Lawn carp.

I just got around to reading the Sunday Boston Globe, and there was an editorial about the problems cause by too many Canada geese. The editorial on page D10 isn’t available online any more but it had this observation:

…the thousands of Canada geese that befoul public playing fields, beaches, and golf courses throughout Greater Boston have taken on a verminous quakity. Many don’t bother to migrate and are so lazy that they have earned the name “lawn carp.”


But the ability of a single Canada goose to produce upwards of a pound of droppings per day has resulted in many a ruined outing for people who seek to enjoy the water’s edge.

I just can’t help thinking that there is a metaphor in there somewhere.

Virtual earths.

I had my first opportunity to check out Microsoft Virtual Earth. I’ve had Google Earth for a few weeks, and I’ve even tried out Google Moon.

While I can’t exactly put my finger on it, I just didn’t find Microsoft Virtual Earth as pleasant to use. The interface wasn’t as smooth, the mapping wasn’t as clear, and the satellite photos weren’t as close. Zooming in almost always resulted in a loss of image.

It just seems that Google is just doing whatever they damn well please, and having a great time. For example, try zooming in to Google Moon. On the other hand, Microsoft seems to be stuck playing a game of catch up, and not playing very well. I think they’re finding it a bit difficult to have other people calling the shots, and perhaps they have forgotten how to play the game.


I got my first tele-spam the other day. Somebody actually called me – my number is on my site. They asked me what I was doing to promote my website, and said that they could help me make more money. I told them I wasn’t interested.

Now I’m just waiting for calls about discount Cialis and cheap Windows software.

Nearly done.

We’re almost done but progressing much more slowly now, probably as a result of too many Mai Tais at the Tiki Lau last night. Though we have just assembled the Weber grill, so we are taking care of the important things. So I’m sitting out on the deck enjoying the fresh air right now.

You know just how relaxing it is being here when this is the most I can say after three days.

Still moving in.

We told our friends that we could have their whole house unpacked by the end of the day. Of course we’ve had a million errands to run, but we’re about 80% of the way done, and we even stopped to put in a new toilet.

Back in Massachusetts.

So we’re in Westford, Massachusetts. We’ve spent the afternoon helping our friends unpack, since the just got all of their belongings delivered today. Great pad thai for dinner too. It’s so nice to be back here. We’ve already bumped into some old friends.

I’ll have lots more to say when we’ve got full wireless broadband connection tomorrow.

What terrorism?

Andrew at Bound By Gravity, along with numerous other Canadian blogs, has much to say today about the CBC policy on use of the word ‘terrorism.’ The CBC, or Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is Canada’s public broadcaster. The policy makes this point (emphasis mine):

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a “terrorist act” unless it’s attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an “attack,” not as a “terrorist attack.” The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call “the Sept. 11 attacks” or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.

By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren’t faced with the problem of calling one incident a “terrorist act” (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere “bombing” (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).

So what does that leave? Attacks in the name of fashion aren’t terrorism?

Andrew makes a great point:

Look – I would be completely supportive of attempts by the media to use the English language in an appropriate fashion (i.e. not overusing words like “tragedy”), however this is a transparent attempt to remove the word “terrorist” from the reporting of… well…. terrorism. By all means don’t gratuitously call every single attack that occurs a “terrorist attack” (especially if evidence has not yet been found to link it to a terrorist organization), however do not purposefully avoid using the word “terrorism” in your reporting when it accurately describes the situation.

Also, the CBC clearly defines itself as a second rate news reporting organization not capable of actually defining the story with this comment:

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a “terrorist act” unless it’s attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web).

By that usage CBC is articulating that it will not write the news; it will merely report news that has already been attributed. Of course that always leaves them with someone to blame. I guess if you don’t hear the word “terrorism”, then it doesn’t exist.

Kate at small dead animals puts it so succinctly:

Memo To CBC. Islamofascism does not recognize “neutrality”. You have taken sides.


Off to Boston.

We’re heading home to Boston today to visit neighbors and friends, and to help some friends move into their new home. I am assured that they have a broadband connection, even though they don’t yet have television. So tomorrow’s postings will originate from Westford, Massachusetts. I can’t wait.