centre of the universe - the dreaming: I didn't sign up for this, Steve.

08/26/2008: "I didn't sign up for this, Steve." Hey Steve. How's it going? Feeling a little pressure in the Big House, are you? At least, that's what Stephane Dion wants me to believe. Just between you and me, I think that guy's a total prat. Which is unfortunate, because I'm pretty sure you know that, and I'm fairly certain you know that if you call an election for this fall, there's no way in hell that anyone in their right mind would want him leading the country....listen, I'll have to tell you my grand conspiracy theory about Stephane Dion another time, okay, because there are a few more pressing things on my mind I'd like to talk to you about.

What's that? Jack Layton? Are you serious? No, I'd never vote for him. I'd sure vote for his party, but unless he shows up on voting day wearing a Batman uniform and handing out matrimonial squares out of his utility belt, there's a good chance you won't get too much of a run for you money from him, either. I have another theory about the federal NDP, and it involves quite a lot of gin. But look, there's something I really want to talk to you about.

(Sigh) No, Steve, you're right. I can't vote for the Parti Quebecois. That's right. Because I don't live there. Uh-huh. Look, maybe the Marijuana party, okay? Or those dudes who think they can fly. That's who I'm going to vote for.

I need to talk to you a little bit about some of the stuff you've been up to. I know you thought nobody was going to notice all the crazy little things you've done over the summer...we all just figure that nobody actually *reads* the paper on summer vacation, right? Because it gets real soggy in the pool. Well, here's the thing. A while back, you mentioned you were going to cut a pretty cool sounding arts program, and I thought "you know, I'm not surprised. I'm disappointed, but not surprised." And then I read that you're cutting federal funding and support (and possibly some regulation) for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have to tell you, man, that's utterly idiotic. Really, really stupid. Can't you fire some senators or something and get the money you need for your dream vacation to Washington, DC that way?

I don't want to sound like a nervous nellie here, but with that Canadian Food Inspection Agency thing...cutting funding for the folks who test for mad cow disease and things like listeriosis seems, well, not to put too fine a point on it, Steve, it's just really dumb. Really, truly dumb. Sure, you can offload the responsibility for stuff like this to the private sector, and hope, as your government representative was quoted as saying (although I'm paraphrasing) that they'll do the right thing and do it well. But let's just see...isn't that the M.O. for Maple Leaf foods, whose tainted meat products have resulted in a dozen deaths already? Surely to goodness there's a way to make Canada's food supply *more* safe with more stringent government-mandated requirements?

I'm still not over that whole Tom Lukiwski affair, Steve. You should have fired the guy. I think he's a dolt in the first place; not enough grey matter to light a diode. And, for the record, you broke your promise on equalisation. You can equivocate about it all you want, but it boils down to you did not do what you said you would. You did something *similar* to what you said you'd do, but if I tell my kids, "I'm taking you for ice cream" and we go to the cod liver oil store instead, well, it's true we've gone on an outing, but the devil's in the details, isn't it?

Then there's the whole private members' bill loosely tied to foetal rights that you're trying to distance yourself from. Really, I don't care if you're personally dead-set against the right a woman has to choose what happens to her own body. I don't care if you're the world's biggest anti-reproductive-rights activist. What *you* think, ultimately, Steve, really doesn't matter. It's what you choose to do for Canada that concerns me.

That brings me to the point I was trying to make for today, actually. I'm really pissed off about the huge cuts (and when I say huge, I mean more than $40 million in cuts to funding for arts and culture) that you're proposing. More than proposing. Making. In an already tenuous relationship with the people who make life worth living in Canada, you're making things worse. Culture, Steve, is more than hockey; and arts is more than Celine Dion and Cirque du Soliel. Although, arguably, neither Celine Dion nor Cique du Soliel would be as successful as they are without lots...LOTS...of support from the government (and in this case, most likely the lions' share of that support came from the Quebec provincial government, which funds arts and culture like it's *not* going out of style).

