Last week, I sent on to the editor, by email, a commenter on my blog's letter of support on my take regarding how Jasmine Fiore was portrayed in the media.
The letter writer made a very good comment about how the media - in GENERAL - had trumeted this murdered woman's work - sensationalised her via her work (which they would NOT do, were it were an editor, say, or a ditch digger, who'd been murdered).
The reply back from the editor in question was that I had fabricated a headline her paper had not published, thus instantly proving she did not read either the letter of support, nor, it seems my initial letter. She claimed I said her paper had written said headline, when I made it clear in my note to her - and it was clear from the writer's comments - it was a general observation.
I have variously been accused - yes, personally my dear, as my name was used specifically - as someone who thinks modelling is a garbage job (I do not) models should be murdered (I absolutely do not) and as someone who denigrated Jasmine Fiore (I utterly did not).
My crime, in the eyes of this editor, was that I think a person should be firstly described as a human and a person and perhaps secondarily by their job status.
Job is what we do. Person, wife, sister, lover, daughter, son, husband are who we are.
The publication in question, like many others, utterly exploited this young woman by focusing on her JOB - a job that was, in her case, easy to sensationalise, which they also did.
As to this editor, my personal experience of her left me prepared for such an onslaught. She is expectionally tallented at spin, even when it is obvious she's spinning. She even went as far as having a person in her newsroom - someone who also didn't READ what I'd written - post a comment on her editor's blog. That, last time I checked, doesn't count as an unbiased comment....
I have subscribed to this publication for over 25 years and read it from long before that, as my parents were also subscribers. I currently benefit from a free subscription, thanks to my being a student of journalism at a highly respected college. The last class I took there, which I achieved an A in, was Ethics.
I'll stop here before I make some libelous comment. You are welcome to read between the lines.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
She's a Woman first.
Three days ago, I finally became fed up with the reporting of Jasmine Fiore's murder. The media here - and elsewhere I'm sure - seized on her jobs by which they sensationalised the story.
This morning, thanks to my editor and another who reads my stuff, I find that Licia Corbella, who was the editor at the SUN and has come over to the Herald, lock stock and barrel, is RIGHT pissed about my letter. She took straight aim at me - my letter to be accurate - spinning the tone to imply that I have a problem with modelling as a career.
She entirely missed the point of my letter: Jasmine Fiore was a woman, a wife, a daughter ,a sister and a friend - who happened, according to UNSUBSTANTIATED reports to be a bikini model, or playboy bunny if you believe the ALSO unverified report that aired on CBC last week. Regardless of WHAT her job was, the media exploited it.
My letter, Corbella's blog (the link) and my reply are posted here.
Before you read them, I want it clear - and it IS in my letter - that I make no judgement on Ms Fiore's job. I do, however, judge the media for using her job as a means to sensationalise the story.
A young woman is dead at the hands of her reportedly disturbed and now deceased spouse. Whatever she did for work should never overshadow that she was a human and a woman.
Here's my initial letter:
Three days in and the Herald’s reporters persist in applying labels to Jasmine Fiore, rather than treating her with respect.
“Model,” “Bikini Model,” “playboy bunny,” (CBC) and terms like that describe jobs –jobs that many don’t respect, despite that a large number of that ‘many’ being males who consume the products of said jobs.
She was a WOMAN. She was a daughter and she was loved. She deserves public respect. She does not deserve to have her job description trumpeted in your headlines (and those of other ‘news’ papers) for three days.
No matter what a woman chooses to do for a job, NO MATTER, her job in no way provides the basis or reason or right or provocation for murder.
On that point, it is very, very unlikely that her job had any bearing whatsoever on why this ‘man’ murdered her. Psychopaths choose their victims for all sorts of reasons but job is rarely one of them.
The Herald’s sensational reporting of this murder – and it’s persistence on calling Fiore’s murderer a man – a term he does not deserve – underscores the extent to which the reports will go to slam and victimise a young woman who was brutally murdered, stuffed into a suitcase and dumped into a garbage bin by a being who is in every likelihood a psychopath and who has a long, verifiable history of abusing WOMEN.
