RISKY BUSINESS

CBS news has just released information from a months-long investigation of the swine flu "emergency" (at CBSnews.com - "Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?"). In July, the CDC stopped testing/counting individual swine flu cases, supposedly because there would be no point in keeping records since it's a PANDEMIC and all, so we can just go ahead and assume that it's the swine flu, right? Wow, that is really scientific. We can just ASSUME!!! Who knew??? I doubt they could get away with this crap if they were testing dog food at the Purina factory. They'd probably expect, well, actual DATA or something. So I guess you could stop tracking it in order to throw the resources into fighting it (their excuse). OR maybe you could stop tracking it so the public wouldn't realize that the cases are far less than we have been led to think, and we are once again being hoodwinked by the big pharmaceutical companies and their bumboys in the government. Personally, I'm going with answer B.

Reports are coming out based on "estimates" and "reported cases", with the media running headlines like "X number of people infected with H1N1". Not lab-confirmed. Just assumed to be infected because they had symptoms which happened to be common to many other ailments. When my grandson recently stayed home with a cold, the school asked what his symptoms were. Now school secretaries are diagnosing swine flu? Do kids with the right symptoms get written up as "probable" H1N1 so they can prop up their statistics? This kind of shoddy data-collection wouldn't be tolerated in any private business, but it appears to be good enough for the government-run health care system that people pay for and entrust their lives to.

Investigative reporters had to resort to the Freedom of Information act in order to force the CDC to release their statistics, which showed that the number of CONFIRMED cases was a very small fraction of the "guesstimates" that were making scary headlines worldwide. Look around, for God's sake - it's not happening!!!

And yet this weekend Mr. Obama declared this supposed pandemic a national emergency so they could bypass federal requirements and get this vaccine into as many people as possible. Now if this man is so divorced from reality that he considers this a reasonable measure, he is obviously not fit to run a lemonade stand, much less an entire country. If he does understand the situation and is knowingly going ahead with this deception, then he is a criminal.

Of course we are getting our share of hysteria in Canada, too. Just look at any of the mainstream media to see pictures of the sheeple lined up to get their magic bullet. Guaranteed to save you from the big bad piggy flu. Really? Flu vaccines sure haven't come with a money-back guarantee so far. The ability of the flu virus to mutate has become a major selling point for the fear-mongers, but that inherent quality is exactly what makes flu vaccines such a crap shoot in the first place. Not much point getting a vaccine for the wrong strain of flu, is there?

Interest in getting flu shots is waning, and Big Pharma is resorting to ever more desperate measures to convince us that we need them. For the first time in history we have almost unlimited access to information, and the more informed people become the less likely they are to be suckered into undergoing an invasive procedure which has been insufficiently tested and is potentially damaging. So the real emergency would seem to be more economic than medical - millions of dollars spent and resources wasted on what is starting to look more and more like a manufactured crisis. Not to mention the fallout yet to be seen from the side effects of the shot. The vaccine is being recommended for pregnant women, yet even the vaccine manufacturers admit that the effect on the fetus is unknown. That's a pretty big gamble to take with the life of your unborn child.

Do you take a chance with unknown side effects or take the chance of contracting this milder version of the standard flu? Since we appear to have been reduced to getting our medical advice from the media, maybe it's time to to get some advice from someone who is just as qualified to advise us as the news reporters are. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you?

HAIR

I've been a little preoccupied lately, and haven't been keeping up with the mundane things in life such as coloring the old grey hair. I never gave it much thought until about ten years ago, when my husband started making "old grey mare" and "grey as a mule" remarks (he's nothing if not romantic). I originally wrote it off as jealousy, since at the time his hair was rapidly losing the battle for territory with his forehead. Hah, I thought, just sour grapes. But then my brother started nagging me too. He's a real diplomat: "My God you're grey!" - "Your hair looks like crap." -"Why don't you dye that rats-nest?". You know, subtle hints designed to spare my feelings.

Now, he's pushing fifty and still sports a luxuriant mullet that would turn Joe Dirt green with envy, but I was still skeptical until the day I got reading glasses and a decent mirror light. YIKES! Where did that grey-haired old bat come from? Okay, okay, I get it. Off to Wal-Mart for a box of instant youth.