I have heard from a couple of sources (His Nibs and Father Nibs specifically, but anecdotally from other sources) that Canada's economy is heading toward the shitter. Honestly, this doesn't surprise me, since we insist on tying our own economy so closely to that of the Yanks'. I don't know much about foreign policy, and I know even less about national economics and financing. I don't know all the reasons our economy is, if you'll pardon the expression, crappy. But listen; this is what I'm concerned about - arts and culture employs more people in this country than agriculture, manufacturing, research, and almost every other sector in Canada. For every dollar of government money spent on arts and culture, three dollars are generated. However, the nature of the beast is that if that government money isn't there to support the creators and the historians and the paleontologists and the curators and the collections managers and the project directors, you're not going to generate those three dollars because you won't be able to reach the people you need to reach.

You know, I hear a lot of people say "I shouldn't have to pay my tax dollars for ugly paintings." And others whining that their hard-earned money goes to support galleries and dance troups which they may never visit. We've had this discussion before, Steve, between them and me, and ultimately, we agree to disagree. But, and this is the kicker....very, very, *very* few of the people i know who've said that are currently employed by organisations that receive arts and culture funding. Very, very few of them are creators. Some of them are married to, or related to, people who are involved in the arts and in culture, and most of these friends of mine *do* choose to support arts and culture by attending galleries and symphonies and folk music festivals. So yeah, the genesis for the majority of this chat is that what you're doing directly affects my family's livelihood. I am a productive member of this society; I earn a living, I pay my taxes (I pay an AWFUL lot of taxes, Steve), and, just to be brutally honest, I didn't vote for you nor for your party.

So you're certainly not speaking for me. Or even to me. Or even, at this point, near me. But what you are doing is talking *about* me, and you don't even know it. And that's why this is so aggravating; because by cutting that $1 Million specifically, you're endangering my job, my home, my children, and my future.

Thanks for fucking up My Canada, Prime Minister Harper.

Oh, and pardon the language. Chalk it up to cultural expression. Free of charge.

"There is no sweeter music" "Tramontane"

21 Comments

melistress , on Tuesday, 26th August:

Now that's a post! I think I am in the agree to disagree group, however I do believe that arts and culture are important...just not more important than health care, child care, and many many many other places that affect the health and welfare of my family and myself. If you take away arts and culture it will be pretty sad. I likely would have no forms of entertainment beyond shoving my own thumb up my butt, but I would go on because I would have my health...at least physically. Money needs to go to the places that keep this country and its citizens running. Of course that includes some money to the arts, but you know my argument about that and it is unlikely to change.

This election, if it happens, however...wow...what do you do? We certainly don't vote for Stephen Harper. Stephane Dion was the biggest mistake the Liberal ever made. I really know very little about Jack Layton but there are many who believe that he is some sort of closet monster. So what do we do? Who do we vote for? Green has a good platform but they don't have the representation to back it up and make them look like anything other than a big bunch of flakes. I'm at a loss...it is important to vote as all votes count in their strange little way, but what do you do when all roads lead to hell?

senatorhung , on Wednesday, 27th August:

bravo, bravo dear ceno !!

as for priorities of arts vs. health care, the amount spent on health totally dwarfs that spent on the arts. $40 million applied to health costs wouldn't even pay for band aids.

between these arts cuts and the bill c-61 that prentice stupidly allowed to be introduced on his watch, i know that regardless of my reservations regarding dion or layton, one of them will get my vote (whichever one fields the most sensible candidate in nelson).

melistress , on Wednesday, 27th August:

I KNOW that it wouldn't pay for band-aids. :-) However, this is what happens when enough retards in the country vote for someone promising tax cuts etc. The money has to come from somewhere to support the things that we just can't do without. In the event that you are an idiot like Steven Harper (which I assume you are not) and you have made tax cuts but then realize that we actually need to PAY for some things with the money that is no longer there, where would YOU make the budget cuts? And don't tell me you would lower your salary because no one in their right mind anywhere would do that...not matter how high their moral standards. The whole idea of having a job is to make money. Bottom line, there is going to be more people indifferent to the cuts to arts and culture than to any other program. No matter where the cuts are someone is going to be bitching somewhere.

Personally...I would cut sports funding. ;-) I actually like the arts.

cenobyte , on Wednesday, 27th August:

I wouldn't cut sports funding at all. Sports are a really really important part of my kids' lives, and of mine (vicariously). Sports are already sadly, horribly underfunded; particularly minor sports.

I would cut huge tax breaks for large corporations and increase taxes for super high incomes. And I'd fire all the senators (not the hockey team) who didn't show up for work for more than 25% of their scheduled time.