Why Fiore’s murderer receives any respectful terminology and she doesn’t puts Vegas-bright lights around the continued treatment of women by the news media.
This is a two-sided complaint: this alleged murderer, by benefiting from ‘admirable’ job descriptions in your paper’s reporting, is a blight on men.
Real men don’t kill woman regardless of how much money they make, how young or cute or famous they are.
Corbella's Blog link:
http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/corbellareport/archive/2009/08/24/what-s-wrong-with-being-a-model.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
I wrote directly to Corbella today, via the web link provided on this blog. I don't have that part of the exchange, I'm sad to say; I wrote it on a computer in Kelowna, so it's in the history file there...
However, I did say that I was very surprised at the tone Corbella had taken in her blog and that I took it as a personal attack (she said it wasn't, despite specifically saying "shame on you" in her blog...
This is the letter I wrote to the Letters section of the Herald. It is substantially the letter I wrote directly in response to Corbella's direct response to me.
My Reply
I am shocked at the extent to which my comments have been misinterpreted despite them being (NEARLY) published in their entirety
I take absolutely no issue with modelling as a job. I did NOT at any point say that modelling of any type is or isn't a viable occupation.
I made it clear in my letter that a woman's job cannot ever be the basis for murder, no matter what she does and I say here again, a woman’s job should not be the detail the media chooses to sensationalise. And at no point should a woman’s job be used to define her.
My point is that the media described Miss Fiore by every title BUT woman; Her murderer was described first as a man (and yeah, I do dispute that he deserves said title) and secondly by his jobs and involvements. Miss Fiore was described primarily by her jobs and either not at all or secondarily as a woman.
As Ms Corbella and I both work in this medium, we must agree that the media does take advantage of the juicy bits and that the media did so with this story.
It's not a question of only describing her as a woman but of at least starting there. To describe her as "... his bikini-model wife" describes her not only just by her profession but also (some would say) as a possession, as the sentence begins as "HIS ..."
I’m sorry that anyone was offended by my letter because the intent is entirely the opposite of what Ms Corbella's blog implies. A re-reading of my letter might clarify my points: I observe that not all people consider bikini model (or Playboy Bunny, as per CBC) to be a viable or valuable profession. I did NOT express that opinion myself; I simply acknowledge that there are some who hold that opinion. I said that a woman's profession cannot be the motivation for a murder - and NO I don't believe there are many good reasons for murder at all.
The bottom line is that I and the people who are commenting on my blog feel that Miss Fiore was exploited by the press based on what she did for a living. I find it immensely offensive - and yes, I presume that most women would also - that any woman, but specifically one who has been brutally murdered, should be reduced to the sum of her jobs - regardless of that job; editor, shop worker or playboy bunny.
The part that was excluded from my letter was this: Miss Fiore was a woman, a daughter and possibly a sister. Whatever she did for a living, it should not be used as the means of sensationalising her death nor her murder.
I stick by my conviction that the media made Miss Fiore into an object by capitalising on her work.
This morning, thanks to my editor and another who reads my stuff, I find that Licia Corbella, who was the editor at the SUN and has come over to the Herald, lock stock and barrel, is RIGHT pissed about my letter. She took straight aim at me - my letter to be accurate - spinning the tone to imply that I have a problem with modelling as a career.
She entirely missed the point of my letter: Jasmine Fiore was a woman, a wife, a daughter ,a sister and a friend - who happened, according to UNSUBSTANTIATED reports to be a bikini model, or playboy bunny if you believe the ALSO unverified report that aired on CBC last week. Regardless of WHAT her job was, the media exploited it.
My letter, Corbella's blog (the link) and my reply are posted here.
Before you read them, I want it clear - and it IS in my letter - that I make no judgement on Ms Fiore's job. I do, however, judge the media for using her job as a means to sensationalise the story.
A young woman is dead at the hands of her reportedly disturbed and now deceased spouse. Whatever she did for work should never overshadow that she was a human and a woman.
Here's my initial letter:
Three days in and the Herald’s reporters persist in applying labels to Jasmine Fiore, rather than treating her with respect.
