Sexist Men are more likely to think Romeo is the main character of Romeo & Juliet

This just in...

In a rather unscientific poll of people on Twitter and Instagram, men are more likely to think that Romeo is the main character of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" as opposed to both characters being "main characters".

First, let's define what is a main character or protagonist.

"A protagonist is the main character of a story. The protagonist makes key decisions that affect the plot, primarily influencing the story and propelling it forward and is often the character who faces the most significant obstacles."

Using this definition, we see that Romeo and Juliet are both main characters because they both fit that definition, since they routinely make decisions which push the plot forward, and bring it to its final conclusion when Romeo chooses to kill himself, and Juliet similarly chooses to kill herself.

It should also be noted that the roles are reversed. Juliet is female, but she is portrayed as being more aggressive, determined and intelligent, whereas Romeo is male, but he is depicted as a whiny bitch (albeit a charming one) who loses his temper and goes off the rails.

Despite this, some men when polled stated that they believed Romeo was the main character, and refuted the idea that it was possible to have "two main characters" in a story. Some men argued, in typical sexist fashion, that Juliet is just a supporting character that is just there to be the object of Romeo's romantic desires.

One male responder to the poll also argued that the theatre production should be called "Chad and Stacy" and went on an insane rant about how "all women like Juliet are just cockteasers who put you in the friendzone while looking for a Chad". (I had to look this up, but apparently Chad and Stacy are "incel terms", which tells us that this particular responder is a virgin who cannot get laid - probably because he's a creepy sexist pig.)

Despite the sexist male component, the poll did determine that an overwhelming majority of people do agree that both Romeo and Juliet are main characters.

Both characters do fit the protagonist description after all.

Romeo has a tiny bit more lines than Juliet, but his lines are shorter. Juliet has almost the same number of lines, but her lines are longer. If we compare the total number of words spoken then Juliet is the clear winner. Thus if we use the standard that the character who talks the most is the main character, then there is actually a strong argument that it is Juliet, not Romeo.

But since both characters fit the definition of protagonist, and both of them share "screen time" and "the most lines" almost 50/50, there is an even stronger argument that they are both main characters.

But as usual you can always trust that a sexist male will try to push the idea that the main character must be male. It could even be a film with two women (eg. "Thelma and Louise") and there will be a man out there who will argue that Brad Pitt or Harvey Keitel are the main characters.

Paid Paternity Leave at Work, Part II

Right now feminists are working very hard to get men more money.

More money in the form of Paid Paternity Leave.

Just like Paid Maternity Leave - after a new baby is born, a mother typically gets time off from work and is compensated for their time off from work.

For example in Canada... "A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Either the mother or father can take 35 weeks of parental leave after the baby is born or adopted. The parents can share the leave however they choose."

And where does the money come from to pay for this?

Employment Insurance. E.I.

E.I. You know, those deductions that go off your paycheque from work. You grumble about it and income taxes, but you pay it because you know that E.I. also pays for various things if you become:

• Unemployed.
• Injured.
• Unable to work due to illness.
• Etc.

 And it also pays for paid maternity leave in Canada, and parental leave (which is not paid).

Let us pretend for a moment that you are a new father and your wife dies while giving birth to your new child. Suddenly you are a father, you have a newborn baby to take care of that requires attention every hour for feeding, diaper changes and just plain attention (so that they don't grow up to be sociopaths and psychopaths).

How does this new father cope with the sudden changes and manage to work at the same time? The answer is they cannot. They would have to quit their job and parent full time until the child is old enough to enter a daycare - in which case government subsidized daycare is a whole other topic I want to talk about another day.

Even a married couple (or unmarried couple, not judging here) with a child, how do they manage to cope? Does the woman stay home all the time to take care of the baby? Do they take turns while the other person goes to work? Are they somehow both doing shift work? When do they actually manage to sleep.

Any person who has been a true parent will understand the whole problem with just sleeping with a newborn in the home. Newborns wake up during all times of the night and day expecting to be fed, coddled and they will cry like there is no tomorrow until they are satisfied.

So clearly there is a need for Paid Maternity Leave and Paid Paternity Leave.

And feminists are out there trying to convince politicians that men should be given this right, the ability to have Paid Paternity Leave, to spend more time with their child and bear equal share in the responsibilities of being a parent.

Women, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal minded should be in favour of this.

Men who are liberal minded should be in favour of this because it is about equality and fairness.

Men who are conservative minded should be in favour of this because it means they get to stay home and actually prove how much they truly are about "family values".

And there is also economic reasons why politicians should be in favour of this.

In North America not enough people are having children. Which means that less people

In Canada the fertility rate is 1.59 (2013 Stats Canada). That means the average woman has 1.59 children.