Parmeisan , on Wednesday, 27th August:

I would probably spend more money on the people whose job it is to spend my money in each area - and attend them personally every so often. I think some very poor decisions are being made by people who figure, "with $74.6 million dollars to spend, how careful do I really have to be?" And I know that doesn't happen all across the board and I know some people are responsible no matter how much you give them (my dad was an accountant fairly high up in the government at one point, and I trust *him*) but on the other hand once you give someone that much, they've got to start delegating too, and at some point you end up with an idiot somewhere. I highly suspect that, much as I hate bureaucracy when I'm in it, if we had more people whose job it was to watch the other people, we'd start to see less *need* for all that funding in certain areas.

melistress , on Wednesday, 27th August:

That's a good thought Parmeisan...however those people cost more money...the higher you go on the babysitting scale and the more responsibility you have, the higher your pay. So your thought is that we need more managers? I'm not sure that would save us a lot of money since a lot of money for these programs is already being spent on managers. Then we get the problem with too many people managing and not enough people doing because we are spending the money on hospital administrators rather than nurses.

I like the senator firing, cenobyte...however that does not solve the money issue because those senators would just be replaced with other senators...so you really aren't cutting anything other than dead weight. In regards to cutting the tax breaks for corporations and higher taxes on high incomes...well...lets put it this way...the country needs leaders...the politician who cuts these tax breaks cuts off funding to his party...which means the party cuts him after he loses the next election due to lack of campaign funding and lack of votes. Ideally, great idea...but in reality...political suicide and I don't think it will ever happen. Unfortunately, big business has a hand in every pocket in this country. This is the ultimate corruption in our democratic system.

So perhaps I will rephrase the question...where would you make cuts and still keep your job? Or would you be a martyr for the citizens of Canada to keep their Arts and Culture funding? Would you sacrifice the roof over your heads and the food on your children's plates for it? If so, please run in the election next week so I can vote for you. :-)

The Ms. S , on Wednesday, 27th August:

Yes, sadly, it's a lackluster choice in leaders this go 'round. You have to wonder what the parties were thinking when they picked these guys.

It may be a case of having to vote for the 'party' that generally best represents your personal ideology and hope the tail can wag the dog.

The thing is - do vote.

cenobyte , on Wednesday, 27th August:

M: Pfeh. Senators piss me off. What do they actually *do*?

I don't think it's necessarily political death to increase taxes to big corporations any more than it would be to increase taxes to ridiculously wealthy people. But you know, they say I'm a dreamer....but I'm not the only one...

If sacrificing *my* job (which certainly isn't a $1 Million/year position, much less a $44 Million/year position, as much as I'd like it to be, it just isn't) meant that the government *would never* cut that funding, and would, in fact, increase funding to Arts and Culture, then yes, I would quit my job. However, it's silly to think I'm *that* important...although...no, no. It's silly.

Here are some places I would start, with the 2008 Federal Budget as an example:

$122 million over two years to implement a new vision for the federal correctional system. - implement a vision? What the hell does that mean? You're paying over $100 million for a bunch of consultants and managers to make pretty flow charts and duotang reports that says "what we're doing isn't working. We need to change it. Let's start executing people again; that'll solve our problem!"? Bah. Vision this.

$450 million over three years to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION? Couldn't you spare fifty million out of that in Canada to fight idiocy by funding the arts?

$14 million over two years to expand the joint Canada-U.S. NEXUS program for low-risk frequent travellers. WTF?

$26 million over two years to facilitate the processing of visas and enhance border security through the use of biometric data. BIOMETRIC DATA!??? "We will build your visa better...faster...stronger..." - what, like retinal scans and fingerprints and body cavity searches aren't enough??

$29 million over two years for initiatives under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. What the hell is the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and why is it being funded to the tune of nearly $30 million when Heritage Canada is withdrawing funding from museums and historical education programs?

Over $1 billion in tax relief for the auto sector by 2012-13. Over one billion. ONE BILLION.

Budget 2008 is investing $24 million over two years to assist with the further development of tourism-related infrastructure at strategic ports of call along the St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers to enhance their appeal as destinations for the global cruise ship market. Oh, good one, Canada. Invest over twenty million dollars in regional tourism for a tiny part of the country. That does shitloads for arts and culture in the rest of the country.