“Model,” “Bikini Model,” “playboy bunny,” (CBC) and terms like that describe jobs –jobs that many don’t respect, despite that a large number of that ‘many’ being males who consume the products of said jobs.
She was a WOMAN. She was a daughter and she was loved. She deserves public respect. She does not deserve to have her job description trumpeted in your headlines (and those of other ‘news’ papers) for three days.
No matter what a woman chooses to do for a job, NO MATTER, her job in no way provides the basis or reason or right or provocation for murder.
On that point, it is very, very unlikely that her job had any bearing whatsoever on why this ‘man’ murdered her. Psychopaths choose their victims for all sorts of reasons but job is rarely one of them.
The Herald’s sensational reporting of this murder – and it’s persistence on calling Fiore’s murderer a man – a term he does not deserve – underscores the extent to which the reports will go to slam and victimise a young woman who was brutally murdered, stuffed into a suitcase and dumped into a garbage bin by a being who is in every likelihood a psychopath and who has a long, verifiable history of abusing WOMEN.
Why Fiore’s murderer receives any respectful terminology and she doesn’t puts Vegas-bright lights around the continued treatment of women by the news media.
This is a two-sided complaint: this alleged murderer, by benefiting from ‘admirable’ job descriptions in your paper’s reporting, is a blight on men.
Real men don’t kill woman regardless of how much money they make, how young or cute or famous they are.
Corbella's Blog link:
http://communities.canada.
I wrote directly to Corbella today, via the web link provided on this blog. I don't have that part of the exchange, I'm sad to say; I wrote it on a computer in Kelowna, so it's in the history file there...
However, I did say that I was very surprised at the tone Corbella had taken in her blog and that I took it as a personal attack (she said it wasn't, despite specifically saying "shame on you" in her blog...
This is the letter I wrote to the Letters section of the Herald. It is substantially the letter I wrote directly in response to Corbella's direct response to me.
My Reply
I am shocked at the extent to which my comments have been misinterpreted despite them being (NEARLY) published in their entirety
I take absolutely no issue with modelling as a job. I did NOT at any point say that modelling of any type is or isn't a viable occupation.
I made it clear in my letter that a woman's job cannot ever be the basis for murder, no matter what she does and I say here again, a woman’s job should not be the detail the media chooses to sensationalise. And at no point should a woman’s job be used to define her.
My point is that the media described Miss Fiore by every title BUT woman; Her murderer was described first as a man (and yeah, I do dispute that he deserves said title) and secondly by his jobs and involvements. Miss Fiore was described primarily by her jobs and either not at all or secondarily as a woman.
As Ms Corbella and I both work in this medium, we must agree that the media does take advantage of the juicy bits and that the media did so with this story.
It's not a question of only describing her as a woman but of at least starting there. To describe her as "... his bikini-model wife" describes her not only just by her profession but also (some would say) as a possession, as the sentence begins as "HIS ..."
I’m sorry that anyone was offended by my letter because the intent is entirely the opposite of what Ms Corbella's blog implies. A re-reading of my letter might clarify my points: I observe that not all people consider bikini model (or Playboy Bunny, as per CBC) to be a viable or valuable profession. I did NOT express that opinion myself; I simply acknowledge that there are some who hold that opinion. I said that a woman's profession cannot be the motivation for a murder - and NO I don't believe there are many good reasons for murder at all.
The bottom line is that I and the people who are commenting on my blog feel that Miss Fiore was exploited by the press based on what she did for a living. I find it immensely offensive - and yes, I presume that most women would also - that any woman, but specifically one who has been brutally murdered, should be reduced to the sum of her jobs - regardless of that job; editor, shop worker or playboy bunny.
The part that was excluded from my letter was this: Miss Fiore was a woman, a daughter and possibly a sister. Whatever she did for a living, it should not be used as the means of sensationalising her death nor her murder.
I stick by my conviction that the media made Miss Fiore into an object by capitalising on her work.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Update: Y'know how some men say women are man haters....
Three days on, it isn't any better..
She's still a 'model' who belongs to this 'man' who is now described as on the loose and armed and in Canada.
He's very probably a suicide risk and (with respect to his parents, who are no doubt devastated and utterly broken hearted too) he should get on with it. Sorry. Blunt. I know.