The results were pretty good, so for years I've been dyeing my hair a basic boring brown. Unexciting, but better than grey. But lately I've been putting it off. That little strip down the center of my scalp has been widening steadily, eventually giving rise to the usual Pepe le Pew comparisons from my eagle-eyed family members. I'm not sure why, but this time I decided to do something a little different (here's where the warning bells should have gone off) and change the color ever-so-slightly. Maybe put a little red in it - after all, I had auburn highlights in the prehistoric days of my youth - it would probably suit me. So I bought the same brand, same basic color, just with a little red thrown in. Or so I thought.

Well, I thought wrong. That box did not contain "copper-red brown" like it said on the label. Oh no, it was more like "Highly Unlikely Red", "Incredible Redible", or "What The Hell Were You Thinking?". Or, as my comedically-inclined daughter suggested: "Prosti-tutti-frutti". I think not - with this look, I couldn't give it away in front of the Courtenay House at twenty-five cents a pop. I mean, it's really hideous. Calling it God-awful would be a compliment.

You can't possibly imagine my feelings when I viewed the final result (unless you have had the same unfortunate experience, in which case you have my sincere condolences). The first glance at my flaming head brought to mind visions of Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider. It looked like someone had doused my head with red paint then set it on fire. As I stared into the mirror, I found myself gripped by the overwhelming urge to go out and slap cuffs on the Hamburgler. Oh man, this one is going to be hard to live down.

But I'm stuck with it now, for redder or for worse, for at least a month - I'll just have to wash it lots, wait for it to wear off, and maybe start wearing a hat. Or just stay home and pretend I've gone on vacation. I've already resigned myself to looking like some kind of geriatric streetwalker, but the worst is yet to come. My brother hasn't seen it yet. I'm already steeling myself for the Olympic Torch jokes.

THE C-WORD

Euphemisms have an amazing effect on people. They influence our perceptions, shape our values and can even control our behavior. Take "going green" for instance: sounds nice - kinda harmless - brings to mind those idyllic leafy forest scenes in the commercials where willowy girls in long white dresses swan around chasing butterflies and being thrilled to be having their period. Now who wouldn't like that? But if "going green" was referred to by the more accurate term "lifestyle regulation", I'm thinking not so many people would be interested in signing up.

"Sustainability" is the new word-of-the-week, since people are wising up to the green scam. The green profiteers keep having to change their buzzword as the new wears off and people become aware of the actual meanings. When global warming became downright embarrassing as the earth continued to cool in the face of rising CO2 levels, it became "climate change". Can't argue with that, can you? It's like that old detective show where the "names were changed to protect the innocent". Except they're doing it to protect the guilty.

This sustainability thing needs to be recognized for what it really is, and I'm going to have to use the c-word here. I don't like to use it because people tend to stop listening when I do, but here it is anyway: communism (what the hell were YOU thinking?).

If you look at the official "sustainability strategy" for our valley, it's not hard to see where it's going - rationing of energy and water, control of the business and housing sector, land appropriation, indoctrination of the children, and my personal favorite: "ecosystem protection on 100% of public and private land". Meaning basically that if you have any "threatened" plants or a body of water bigger than a mud puddle on your property... you, my friend, are screwed. It pretty much hands over the keys to your kingdom to the government, in the name of environmental protection. Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that a whole lot of things are going to become "eco-sensitive" in the not-so-distant future?

And community gardens. Oh Lord, please save me from community gardens. I am not a friggin ANT, I'll pick my own gardening buddies, thanks. No one should be forced to associate with idiots because the only access to land will be as part of the collective. The community garden thing is very trendy in theory, but in practice, well, not quite a bed of roses - I know perfectly rational people who thought it was a great idea until they actually tried it. I can think of few things more nauseating than the thought of sharing my favorite pastime, the thing that gives me time alone, renews my soul and keeps me sane (well, as sane as I get) with a bunch of politically correct, Prius-driving, sprout-sucking, doughnut-hating numbskulls from Al Gore's Holy Church of Climate Change. Which, from my friend's experience, are the type of people who tend to participate in these things.