In the USA the fertility rate is 2.06 (2015) and was even called a "National Emergency" by some American politicians in 2016 during the presidential campaign.

The USA fertility rate doesn't seem so bad until you realize that their death rate is higher, their life expectancy rate is less, and their health care system is in shambles.

It is so bad that the USA is basically dependent on immigrants for population growth for a variety of reasons:

• 1. New immigrants currently make up 23.78% of population growth in the USA.
• 2. Immigrant mothers are more likely to have multiple children, which is keeping the USA fertility rate up at 2.06.
• 3. Without immigrant mothers having so many kids, the US fertility rate would be dropping rapidly. Women born in the USA are more likely to have zero kids or only 1 kid.
• 4. For every 1000 mothers of childbearing age who were born in the USA they only have 58.3 children per year.
• 5. For every 1000 immigrant mothers of childbearing age they have a whopping 84.2 children per year.
• 6. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the fertility rate amongst immigrant women dropped from 2.7 in 2008 to 2.2 in 2014. For American-born women, the rate dropped from 2.1 to 1.8. So the birthrate dropped 14% in 6 years for American-born women, and dropped 18.5% for immigrant women.

Without immigrants the USA's population growth would stagnate and start shrinking.

Which would effect the economy because less people in the future would be paying taxes or paying into pension funds, which means elderly people would end up having their pensions cut, which means they would have less money to spend, which causes a downward cyclical effect on the economy.

So America needs people paying into pensions and paying their taxes, otherwise the whole economic system fails.

In Canada the problem is WORSE.

If you recall, the fertility rate in Canada mentioned above is 1.59 as of 2013.

The fertility rate in Canada has been dropping steadily for decades, but the changes in recent years are dramatic.

• 2009 - 1.67
• 2010 - 1.63
• 2011 - 1.61
• 2012 - 1.61
• 2013 - 1.59

A drop of 0.08 in only 4 years.

Assuming that dropping rate remains roughly a constant decrease, the fertility rate in 2017 will probably only be approx. 1.51.

Wait 25 years, by 2042 the fertility rate in Canada might be 1.00.

Canada is already heavily dependent on immigrants to keep our population from shrinking. New immigrants make up 35.6% of Canada's population growth. And the children of those new immigrants, well, they tip the balance and inflate the fertility rate just like they do in the USA because immigrant families have more children.

With our future economy so dependent on children growing up and joining the workforce it then boggles your mind to see the kinds of things Donald Trump is doing in the USA.

• Trying to deport immigrants and their children (who are American citizens since they were born there).
• Trying to discourage people from visiting / immigrating to the USA through travel bans and by promoting an "An America First Policy".

What the USA and Canada should both be doing is inviting immigrants in and encouraging everyone to have more children. How do you accomplish that?

1. Paid Maternity Leave.
2. Paid Paternity Leave.
3. Government Subsidized Daycare to make it easier for everyone to have kids and work.
4. More tax benefits for working parents. Cut taxes for working families. (Trump does the opposite, he cuts taxes for the rich - people who don't need it and end up just storing their money in the bank. Money does not "trickle down".)
5. Affordable Homes - Many young people in North America delay having children because the real estate market is too expensive.
6. Tuition Debt Relief - Many young people in North America delay having children because they are still struggling to pay off student loans from college.

So who has it even worse than we do?

Well, for starters, Russia.

Russia's population is actually shrinking by 0.06% per year (CIA World Factbook Statistic).

The birth rate in Russia is 11.3 births/1,000 population, while the death rate in Russia is 13.6 deaths/1,000 population.

Russia's population would be shrinking even faster if it wasn't for a net migration rate of 1.7 migrant(s)/1,000 population. Without the incoming immigrants, Russia's population would be shrinking by over a quarter million people per year.

During the past few decades Russia has seen a startling increase in the death rate due to a combination of factors (for profit hospitals, skyrocketing suicide rates, etc) while their economy stagnated under the weight of greedy oligarchs.


And it makes sense after all. Russia is not a land of opportunity. "Middle Class" people in Russia make only about $9,057 USD per year. The Russian economy is shrinking. The Russian ruble has lost over 55% of its value in the last 5 years.

Here is a summary: Between 2014 and 2017 Russia has been enduring a financial crisis. In 2014 a decline in confidence in the Russian economy caused investors to sell off their Russian assets, which led to a decline in the value of the Russian ruble and sparked fears of - and ultimately caused - a Russian financial crisis.

And in that kind of economic situation, who want to have children???