She's still a 'model' who belongs to this 'man' who is now described as on the loose and armed and in Canada.
He's very probably a suicide risk and (with respect to his parents, who are no doubt devastated and utterly broken hearted too) he should get on with it. Sorry. Blunt. I know.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Y'know how some men say women are man haters....
Well, sometimes men bring it on themselves because they don't (are not biologically programmed to) think beyond the end of their knob.
Yesterday, a woman was murdered in California. The victim, Jasmine Fiore, 28, was found strangled and stuffed into a suitcase in a dumpster behind an apartment block.
Both CBC Calgary and The Calgary Herald (and I'm sure most of the bloody media) describe this woman in a variety of ways but neither describes her as a woman. They variously used the terms 'Playboy Bunny,' 'model' and 'swimsuit model' but the term "woman" is absent. Both reports call her alleged murder a man, a title he does NOT deserve, three words into their respective coverage.
I've called CBC this morning, while the male newscaster was still reading, to protest the dehumanisation of a woman as lead story.
Here are the ironies:
The killer is male
The news reader is male
The Herald reporter is male
The woman who was murdered worked in professions that cater mostly to males
The two reporters who could have given this woman some humanity both stole that from her by describing her by her activities, not by who she was.
This, boys, is the kind of behaviour that makes us girls not like you.
She was a woman first, followed by daughter, possibly sister and maybe mom. Yeah, she worked in an industry that you boys want to play in but not admit to and now one of your kin has killed this woman. And you have the balls to call her every thing but "woman" after she's put up with your kind? Get real.
You may call her all sorts of names but you, boys, are acting dishonourably by partaking but then castigating those from whom you partake.
I want to know why neither of the two reporters refused to humanise this woman. Is the newsreader at CBC not allowed to refuse to read such crap or did he just read whatever he received as copy? Does sensation trump respect when a woman is killed?
Boys, if you don't call your own out on their bad behaviour, you have no excuse for wondering why we women don't always think that highly of you.
Yesterday, a woman was murdered in California. The victim, Jasmine Fiore, 28, was found strangled and stuffed into a suitcase in a dumpster behind an apartment block.
Both CBC Calgary and The Calgary Herald (and I'm sure most of the bloody media) describe this woman in a variety of ways but neither describes her as a woman. They variously used the terms 'Playboy Bunny,' 'model' and 'swimsuit model' but the term "woman" is absent. Both reports call her alleged murder a man, a title he does NOT deserve, three words into their respective coverage.
I've called CBC this morning, while the male newscaster was still reading, to protest the dehumanisation of a woman as lead story.
Here are the ironies:
The killer is male
The news reader is male
The Herald reporter is male
The woman who was murdered worked in professions that cater mostly to males
The two reporters who could have given this woman some humanity both stole that from her by describing her by her activities, not by who she was.
This, boys, is the kind of behaviour that makes us girls not like you.
She was a woman first, followed by daughter, possibly sister and maybe mom. Yeah, she worked in an industry that you boys want to play in but not admit to and now one of your kin has killed this woman. And you have the balls to call her every thing but "woman" after she's put up with your kind? Get real.
You may call her all sorts of names but you, boys, are acting dishonourably by partaking but then castigating those from whom you partake.
I want to know why neither of the two reporters refused to humanise this woman. Is the newsreader at CBC not allowed to refuse to read such crap or did he just read whatever he received as copy? Does sensation trump respect when a woman is killed?
Boys, if you don't call your own out on their bad behaviour, you have no excuse for wondering why we women don't always think that highly of you.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Best Cherry Sauce Evah!
Ok, this happened by accident and it is delicious! You can double this if you want. You're gonna want.
2 cups real, fresh cherries, pitted and cut up coarsely; Soak overnight in 1/2 cup white wine.
In a small saucepan, put 1/2 cup white sugar, 1C water and 1 proper tsp of REAL vanilla. Over high heat, stir until the sugar melts, then add the cherries and the juice. Turn the heat down to medium to keep the boil going and let the stuff boil until it starts to thicken a bit. Keep stirring or it will stick/burn. Yuck.