Yes, I've heard the stories and I can just see it now: Mr. A. is pissed off because Mr. B. isn't using the approved brand of fertilizer, and omigod it might leak onto HIS plants. Mr. B. is pissed off because Mrs. C. isn't pulling her weeds fast enough and omigod they might invade his patch. Mrs. C. is pissed off because people should be planting according to an approved color scheme so everything looks harmonious. Mr. D. just wants to kick Mrs. C. where the sun don't shine because she is an insufferable self-righteous bitch. And Mr. X wants the whole area declared a turnip-free zone because he is allergic to rutabagas. Yes, I can just see myself there. I think I would be using the c-word a lot.

Socialism. It just doesn't work. It is totally antithetical to human nature. Yes, we are herd animals but we are not hive animals. In a hive, every member is hardwired for his job, he is content with his role and does not aspire to anything else as long as basic needs are met. In a herd, there is an ongoing struggle to better one's position, to always be looking to improve the situation. Even starfish fight over territory (very cool on speeded-up film). Are we expected to be more docile than an invertebrate?

This is not to say we aren't altruistic. We care about each other and try to help others, this is what has enabled us to survive. But socialism asks us to give the illusion of doing this at the expense of individual advancement. Are we helping people by creating a system that rewards mediocrity and conformism? That penalizes success? That allows the indolent to parasitize the industrious? There is a world of difference between helping those genuinely in need and giving a free ride to those who won't pull their weight.

With communism, the "people" who supposedly control the government find themselves clutching a handful of nothing. Everything is "public" property, but it can only be accessed under the conditions imposed by that governing body. The bigger the government gets, the more corruption and profiteering occurs, taxation escalates and personal freedom becomes curtailed in the cause of the "greater good", which in these times comes in the guise of saving the planet. There are an awful lot of people getting rich off rescuing poor old Mother Earth.

It's happening right now. The U.N., European Union, our friend Mr. Obama and the global governance crew are hard at it working toward the New World Order. (This is where you start thinking to yourself "I knew it - Mrs. Pelican is a certified conspiracy-theorist nutbar"). Well OK, I do listen to Glenn Beck. But you can't really call it a conspiracy when they're so obvious about it. It's not like they're hiding it or anything. In fact, we're expected to embrace it. To think globally. To be good global citizens.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in communities all over our nation "sustainability" plans are being implemented. Based on "global sustainability targets". Using the bogeymen of "climate change", "our deteriorating planet" and even overpopulation. All a complete crock of crap, but it makes a mighty fine stick to beat the unsuspecting sheep with. While I appreciate people who are trying to keep our planet clean and improve living standards world-wide, I take exception to those who use lies to justify things like carbon taxes, increased energy costs, erosion of property rights and forced green retrofitting of our homes before we can sell them. They call themselves environmentalists. I think it's time we started calling them by their real name. I think the c-word would be appropriate.

MARMOT MADNESS

Marmots. No wonder Mother Nature's phasing them out. They look like a cross between a squirrel and a gopher, only apparently they are fatter and more useless, spending most of their time lounging around on rocks and only bothering to get up and look for food when they get really really really hungry. Hmm.... must be some marmot genes somewhere in our family background, sounds a lot like my brother.

Anyway, what's the big obsession with saving these guys? What's the likelihood of the average person ever running into one? Don't get me wrong, I personally have nothing against them. In fact, I've never even seen a real live specimen but I'm pretty sure if I did, I'd like it. Preferably on a plate. Fried, stewed, breaded, broiled . . . perhaps roasted with some nice mashed potatoes and gravy. Mmmm . . . marmot. I bet they're even tastier than spotted owl. First Nations people used to hunt them for food so they must be at least palatable, if not downright delicious.

As you can see I'm definitely not anti-marmot, at least from a culinary standpoint. But I do object to subsidizing the bucktoothed little bastards. Not content with throwing money around like drunken sailors on shore leave to finance stupid crap like the Olympic Games and carbon persecution, last year our government forked over $233,000 in rodent welfare payments.

This isn't just housing subsidy, maternity benefits, free food and day care for the kiddies, this is also relocation funds, an expensive clothing allowance (radio transmitters don't come from WalMart) and their very own personal militia to ward off pesky predators. And here's where it gets ugly.