A $1.257-billion Public-Private Partnerships Fund (P3 Fund), a unique infrastructure program designed to support innovative P3 projects.

...and that's just a few places I might look.
[incidentally, the 2008 Federal Budget promised $170 million over two years to improve the safety of food and natural health products and to heighten awareness of the links between pollution and illness. And they've just cut a bunch of programs that do just that. Brilliant.]

melistress , on Wednesday, 27th August:

Ok...you got me on the tax cuts for the auto sector...again, though...that plays to the whole party financial support. Sigh...

I think it is high time to take a good look at the rest of these expenditures, with the exception of the new vision for the correctional system. As there are many many residents of the Q'appelle Valley right now shaking in their shoes because of the five dangerous inmates who have just escaped. What that vision entails would be interesting to know.

And yeah, probably not a good time to call an election when a dozen people are dead from the lack of safety of food and natural health products and the whole country knows he just made cuts to that.

Thank you for enlightening me. Now I will see what these things even are so that I can decide for myself what priority they should have (in my own mind, as I obviously don't speak for everyone).

Parmeisan , on Wednesday, 27th August:

I don't mean managers. At least, I don't think I do. I know what I'm saying sounds a whole lot like managers. I think I just mean accountants, though. People who know what they're doing. And Cenobyte. I would hire a swack of Cenobytes to look through things and say "WFT?" - because it really, really needs to be said, and the Government is turning into George Lucas**.

** George Lucas' problem is that he's surrounded by people who are afraid to tell him when he's got a bad idea. We need more people who can look through the budget and not be afraid to say "Hold it! Why are we doing that? That's a BILLION DOLLARS."

Parmeisan , on Wednesday, 27th August:

I mean, "WTF". WFT can also be said, but it doesn't have the same effect.

Also, my "Are you a robot" check just now was ninjas. OK, it wasn't, but it *was* niys5j6, and if you can look at that and not see ninjas, then I feel sorry for you.

senatorhung , on Friday, 29th August:

um, i think parmeisan is referring to *auditors* rather than accountants. sheila fraser has done a bang up job going up to nunavut each year and each time has berated the nunavut government over yet another scandalous fiscal failure.

as for cuts, i would agree with cenobyte about the auto industry subsidy or another other subsidy for an industry which hasn't seen fit to move with the times (see movie and record companies for one glaring example). i'm all in favour of paying for transportation infrastructure, but autos and highways are not the be all and end all.

when i was a government bureaucrat with budgetary control, i hit my budget targets every year for 6 years with no overspending. but i'm weird that way. there needs to be some mechanism or incentive to ensure that any program funding left over at the end of the fiscal year is not just spent on filling up the supply closet with office supplies.

der kaptin , on Friday, 29th August:

It amuses me the way some people say "I'm all in favour of the arts..." just to show they aren't cretins, but then they come up with some nonsense like "would you rather have the arts or healthcare" or "I just don't think my tax dollars should support it." WTF? Why is it always the arts vs health care? Why doesn't anyone ever say "what would you rather have, 6 billion dollars in more tanks, or more health care?" Of course, the arts are actually part of CREATING GOOD HEALTH. As Monique Begin said so succinctly just yesterday "(the health care system) doesn't CREATE health, it just tries to fix it." It's time to put some dollars into the social (including arts and culture) and economic conditions that actually create health, rather than pouring it all into the bottomless pit of drug company greed and unnecessary doctor's appointments of the sickness industry.

The other thing that amuses me is people who vow support for all the people-positive issues championed by the NDP, yet for some reason always go out of their way to say something vague and shitty about Jack Layton and the party. Do you have anything specific to complain about? Or are you just sucking up to the family/friends who would scorn/shun you if you came out and admitted that you support the only party that feels the way you do about nearly everything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0GS_X9hYII

cenobyte , on Friday, 29th August:

DK: As for me personally, I don't like Jack Layton; I don't think he's doing the federal NDP any good. I don't think he's representing Westerners very well at all, and I don't think he's really doing a good job of offering a viable left-wing party for me to vote for. I think half of what he says is reactionary clap-trap that makes very little sense when you actually sit down and think about it ("let's just *talk* to the people killing our soldiers, and then the killing will stop"). It makes me angry that he's leading the federal NDP, because should a meteorite fall and wipe out all the right-wing candidates and voters, I still wouldn't want Jack Layton to run this country, because the way he talks makes me think he's physically incapable of balancing his own chequebook much less the federal budget.