In the meantime, with a potato masher, mash the cherries into smaller bits. Leave it chunky but just smaller chunky.
Once it's a bit thick, pull it off the heat and let it cool down. It will thicken up a bit more. When it's barely warm, eat over vanilla ice cream and then call me and tell me you love me.
Photo courtesy www.producedepot.ca
The Frenzy of the Pampered Middle Class
I got this gem via email this morning... it is, first of all, utter bullshit. The question attached to the message below was "Do you think this is true?"
Hi all,
I just had a long chat yesterday with Mike's cousin who is a doctor working closely with the epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists in BC to prepare the province's pandemic preparedness plan. She scared me! She told me that the flu is expected to hit by September and the LOW estimate of global deaths is 28 million this fall. Her biggest advice was to stockpile food and over the counter meds like tylenol and advil, have several months' worth of any prescriptions you need, stock up on alcohol-based hand sanitizers and also to boost your vitamin D by taking 5000 IU/day as studies are showing that flu-fatalities are less in those with good solid D levels. I am passing all this info to everyone I know...I figure we don't all have pandemic experts in our midsts and we certainly don't always know what to believe in the media.
No, I do NOT think it - or anything that is currently being foisted upon the amazingly gullible, stupid, media gulping, spoiled, never-uses-its-brain middle class regarding "swine" flu is true.
No, this could not be.
H1N1 is a mutation of influenza A, which circulates in some form every year. The interesting thing about H1N1 is the soon-to-be available ‘treatment.’ The company that is producing the ‘cure’ has actually been stockpiling it since 2006 and has made several references to ‘outbreak’ and ‘pandemic’ in their press releases – of 2006 and 2007.
The other interesting thing is what happened last time that company produced a ‘cure.’ In 1976, the last time there was an H1N1 outbreak, more people died from the ‘cure’ than from the drug – many more in fact.
Media and other coverage of this year’s pandemic is nothing more than a planned frenzy to provide the environment for what amounts to human testing on a mass scale of this company’s new cure, which may or may not work. It will NOT work as well as simply washing one’s hands. Period.
As with all airborne flues, the best, best treatments are these:
- WASH your hands often.
- When you cough/sneeze, do so into the crook of your elbow so that wet particles don’t land on your hands, which end up on surfaces and doorknobs, which will be touched by others.
- Never touch your hands to your mouth, nose and eyes unless you are sure your hands are clean: mucous and wet membranes are the most effective points of entry for any virus.
- WASH. This cannot be stressed enough. Wash your hands.
- Yes carry hand sanitizers but remember they dry the skin leaving it open to cracking and hence making it susceptible to infection via small wounds.
As to overdosing on vitamin D, I’d be really careful about that. Vitamin D is not easily managed by the body when it is ingested via pills. It is much more easily managed by simple exposure – 15 minutes to 30 minutes a day – of SUNLIGHT. Go outside.
Stockpile Advil??? Seriously? C’mon.
As to the figure of 28 million, seriously folks. 16,000 children die EVERY DAY from starvation and you don’t see the drug companies getting all ‘jiggy’ about that. 207 in the
This "swine flu" thing is seriously stupid.
Here's one of the replies I got back from my email - and yes, I want your comments too so get on it!
"Amen,
I’m so tired of the “Panic of the Pampered” that we’re all guilty of falling into here in the West (me guilty too).
We’re so quick to fall prey to the media’s obsession with the “shiny” new FEAR INC. “product” (and I say Fear Inc. “product” because a good segment of our private/public capitalism machine runs exclusively on fear. The more the better. And they’ve found an endless supply of gullible customers in the pampered enclaves of western society. Yes, I know other cultures have their own weird-ass beliefs... and many less fortunate societies have much to be concerned about. But WE, HERE have no excuse to be so infantile and gutless in succumbing to the artificially packaged nonsense).
It’s so easy to chase our tails on the latest new “sky is falling” craze. Should we be prudent and practical? YES. Should we even be concerned sometimes...? SURE. But sweet Jebus... maybe we should take some responsibility for the REAL issues -- instead of dropping our pants for every hot news item. Like truly... THOUSANDS die of regular flu every year and you never hear no world wide frenzy. ‘Cause there ain’t much more money to be made off that one. So those battles can be fought by the yearly pharmaceutical ad campaigns. We don’t need to bring our good corporate partners CNN in on that one!