The marmot advocates, exhibiting typical eco-loon tunnel vision, don't have a problem interfering with other forms of wildlife in order to pursue their own goals. It's fine for them to put up nets and fences, play tape recordings of annoying noises and in general disturb every living thing in the area because they happen to think marmots are cool. It's okay to capture, traumatize, and tranquilize cougars and make them wear radio collars so their dedicated crews of marmot shepherds ( I'm not kidding, this is what they call themselves) can be alerted and put the run on those bad nasty kitties when they come looking for lunch. They don't even mind using a cougar hound to chase and harass the poor cats because marmot-saving is very ecologically correct.

But the eagles had it worse. In Green Mountain near Nanaimo in 2003, seven golden eagles felt the wrath of the marmot-lovers. In a misguided attempt to reduce marmot predation, employees of the provincial government killed these federally and internationally protected birds by baiting them with a deer carcass and then shooting them. How low can you go - you can bet the general public wasn't in on that one. Coincidentally, the guy in charge at the time just happened to be the chairman of the provincial marmot recovery team. Your tax dollars at work, killing eagles. Disgusting.

And is this kind of one-sided disregard for other species going to help the marmot? Not if Mother Nature decides that Vancouver Island marmots just aren't working out. New species are constantly being discovered and other ones are disappearing - it's just how nature works, get over it. If we saved every type of life form on earth there wouldn't be any room for the new ones. Complicated schemes involving human interference won't save a species that is slated for the cosmic dumpster any more than buying carbon credits will affect the temperature of the planet. In fact, well-meaning intervention by humans has historically only made things worse. If marmots aren't going to make it on their own, we won't change that by giving them life support until the funding runs out. If they are meant to survive they will.

I suspect we don't really know how many there are in the wild anyway. After all, they are reclusive creatures - they aren't going to show up and fill out census forms. They also tend to pop up in unexpected places: earlier this year, a female showed up in a gravel pit in Port Alberni. Two days later a male was found in a backyard in Nanoose. In a display of mind-numbing stupidity, these poor things were trapped and relocated on Mount Hooper in hopes that they would mate. Good grief, did it not occur to anyone that these two might not find each other attractive? That one of them may have been the marmot version of a double-bagger? Or that they already had friends and family in the neighborhood and had no desire to be transported elsewhere? God Almighty, even glorified gophers can't escape from government interference in their lives these days.

If they disappeared completely, would anyone even notice that this creature they had never seen wasn't there anymore? I don't see anyone whining and crying about the demise of the dodo. This year the government has cut funds for the marmot program, to the great chagrin of the would-be marmot saviors. I guess the powers that be have realized that people who can't even get decent health care aren't exactly thrilled to waste what little money they have on a marmot dating service. How fitting that Mukmuk the marmot should be a mascot for the Olympic games - both represent our government's amazing ability to blow money on feel-good projects while our real priorities go unaddressed.

SELLING US DOWN THE RIVER

Well, thank God the horrendous heat wave seems to be over - I've managed to keep my garden alive by endless hand-watering, but my lawn is toast. Or at least toast-colored. But I'm getting used to it, I've had a brown summer lawn for a few years now because I actually believed the bullshit about us having a water shortage. And because having water meters forces you to comply whether you believe it or not.

Yes, having a green lawn nowadays identifies you as being an environmental criminal, even lower in the social order than a smoker, global warming skeptic, non-recycler, or (that lowest of the low) an employed white heterosexual non-handicapped male. But here's the interesting thing - the water shortage only seems to apply to local taxpaying residents, not to tourists or greedy developers. Apparently it's okay to drop the level of Comox Lake by AN ENTIRE FOOT to accommodate the all-important Kayak Festival, but if you're planning to top up the old Mr. Turtle, you'd better do it in the dead of night so your neighbors won't rat you to the Water Police.

This kayak event is estimated to attract about 200 tourists, bringing "economic benefits" to the valley. Big deal, so a few hotels, stores and restaurants making a couple of extra bucks justifies such a massive waste of this supposedly scarce resource? There certainly aren't any economic benefits for the average resident. Think about this: Comox Lake is 9 km long, with a surface area of 2116 ha and a depth of 120 meters. If we can afford to drop the whole thing by 30 cm just to provide for some out-of-towner's boating pleasure, how much of a water crisis do we actually have?