To put this in perspective, a mere 4 years ago in 2013 the normal middle class Russian made $15,543 USD per year. Now they make $9,057. So the Russian economy has shrunk 42% in 4 years.

What Russian is going to want to have kids during such a horrible financial crisis? They would not be feeling financially secure.

Especially since Russia doesn't have any kind of paid maternity leave or parental leave. Tax benefits for parents? Pff! The former communist country is now so capitalist that they just support rich oligarchs and ignore their own middle class.

It is also a weird situation where the per capita GDP of Russia is $26,100 USD (2016), but the average Russian doesn't make that much money. They only get $9,057 USD of that. [This is the fundamental difference between so-called GDP and "real GDP".]

The rich oligarchs in Russia take $17,043 of that money - and pocket it. The poor and middle class do all the work and the rich take 65% of the money. Makes sense right? Sort of like Trickle Down Reaganomics. Makes sense for the rich, really rips off the middle class.

And do the rich in Russia have multiple kids? Some certainly do. 2, 3 4 or more kids. But it in no way makes up for the millions of working class Russian families who only have 1 kid and contributes to Russia's shrinking population.

If you compare the USA and Russia's population growth you notice some interesting things.

In 1930 Russia had a population of 100 million.
In 2015 Russia had a population of 148 million.
In 1930 the USA had a population of 123 million.
In 2015 the USA had a population of 321 million.

For both countries the biggest increases in population were during periods of financial growth and stability, but with a marked difference in that the American economy grew faster and sharper as the population did.

• The American population went up by 161%
• The Russian population went up by 48%
• Between 1930 and 2015 the US real GDP per capita went from $6213 to $55,836, an increase of 799% in real GDP.
• Between 1930 and 2015 the Russian real GDP per capita from $2109 to $9,057, an increase of only 329%.

At which point you have to start asking yourself, which of the following is true?

• Does a strong economy = more babies being born?
• Does more babies being born = a stronger economy?
• Or is it cyclical? More babies = more money = more babies = more money, etc.

Which must also mean the following can also happen:

• Less babies = less money = less babies = less money, etc.

Having more children boosts an economy because it means more workers added to the workforce of a nation, contributing to a growing economy.

But if countries like Russia for example don't encourage people to have more children, the result is the stagnation of a population, and eventually the stagnation of the economy. Russia had a few good economic years. In 2013 the real GDP was the aforementioned $15,543. That was the highest point the Russian economy ever achieved before it slid back down to the current $9,057.

The Scary Thing is it can happen in North America

Without the constant influx of immigrants coming to the USA and Canada, both countries would be faced with a dire economic situation. There would be less workers contributing to the economy, very few people paying into pensions, potential parents would see a dire financial situation and decide to delay or even skip having children - which only hurts future generations and makes the country even more dependent on immigrants to bolster the economy.

So Canada and the USA needs to be vigilant. We need to be promoting:

• Paid Maternity Leave
• Paid Paternity Leave
• Affordable Daycare
• More Tax Benefits for Parents

The government needs to literally start investing in children in order to boost the economy in the future. That means investing in making it easier for families to be able to afford to have children - and incentivized to have MULTIPLE children.

Because frankly it is not enough to promote families to have ONE child. Government needs to be financially encouraging parents to have 2 or 3 children so that the country can maintain a stable and prosperous rate of population growth.

Overpopulation is not an issue in Canada. The country is technically underpopulated.

Paid Paternity Leave at Work

First off, I want to say that I am a full supporter of maternity leave for women. It makes complete logical sense that women should be given time off from work so they can spend time with their newborn baby. It is a civil rights issue at its very core.

Paid Maternity Leave is where it starts to get complicated, because then who is paying for it? Businesses? The government (taxpayers)? The nitty gritty of who pays for it isn't so much important to me as the issue of the VALUE of paid parental leave. I will come back to that later.

Smart corporations have long ago realized that having paid maternity leave is a great way to attract excellent and hardworking employees. People who might have offers from multiple corporations, and when comparing their options it looks a bit like this:

Corporation A:
Income: $200,000 annual salary.
Perks: Health, Dental, Pension, Stock Options

Corporation B:
Income: $200,000 annual salary.
Perks: Health, Dental, Pension, Stock Options, Paid Maternity Leave

Now for men, which one they choose would probably narrow down to money. But if the money is the same, it will be a bit of a coin toss as to which corporation the man chooses to work for.

A woman looking at the same options however, who is between 20 to 40 years old, will be looking at those options and thinking "Hey, that's awesome. This is a really progressive, smart company which values its female workers. I like that. I should go with them." She might never even get pregnant and use the paid maternity leave, but she has already made a decision to go with that corporation.

But what if there was a third corporation?