But, back to the real issues... There are a whole bunch of things that will definitely KILL us with more absolute certainty and regularity than an extra flu bug. Like excess in all its forms... bad diet esp... too much fat, sugar, salt, BOOZE, DRUGS, bad chemicals, smokin’, drinkin’, drivin’ fast.. too much stress. Or the flip side... lack of sleep, lack of exercise etc. Yeah, but we don’t hear too much about that because that would entail a huge prescription of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Which is not a good “product” to sell a pampered society on.
Okay... that’s my rant for the day. Back to work. And oops... better start taking my own advice... Uh... I’ll start tomorrow...
BA
p.s. I hear “FOOD INC.” is an amazing movie that may keep u from ever eating packaged goods again. Like forever. If we even remotely cared about what we actually put in our mouths - and where it actually came from - we really would have somethin’ to get all pandemicky about...
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Bikes
Photos from this weekend's Harley Owners Group meeting at Calgary's Military Museums
Photos are copyright, Julie Vincent Photography
Visit my site for further information and to purchase prints of anything you see here.
If you print these and/or use them anywhere without my permission, I will be really angry AND I will take action, so better to just ask, OK?
Thanks.
Photos are copyright, Julie Vincent Photography
Visit my site for further information and to purchase prints of anything you see here.
If you print these and/or use them anywhere without my permission, I will be really angry AND I will take action, so better to just ask, OK?
Thanks.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
I had a dream. Tu me manque tellement....
When I was in 11th grade, my French teacher, Mr. Lawrence, organised an exchange for our class to Montreal. At the time - I'm sure Mr. Trudeau was still in the PMO that year - the Canadian government encouraged and financially supported such exchanges because, at the time, east/west relations in Canada were pretty crusty... Oh wait. that still happens.Anyway, we were billeted with families whose kids attended Polyvalente Jeanne-Mance. I was billeted with a gal, Manon, who had a brother, Stephane, who had a best friend, who I fell completely in love with the second he walked in the door. I was 16 and he was 15 ...
After that exchange, I went back to Montreal for the summer. I stayed with him - which is to say in his parent's house. It was utterly glorious. The city I live in is large but 30 years ago, not so much. Montreal on the other hand; wow. Add to the incredible soul of that city a boy (he was much a man even then) who loved his city, his culture and his language and was more than willing to share it all and it was a heady, wonderful experience.
We were together four years, amazingly enough for such young people, and eventually moved together back to my city. I cannot imagine why such a young man would consent to drive all the way across the country but that we did. And that's where it all started to go bad.
If you've been in here before you will have gleaned a bit about my mother...
My boyfriend and I had lived together by this time over 2 years. My mother would have nothing of that so he found a basement suite not too far from us, in the home of a very elderly - and deaf-ish - woman from our church.
I didn't know the woman well at all - I knew her for a long time but I was only 20 at the time and she was very old so yeah, we weren't out drinking together very often.... Most importantly, I didn't know that she didn't care a hoot what was going on in her basement suite as long as the house wasn't burning down.
My mother is obsessed with EVERYTHING that other people are doing, especially if it happens to involve sex. I grew up in a very, very sick environment where it concerns sex so, the idea of doing it with my boyfriend in the house of a woman from my church, someone who knew my mother, utterly, utterly freaked me out. Badly.
Not surprisingly, some weeks on, both he and I were, let's say, grumpy as hell.
Meanwhile, I was living at home, missing my life in Montreal terribly and, much worse, missing my boyfriend intensely and suffering - and I mean suffering - the daily barrage of my mother's insanity.
About four months after we moved back to my city, things had got to a crisis. Without one knowing my mother, it's impossible to understand why I would have capitulated but that's what usually happens to people who are abused. Finally laying down and letting one's soul perish is the only means of staying borderline sane. So when my crazy mother suggested that, because my lovely, sweet, helpful boyfriend was helping his landlady's gay son move, that he was also gay, I bit.