If the situation is so dire, why on earth is development being allowed in Union Bay that would add 12,000 more users (I'm guessing four to a home) onto the system? Union Bay currently gets its water from Langley Lake, bringing it all the way up to Spindrift where Royston can access it if necessary. At this time it could service about 2300 new connections according to their website, but in the future expects to be part of the Comox Valley water system. The original proposal was for about 1700 residential units, but somehow that has morphed into 3400, DOUBLE the original amount. How do they even get away with this crap? Let's see, maybe because the proposed new bylaws (made up when convenient to the current agenda) will include "density bonus" provisions, which means that if the developer will "donate" enough multi-family ratholes to cram the unwashed masses into, he will be "allowed" to build extra properties for private sale to people who want real houses. An interesting business transaction, to say the least. But we all know that developers are just bristling with altruism, all they want to do is provide affordable housing for the good of humanity, they really CARE about people. Of course, not quite enough to actually live in one of these slum crapshacks themselves. Oh no, they will be off saving the world somewhere else as soon as they have collected their enormous paycheck.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways. If we have enough water to accommodate another 12000 people, then quit with the restrictions and phony guilt trips. If we don't have enough even for ourselves, then obviously any new development should be completely out of the question. Why are we being sold two diametrically opposite scenarios? That can only mean we're being lied to one way or the other. And where do these new residents plan on working? Or going to school or getting medical treatment? Or parking, for that matter. Well, I guess that's all just part of the package, isn't it.

Most of us have settled here because we like the small-town feel. I'm always hearing the rah-rah about our lovely little valley, nestled in the wilderness, how lucky we are to live in such an unspoiled paradise, etc. Well, yes we are. But not for long. The profit-seeking of developers and the willingness of the Regional Board to sell us out is hurtling us headlong toward becoming another Vancouver. We're told it's a good thing because it will be "sustainable" and ever so eco-friendly. Unfortunately, sustainability is just a politically correct term for developers cramming the largest amount of people into the smallest area possible and then saddling them with insane amounts of green regulation. They get brownie points for this in the form of LEED certification, which sheeple think is great because they don't know what it is, but it's green, so it must be good. Baa.

Yes, tiny lots, multifamily housing and a bunch of shared greenspace. I guess if you enjoy the communal lifestyle, that's okay, but most people would rather have bigger lots and their very own greenspace and privacy - that's why we live here instead of the big city. So why are we letting the big city come to us? I'm just going to come right out and say it: I don't want more people here. I don't want more crime and more traffic congestion and more nagging about how we don't have enough resources. If we don't have enough, the solution is simple: QUIT ENCOURAGING NEW DEVELOPMENT!!! Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

It's like pulling teeth to get a decent hospital or even snow removal or road maintenance for the people who already live here, but let's just roll out the red carpet and invite a few more people over - that should improve the situation. It's becoming painfully obvious that our elected officials care more about constantly creating more income through new development than in maintaining and improving services to those of us who have been paying taxes here for years. They will be too busy rubbing their hands together at the thought of the expanded bureaucracy and all the money it entails to mourn the loss of a unique little town like Union Bay. They would do well to remember that the people who put them where they are can also remove them. I'll certainly be thinking about it every time I drive by the maintenance crews tending to all the annuals planted in the name of beautifying Courtenay for the tourists, while on my way home to NOT water my own.

FUN WITH FOSSILS

Today I thought I'd take a break from slaving in the garden and do something completely different, perhaps something relaxing and less physically demanding than shoveling and pushing a wheelbarrow around. With this in mind, I volunteered to go fossiling with my daughter the paleophile, envisioning a nice leisurely stroll on the beach with maybe a break for lunch at some seaside cafe. Ah, rest and relaxation, just what I need.

Unfortunately I overlooked the fact that, to a dedicated ammonite-hunter, fossiling is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Let me explain this: if you've ever worked on a chain gang, you've already enjoyed the equivalent of what passes for entertainment in the world of fossil collectors. Breaking rocks in the hot sun, to be exact. In fact, the poor slobs with the leg shackles actually have it a lot easier, because they get to crack rocks in the blazing heat WITHOUT also lugging along a giant bag of hammers, chisels, extra clothing, umpteen bottles of water and a variety of unhealthy snack items. Plus a ten-pound purse full of change (since the stupid slot machines stopped taking quarters, I'm just not motivated to clean it out anymore).

