be abandoned and forgotten them.

But I do review the year, what I’ve done, become, achiieved, what I’ve learned (or not) and set goals for the year, which I write down and review at intervals through the year.This really works for me. I’ve been doing this for several years now and have found that I achieve most of the goals I write down. It’s actually pretty amazing to look back during the year and see the goals I have achieved - that of course means I set new ones. The key for me is not merely thinking them, but writing them down and setting a time around them. There is something very powerful about writing down goals and intentions. I believe it sets in motion the elements of what is needed to bring the goal. And the journey is always interesting!

So what about you? How was 2006 for you? Did you have a high point? A low point? Surprises? Are you looking forward to 2007? Do you set goals? Or do you make resolutions? If you make resolutions, how well have you kept them? What works for you?

Wishing you a safe, happy and prosperous New Year!

Once upon a time, all a model would get out of bed for was to sashay down the runway. As long as they were doing what they did best (and preferably keeping their mouths shut) no one cared whether they were doing lines or modelling them.

Not anymore. Looks like a large part their energy appears to be being spent on keeping themselves from being thrown in the slammer. But it’s their own stupid fault of course. This time it’s Supermodel Ms Naomi Campbell who, though just 36, has a fiery temper of legend. Looks like her well known temper may actually land her in jail in the not too distant future, unless she again manages to dredge up some more remorse for flying into one of her now-famous rages.

Ms Campbell was told she was “absolutely obliged” (translation: turn up or else) to be at Manhattan Criminal Court on November 15 over the accusations by her (latest) maid that she allegedly threw a mobile phone at her. Her maid needed four stitches. The mobile phone was said to be a diamond encrusted Blackberry. Hello? A diamond encrusted Blackberry!? Wonder if the diamonds are round the screen or the keyboard? I’d love to see one myself. But I digress…

If Naomi doesn’t appear in court in November a warrant will be issued for her arrest. She was already arrested in March this year. Yet this is this is not the first time the supermodel has been in trouble over her “temper tantrums”. And it surely isn’t possible that ALL her maids and assistants are lying.

In February 2000 Ms Campbell pleaded guilty to an assault charge for beating her assistant with a telephone while making a film in Canada in 1998. She expressed remorse for the assault (though she wasn’t in court to enter the plea) and was released without punishment or a criminal record. She was ordered to take anger management classes. In August 2005, Ms Campbell was questioned for assault of a fellow model in Rome.

Those anger management classes clearly didn’t work very well. Ms Campbell might want to ask for a refund.

She’s already denied second degree assault for the latest charge. If she’s convicted she could face up to seven years in prison.Maybe that isn’t such a bad way of teaching someone you just can’t go around bopping people with your bloody phone every time you get pissed off about something they say. Chances are though she has a good lawyer… for starters he might gently encourage her to attend her next court appearance. He’ll be fully clad in protective gear of course – and all telephones (fixed and portable) should be removed from the premises. Just to be on the safe side. Or at least be well out of missile throwing range…

But wait – perhaps the problem isn’t Naomi’s at all. Perhaps it’s all the fault of the telephones, since they now look to be the weapon of choice for temperamental, out of control and otherwise-challenged celebrities.

Remember Russell Crowe?

Source: Times Online

Who said cocaine is bad for your career? Not, it appears, if you are Teflon girl Kate Moss.

Less than 12 months after revealing pictures of Kate Moss allegedly snorting cocaine were sensationally reported in the press in September 2005, resulting in the loss of several major modelling contracts – Kate is back. Along with billionaire Sir Peter Phillips, Kate, known to be a style icon, is now creating a new fashion range for Topshop, one of the UK’s biggest and most successful fashion retailers.

Not only is she back, her profile has reached even dizzier heights than before, with her annual income estimated to have risen to about 30 Million uk pounds. More than enough for several lines. Fashion lines. What else?

Now, you might ask, how is this possible? Where are all those bleating, sorry, hypocritical, sorry big fashion names that hastily dropped Kate on the cocaine allegations protesting (albeit reluctantly) that having a coke-head modelling for them was bad for business because it might send the wrong message? Well, I’d guess that they are all in line with blank cheque books waiting patiently to sign her up (again) for, oh, probably around double her usual asking price. But if, perchance I am wrong, plenty of others are lined up. Ms Moss isn’t going to run out of work anytime soon.