Imagine you are a puppy. For a couple days, your new owners are happy to have you around. But shortly, reality sets in and your owners decide that the best place for you is out of their hair and into a small crate, into which they poke a stick many times a day. After some months, you are confused, angry and sore from being endlessly prodded, mind and body. That's what living with my mother was like, so, when she observed that my boyfriend was probably gay and actually hated me, I was furious. But she is so crazy and such a stranger to reason that there was no way to fight her (I wanted to kill her, truth be known) so I lashed out at him.
I regret what I said to this day - and this day is 30 years on.
He and I broke up very soon after that. He went on to meet and eventually marry a woman he met out here and had two sons with her. I also married - a disaster, but that's another blog. With perhaps the exception of the first three months I was married, I dreamt of him every month after. EVERY. Always dreams that we were friends and close and always warm and comforting and, as much as I always woke from those dreams missing him terribly, I was glad to dream, regardless.
Six years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Montreal. I had kept in very, very limited contact with his wife, so hadn't entirely lost touch but I was terrified to call him, mostly because I was so embarrassed at what I'd said to him all those years prior. Regardless. I called his house, left a message and died a thousand deaths of embarrassment because I instantly regretted the call....
But he rang me back at the hotel I was staying at - also leaving a message - and said, to my utter wonderment, that he was glad I'd called and was surprised at how good my French still was.
He asked if we could meet for coffee so I rang him back and agreed to meet him on the south shore.
I would say it was awkward but not in the "why are we doing this" way. More for the many years of unsaid words on my part, I guess. Anyway, because it had been eating me for so many years, I was happy to have an opportunity to say I was sorry and to thank him for what he'd blessed with with (a very functional second language) and that I was very glad to see him.
I suppose it sounds stupid after so many years had passed but I really, really needed to apologise for what I'd said to him. He said he didn't remember and regardless, he held nothing against me - which didn't surprise me because I didn't know him as one who would hold a grudge. I could write volumes on this man, who was a man long before most young men are.
The reason my French was and still is good, by the way, is that he was a brilliant and patient teacher, who spent hours teaching me how to get my English tongue around French vowel and consonant combinations. Yes, I hear what you're thinking and yeah, that too...
After that meeting, to my great sadness, I stopped dreaming of him. I was glad to have had the chance to apologize and clear the air but I was devastated the dreams stopped. Until last night.
Earlier in the day I had been to my sister's. She lives in an 850 square foot house on land less than 300 feet from where my mother also lives in a huge, empty, echoing rancher. I didn't see my mother - another blog - but being in the vicinity of that insanity screws me up for days. I never know what will surface from contact - or near-contact in this case.
Earlier this year, I went searching on FaceBook on the off chance my old boyfriend would be on there. FB hasn't been hugely popular in the east until recently, so I didn't expect to find him, but there he was. So I popped him a note. And he replied... and then we talked for an hour on a messaging service.
Last night, I had a vivid and endless dream. I was utterly shocked to wake up and find myself here, in this place, and to realise it was only a dream, so much so that I felt tears of disappointment coming.
I don't know what it all means but, as unbelievably guilty as I feel about it all - because I have a wonderful spouse - I'm glad the dreams are back. How is it possible to miss someone so deeply when they've been out of a life for so long?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
King of Pop is diamonds in the rough. Litterally.
Update:
Dean VandenBiesen has been very generous with his information to me and has provided this update:
The diamonds being made from Michael Jackson's hair have not been requested yet by anyone in the Jackson family; however, VandenBiesen says, "If the family is interested, particularlyJackson
VandenBiesen confirms that LifeGem will publish photos of the diamonds - there are 10 planned - will be published on the LifeGem website.
LifeGem is at www.lifegem.com
Dean VandenBiesen has been very generous with his information to me and has provided this update:
The diamonds being made from Michael Jackson's hair have not been requested yet by anyone in the Jackson family; however, VandenBiesen says, "If the family is interested, particularly
VandenBiesen confirms that LifeGem will publish photos of the diamonds - there are 10 planned - will be published on the LifeGem website.
LifeGem is at www.lifegem.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)