Yeah those prisoners had it pretty good, the old warden probably let them rest once in a while, but an enthusiastic fossiler will unmercifully flog you onward in search of the elusive Bostrychoceras or Eupachydiscus. "Oh, look - just over there" (looks to be about 2 kms away) "just past that enormous impenetrable wall of razor-sharp barnacle-encrusted boulders, my friend found the most AWESOME Nostoceras!" Oh, goody - I'm sure we too will find a dozen or so when we get there. Trudge trudge. Pant pant. Onward.

I learned a lot on this trip. Mainly that the reason fossils are still around after millions of years is that they're good at hiding. Oh yes, they're cagey little buggers all right. Hiding under seaweed, disguising themselves as oysters. Embedding themselves in rock formations and jumping out of the way when you try to remove them, causing you to hammer your thumb and invent a bunch of new swear words. No wonder no one's ever captured a live specimen.

Aside from discovering that it's entirely possible to whack yourself in the shin while aiming in the totally opposite direction, I learned that my tolerance for crawling around on hot rocks like a lizard is a lot higher than I thought. We spent five hours out there, which is about four and a half hours past my usual limit for sun exposure (I will know who to blame for those future wrinkles coming my way), but I actually had fun. I got to spend the day with my daughter, which doesn't happen nearly often enough, and I learned a whole pile of impressive new paleo words.

Our efforts did not go unrewarded, either - we didn't find a Nostoceras (not for lack of dragging Grandma through the tide pools), but we did come home with an assortment of fossils, most of which I got to keep. Luckily for me, a specimen has to be pretty unique to be worth adding to Paleogirl's collection, so I get them by default (although I'm pretty sure she would have beat me insensible with a rock hammer if I'd tried to make off with a Nostoceras).

So at the end of the day, here I am: dehydrated, sunburned, barnacle-scraped and exhausted, but by God, I've got a pretty fine Baculites sitting on my desk in front of me. Now how cool is that?

CHICKENSHIT WHITE BOYS

You've probably heard all about it by now - a trio of brain-dead punks with nothing better to do attacked a local landscaper outside McDonalds. The video has been on and off YouTube, but now that the media has picked it up, it's all over the place (google "racist attack Courtenay" and take your pick).

It seems these heros decided to harass this guy from their truck, yelling insults and threats as he walked past minding his own business. When he had the audacity to respond, they bailed out and surrounded him. What a pathetic display - it's apparent from the video that these losers were sharing one set of balls between the three of them. If any of them had tried it one-on-one, he would have been crying like a little girl and calling the man "sir" in about thirty seconds flat.

As it was, the victim was defending himself admirably until he had the bad luck to slip and fall, then they were all on him, kicking, punching and screaming obscenities. It reminded me of a Wild Kingdom episode with a pack of baboons or hyenas, except animals have the excuse of not knowing any better.

Now because the victim of this crime happened to be black, people are yelling racism. I don't think that's the case - he could just as easily have been gay, homeless, Asian or even a fat white kid - any excuse would have done for a bunch of little boys trying to (unsuccessfully) to prove their (nonexistent) manhood.

Some people are saying it's the victim's own fault for responding to their initial verbal assault. Really? You mean hardworking respectable citizens are supposed to just shut up and take crap when confronted by a bunch of lowlifes? Reinforce their appalling behavior by letting them get away with it? Turn the other cheek and all that? If he had ignored them and gone home and reported it to the police, what do you think would have happened? Yeah, exactly. Nothing. They just would have had more confidence built up for the next time because there were no consequences.

I'm glad he had enough self-respect to defend himself, and I'm surprised and disappointed that no bystanders intervened. Do we just let this stuff happen, no one say anything, just walk by and pretend we didn't see? Don't get involved? Are we that big-city yet?

Either way, it was a stupid move, boys. After pulling a stunt like this, it might not be prudent to leave the house alone for a while. Not because of some perceived threat of retaliation from the black community, but because of outrage on the part of anyone recognizing you from the video. How sad for you that cowardly performance was caught on tape for all the world to see. I'm not saying you 'll get beat up (very few people are as stupid as you), but it's going to be uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially for your poor parents. Did you even think about that when you were acting like such supreme jackasses? They must be really proud - I feel sorry for them. Now, thanks to the internet, you have managed to embarrass not only your parents and relatives, but your entire community. Way to go.