phishtaper

is the person on the right a guy in drag? if so, i must give stevie credit for being progressive.

saw that one too. he's quite entertaining in a geeky kinda way. he also opened for the Stones a couple of years ago at the skydome, but we only "saw" him from backstage on the monitors. he sounded good, though. i'd recommend him. the music is great. his dancing? well ...

... and at Hamilton Place on Monday December 3rd too. on sale now.

A systematic review (the gold standard of medical research) about aspartame was published last week in Critical Reviews in Toxicology. The authors reviewed hundreds of studies published since 1980 and found no scientifically credible support for the charge that the artificial sweetener is related to human cancers, despite widespread common misconception that it is. While aspartame (Nutrasweet, Equal) has been linked to bladder problems in lab rats, there is no credible evidence that it causes cancer in humans (completely different bio-mechanism). [The study only examined aspartame, not sucralose (Splenda), so there is no comment on it.] I can email the pdf of the article to anyone who is interested, although it is massive (100 pages). It is one of the most comprehensive studies of its type ever produced. Also, it's not in this paper, but I looked into this a few years ago when a friend asked and the supposed worst culprit in artificial sweeteners - saccharin - was once again made available for human consumption in 2000 when the FDA delisted it as a carcinogen as it was found to unrelated to human cancers. The problem with this sort of situation is that once the idea is out there that something is harmful, its virtually impossible to change public (mis)understanding. So, according to the most up to date medical opinion, aspartame is not carcinogenic.

tried a new place last week called Affinity. its a vegetarian place with loads of real vegan dishes too and it was REALLY gooooood. its on John at Jackson. huge tea selection too.

wowser. a ryan adams show longer than 71 minutes? i guess nobody yelled out "sylvia plath!"

um, maybe I missed something, but isn't this obvious? I do like the term Dipper, though.

wimp. punks the world 'round hang their heads in shame.

the scissor sisters?

i have a naive question. what exactly is better about diesel? it certainly can't be the emissions because they are horrendous (honestly, I dont know how any diesel car would pass a regular emissions test). so, is it just that you generally get better mileage, and therefore use less gas? or, is it something in the way it is refined? inquiring minds want to know ...

Jamaica. I couldn't find it on any map or in any atlas. Oh well. It's over. Welcome to Jamaicarock is the title of an album by Bob Marley's son, Damian (Jr Gong) Marley.

does Vistek do repairs? it's just down Queen from Henry's. could be pricey too, though.

#281. Songs With Serial Killers or Mass-Murderers In the Song-Title (Either Their Real Name, or the Nick-Name They Go By In Their "Trade") 1. Dan Bern - Krautmeyer 2. Judas Priest - The Ripper 3. Kinky Friedman - The Ballad of Charles Whitman 4. Sufjan Stevens - John Wayne Gacy, Jr. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

#279 - the 12 song albums game's 12 greatest hits (cant pick your own submission) 1. George Michael - Careless Whisper (seems to be popular around these parts) 2. Frank Zappa - Billy the Mountain 3. Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up 4. David Sylvian - Orpheus 5. Red Peters - Ballad of a dog named Stains (Come Stains) 6. The Band - The Weight 7. nero - Breakline (with a horn section) 8. Radiohead - Paranoid Android 9. Rheostatics - Record Body Count 10. 11. 12.

where exactly does one buy a 3'2" tall pink latex bodysuit?

wow, i hope she's gonna be ok.

Constitutional academics have been debating this for decades.

ok, I now get that candidates either run locally in individual ridings and are elected as Local Members, or provincially by being on the party list and are elected as List Members. my point - and perhaps its more strategy than logistics - was that for the Green Party, for example, they would have a better chance of electing a List Member than a Local Member and should therefore field superstar candidates on the List (to attract provincial support via the Party/List vote), rather than fielding those superstars locally where they might not stand a great chance of winning. (In 2003, Green candidates only garnered 3rd place in 2 ridings ... although, presumably they would do better today as evidenced by the recent federal election). my hypothesis is based on the assumption that voters would split their two votes, ie., vote Liberal for their local candidate (in order to prevent the Tory from winning, old story) but also vote Green for their Party vote. so, regardless of how any party does locally, they could still pick up List Member seats. and of course, this will wreak havoc on pollsters' predictions. especially in close elections, where the List Member numbers could dictate who forms the government. i'd love to see this pass the referendum, it would be fascinating to see an electiin run using these rules. im not hopeful in it passing though, because people generally dont like change. although, a lot of people dont like the status quo now either. ps, thnx for the link, Kev. now we can use the correct terms.

i saw phish in hershey, pa. and the town smells like chocolate.

totally agree. have gotten some great tix via Friends pre-sales, for wilco, ron sexsmith, rheostatics, lots. and the memberships help to pay to keep this great historic place kicking.

so, if a candidate loses in a very close race, they are ineligble to go in via the topping list? sucks to be them? so, the party is essentially running two completely separate slates? one as per normal via individual ridings? and the other via the list? and 'ner the twain shall meet? that seems to kinda defeat part of the purpose in my mind, and would suggest that perhaps the Green Party should not run any of their good candidates in any riding, but just put them on the list.

well, is that even clear yet? is each party required a priori to post a list of those who would be chosen within their topping list? i wasnt under the impression that they would have to. but even if they did, they would just post the winnable names (to attract the general 'party' vote), but those same names would probably win their own ridings, so the party would then have to choose among those who didn't win their own ridings - including toxic defeated cabinet ministers. sorry, did that make sense?

I was at the Billy Bragg show at the old Forum at Ontario Place that night. Bragg was making jokes about the Corporate Mr. Smith and his big rock show.

its a pretty tiny towel LOL

good. what does greatest hits mean here?