By the way Chanel and Burberry were two fashion houses who said, according to reports, that they would no longer be working with Kate Moss. Burberry, according to reports in 2005 said that it was to end its association with the model following the cocaine allegations. Considering Burberry was one of the first to say “how high?” when Ms Moss said “jump” hypocritical doesn’t really come close.

According to the Business section on BBC News Ms Moss is currently featured in at least 15 major campaigns for clients, including Rimmel, Agent Provocateur, Virgin Mobile, Dior, Luis Vuitton, Roberto Cavalli, Stella McCartney, Bulgari, Chanel, Nikon, Versace, Calvin Klein Jeans and Burberry.

Now that’s a coup that must make even Madonna shake her head and wonder where she went wrong. Probably just by being Madonna, but that’s a whole other story and we won’t go there.

As a recovery stage from drug use allegations the Topshop deal certainly takes some beating. Far more serious for some, however, might be the the fact that Kate Moss is credited with sparking the return of the skinny jean, mini dresses and hot pants. If this particular allegation is true, resign yourself to them being around for a long, long time.

I am no fan of the Pope, nor the Catholic church. But the recent hoop-la by some Muslims over his speech about religion and violence had me thinking that on this one, he had a point.

Strikingly reminiscent of the Danish cartoon furore, where over a hundred people died in the frenzied reaction to the cartoons, once again we had some Muslims violently protesting, demanding apologies, fire-bombing Christian churches, burning an effigy of the Pope, and issuing veiled threats of death and destruction.

When I read the now familiar headline “Muslim World Angered…” I thought, here we go again. Whether or not the Pope’s decision to quote the 14th Century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleaologus speech to illustrate the contradiction between religion and holy war was the right one will no doubt occupy the intellectuals for months to come. They’ll have a field day.

The fact is, if you read the entire speech, what he said (quoted) was taken out of context and blown up into yet another reason for some reactionary zealots to show their worst side. And of course it seems the Western Media (and yes, sadly the BBC is among the ringleaders) is only to happy to assist them in doing so, focusing air time on the rabble-rousers, the angry protesters and vapid talking heads, even implying that the Pope should apologise, while the moderates keep silent – as usual.

The contradiction the Pope was referring to also applies to Christianity. In other words, violent conversion of another to any faith goes against God’s nature. If anyone was interested, his points were open to debate. This weekend’s extreme reactions, around the world, particularly in the Muslim Press show that many Muslims and their leaders have no interest in any such debate. Debate is forbidden. Almost with one voice they united in attacking the Pope’s speech. Some of the reactions in Muslim papers in Pakistan are truly alarming:

This from Pakistan’s NAWA-I-WAQT

“We say people like the Pope should not get involved in such provocation without reason. This statement is a warning of serious danger in the future. In this situation, if Muslims fail to unite for protection of their religion and natural resources, they will face serious repercussions”.

Hmm. I thought what the Pope was saying was that religion doesn’t justify violence.

Or this from HUSAYN SHABAKSHI IN LONDON-BASED AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT

“If the new Pope’s manners remain the same, the Catholic church will be subject to upheavals that it has never seen before… It is up to the wise men in the Catholic church to rectify the stance and make a prompt apology in order to resolve a hot issue”.

Or what? They’ll all be blown up? There’ll be stabbings?

You can read more reactions from the Muslim press on the BBC web site.

To me, it seems clear that this is a head on clash between nations that encourage religious diversity and those that practice religious intolerance; those who favour and welcome open debate and those who think free speech should not be tolerated – except, of course, if it’s criticism of Christians and Jews in the Muslim press.

I wonder, is every speech, everything governments and people do now to be edited and censored for fear of offending the easily offended “Muslim World” and seeing the now common eruptions into violent protest? Are we going to allow Muslim zealots to impose restrictions on free speech in the West? We are in big trouble if we allow that to happen.

Whether or not the Pope knew of the hornets nest he was stirring up there was nothing inappropriate, taken in context, in what he said. The question isn’t whether what he said offended Muslims. That much is obvious. The question is whether he is right that there is a debate to be had.

The Pope has apologised that his remarks caused such offence to Muslims. Predictably, they are saying that isn’t enough. They are demanding a retraction.  I for one hope he isn’t pushed into giving one.