I have absolutely no problem admitting when a political party 'feels the way [I] do about' anything. I am more than willing to admit to being mostly a pinko left-wing socialist. For all the people-positive issues championed by the NDP, I want Jack Layton to actually come up with realistic and affordable ways to implement them, not just talk about them.

As for the "why is it always arts/culture versus new tanks", I wholeheartedly agree. That was the point I was trying to make. Why do we always have to choose between arts/culture and things like health or education? The $44 million that's being ripped away from the arts and culture certainly isn't going into the healthcare system, is it? It's not like the government said, "We need this $44 million dollars to hire new doctors and buy CT-Scanners for every province".

Der Kaptin , on Saturday, 30th August:

Thanks CB. I didn't vote for Jack Layton to be leader either, just so you know. And I don't think he's had much of an impact, although it's always hard to tell whether that's just because of lack of substance on his part, or because the right-wing commercial media which dominates this country refuses to treat him, or the party, as anything other than left-wing fringe.

The thing to remember is that, unlike the US, Canada doesn't have a president, and the PM doesn't have the powers that the US President does, although you'd never know it the way the media treats them, the lazy bastards, and how Harper is acting. So what the party does is dependent on a broader base of people in it, not one demigog. At least that's the way it worked before Herr Harper started dismantling the machinery of democracy behind the scenes the way he has.

As for how the NDP would finance their people-positive platform, they don't like to talk about it much because the powerful people would freak out, but it's simple -- tax the rich. Make the corporations pay the billions in back taxes they owe but are weasling out of with the assistance of their buddies in power. Put in a fair income tax system that actually forces people to pay their fair share. I just had to complete an S2 corporate income tax form, and besides being the tangled nightmare that I now know what people are complaining about, it has more writeoffs and loopholes for the well-off than you can possibly imagine. (Unf., our wee corp doesn't get on the radar screen for any of this stuff.)

But they don't put that out there a whole lot, the same way that the yahoo party isn't entirely forthcoming about the way it would finance all the FURTHER tax reductions for its rich and corporate buddies -- savaging support programs for the soft sector, like arts and social services, and massively reducing the size of government. And before you say hurray, what's wrong with that, remember that they want to reduce government not because it's big and costly, but because it gets in the way of their friends doing anything they bloody well want to the rest of us. Cut inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and people start dying of listeriosis in an amazingly short time period. That tragedy is a PERFECT little haiku about EXACTLY what is wrong, and treasonous, about this government and all their greedy shortsighted little gut-the-governance supporters.

Sound like some speechwriter, don't I? Sorry. It's just that these dangerous attitudes have been making me more and more tense as, like the toxic outbreaks they permit, they grow and spread, seemingly unchecked.

Coyote , on Monday, 1st September:

Ok I'm gonna back this party bus up a bit. I'd like to make a specific comment on a very specific thing. One that keeps coming up everywhere right now due to those escaped convicts. It keeps popping up on my TV in the 'I support Steven Harper' ads that are coating the air waves right now. (BTW, did anyone see 'Omen III'? Where Damien becomes president? Scarily looks like Harper)

Increasing sentences and making the justice system 'tougher' doesn't work. Ever. In fact all it does is increase the number of people who hate your society and remain marginalized without representation.

The USA has actually started to learn that. They've suddenly got a prison population they can't contain, their stupid war on drugs is just as bad as the war on terrorism, it hasn't solved the issue, instead it has gotten worse. Even the conservatives are pulling back from their law and punishment position to try to find new solutions. Of course, they're pretty much doing the same thing, with more vocational training (Learn to serve fast food better than a 16 year old! Join the exciting world of cutting hair! Notice I didn't say hair dresser, these women are taught to 'cut hair.')

On the flip side of that, we see programs in Europe that are not about punishment but instead rehabilitation. People put into what we would call a half way house or work farm, and told 'Leave when you feel you're ready to rejoin society.' They are given all the resources they need to remake their lives so they can be a part of the world around them. The recidivism rate in these countries is much lower. Not only that but the cost of running these programs as compared to the cost of jailing and being responsible for inmates is about one tenth the cost.

Let me take these five men as one example. They are native, part of the gang culture here in Regina. They've grown up without the power to make the vast majority of the decisions in their life, marginalized without anyone showing the least bit of interest in if they live or die. Along comes a gang. A place where they are given not just a voice but control over their lives. Of course they live that life! So when we catch them doing something illegal, what do we do? Well we remove any control they used to have and again reinforce the mindset that they are worthless ... without their gang. So they escape.

Yes these five young men are totally responsible for their actions and should be held accountable in a rehabilitive and restorative way, but we have to take responsibility as a society for our role in marganilizing and destroying them. We don't do this by doing they same thing to them that has led them to being lesser or non-members of our society.

Or lets go to our lovely sexual offender registry. The concept of punative justice is that you're given a 'time out' from society, and once you've paid that debt, you're allowed to re-enter society. Well with this registry you're constantly punished. Your sentence never ends. Doesn't that seem like cruel and unusual punishment? And before any of you start to get all up in arms about sexual predators and the safety of society let me ask you just a couple questions: 1) Weren't these 'menaces to society' kids once too? 2) You think maybe as a kid they were probably abused in some way? Puts a little different perspective on it doesn't it. So what do we do? Here is a person who was abused in some way as a child, and they grow up all messed up. So we punish them for it, and continue to punish them. And there's a whole long diatribe I could go into along that same line but I'm sure you get my point.

What's the solution? Like I've mentioned, rehabilitive and restorative justice. Justice that is focued on healing the comunity and the individuals involved in the offense. Justice with the concepts not of debt and owing society, but instead based on responsbility and duty.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s the Blackfoot and Cree of Southern Saskatchewan warred with each other over trapping and hunting areas, and although the government tried to enforce some kind of peace it wasn't until the leaders of the tribes and their people started to talk and look at how to fix the problems they'd created for each other while fighting. I'm sure it's still stored somewhere within the annals of Saskatchewan's records of justice but the agreement that was finally reached had people leaving one tribe for the other. Why? Well one family grieved that their son had been killed. Well one of the boys orphaned by the war was sent to be their son. Another, an old woman lost her son, so she was sent to live with the family of the man who killed the son to be taken care of. Suddenly this went from a war to the intertwining of two factions, that lead to the sharing of the resources and better life for all involved.

I know this has gotten rather long for a response, and it could be a lot longer, but I feel it necessary to hammer this point home. A safer society isn't one where we lock away our criminals with longer sentences, and punish wrong doers. A safer society is one where we stop marginalizing the people of our society, accept them for who they are, strengths and faults, and work to the overall health of one another while doing our best to look after ourselves. We are no better than the least of our society.

melistress , on Friday, 3rd October:

Ok...so having done some actual reading, which I am sure some artist or other produced, and talking to people, I am coming around to seeing your side of things. Anywho, we have been having a discussion on ravelry about it and I linked this post for someone who thinks that there is nowhere else that the money can come from and that we don't understand Harper and how hard it is to be a PM.

AND the yarn harlot is involved in this discussion too, which is so way cool.

So I hope you don't mind but you said it just so much better than I did. If you want to take part the group is Canada Indecision 2008.

knitmygrits , on Friday, 10th October:

WOW! melistress really knows how to let you in on a conversation without actually "letting you in on the conversation". If you'd like to go to Ravelry and go to the Canada Indecision forum under "yarn harlot letter" and read my post to this mentally unstable woman who claims that I actually said that there was no other place for the money to be cut from, then you will really see what I wrote in relation to the lies that is apparent she is telling everyone here in order to further her cause. You can go there or not, but know I did not at any point state that there was no where else for the money to be cut from. I'm not a mindless monkey who got her forum shut down by personally and in public for everyone to cringe over, attack a poster whom she INVITED to post on her forum only.

Here is the link so you can see for yourself.

http://www.ravelry.com/discuss/canada-indecision-2008/357207/1-25

Liars like melistress is why this country is in the state that it's in.

cenobyte , on Sunday, 2nd November:

Uh. Sorry, knitmygrits; I can't see where melistress is either mentally unstable or shut down. When I followed the link you posted, it took me to a discussion where she asked folks to help her moderate a Forum. Maybe I've missed something...

cenobyte , on Sunday, 2nd November:

distractions