Corporation C:
Income: $200,000 annual salary.
Perks: Health, Dental, Pension, Stock Options, Paid Parental Leave

"Oooo!" says the man. "So if my wife gets pregnant then I get some time off to spend it with junior? That is awesome. I am definitely going with that company."

So in the Battle of the Corporation Perks, companies which offer the most perks get the most valuable employees. That is value added if the corporation can recruit employees who are better workers than the other workers doing the grunt work for the competition. It gives a competitive edge.

Last year (June 2015) Richard Branson announced that his international corporation Virgin was giving paid parental leave for a year, to any employee who has worked as Virgin Management for 4 or more years.

52 weeks, full salary, to anyone who has been a manager with the corporation for 4 years or more. Including fathers, not just mothers.

Now do you think for an instant that that kind of generosity is going to attract higher quality people to the corporation? You betcha.

And this isn't just a corporation issue. Whole countries are doing it too, which is why this is also a political issue.

Shared Parental Leave in the UK gives paid leave for 6 months, with salary ranging from 90% to £139.58 a week, whichever is lower.

Thus if a person is given an option of working in the USA or the UK or elsewhere, and they are comparing the perks of the different corporations that are based there, they are probably going to go with the country-corporation combo which offers the most perks.

Another thing countries can do is phase in paid maternity/paternity leave with government employees. By phasing the concept in and doing it for government workers first, the idea catches on with the private sector who is constantly competing with the public sector.

Think about it. If you could leave your current job and go to a better job overseas which has more perks, and you can take your family with you, you would probably take it right?

This is the 21st century dilemma. People are not so obsessed with money any more. Their primary focus is on attaining some kind of work-family balance which allows them to spend more time with family, and they are willing to take a pay cut so they have more time to relax with family.

Which means they are also more likely to move overseas if a corporation-country is offering better pay and a better life.

Obviously working in one of the blue countries is better than working in the red ones.

 In our increasingly globalized economy, the countries and corporations which offer the best perks are going to attract the best workers, offer those workers the most enjoyable experience / balance between family and work, and the chance to travel and live in new places doesn't seem so scary any more as more people are becoming willing to leave their home country and explore the vast global economy and its many opportunities.

But some countries are getting left behind. The two worst offenders are the USA and Papua New Guinea - that is right, the USA is tied with a country that most Americans don't even know where it is. Every other country in the world has some kind of paid maternity leave, and more and more are now also offering paid paternity leave too.

Well, what about other employees who are not managers?

Over time countries and corporations have been expanding these perks to more and more people, recognizing that the value it adds is more than the cost of paying for the paid leave. The politicians and pundits debate about who should get paid leave, how much time should they get, how much they should get paid per week, and where is this money coming from.

As time progresses more and more people are being the option of paid leave, including parents who adopt, same sex parents, and more. And it doesn't matter whether you are a manager or a janitor, you still get paid leave. (Obviously corporations usually give more perks to managers than they do to janitors.

The people who are really getting left behind are the contract workers, the people who are self-employed, the seasonal workers, etc. They cannot take time off the same way because they don't qualify for parental leave and instead some end up as burdens on the welfare system or they are "just working to pay the babysitter". They end up suffering more because they don't have the benefit of working for an actual corporation.

As someone who is self-employed, if my wife has a kid I know right now I will be spending a good chunk of my time taking care of the kid, cleaning the home, making food, and trying to do work in the spare moments when I am not bogged down by the tasks of parenting / cleaning / food preparation. If I run into money difficulties somehow, I might have to rely on government assistance.

Thus the whole issue of paid paternity leave / maternity leave is one that is not yet complete and doesn't help everyone yet. Lazy conservatives may complain about "welfare mothers", but the sad situation is that government assistance is needed in order to maintain some semblance of societal progress. Without it, you end up with homeless mothers, a higher abortion rate, a higher rate of child abandonment, higher rates of people giving their kids up for adoption, higher parental suicide rates, etc.

And while you are it, why do conservatives spend so much time defending "deadbeat dads" who get the women pregnant in the first place, but are nowhere to be seen when it is time to pay the bills.

Years ago a friend of mine explored anti-feminist websites and determined that most of the complaints on such websites were issues about child support and spousal support. Ergo, it was men complaining about the fact that they didn't want to help pay the bills for the children they fathered. Deadbeat dads. So their primary complaint wasn't really about feminists, it was about the government forcing them to pay child/spousal support.

As someone who is looking forward to fatherhood I look at the deadbeat dads with disgust.

Paid Maternity Leave is basically one way that the government and corporations are helping women to cope with a society that often leaves them holding the baby.

Paid Paternity Leave allows the women to go back to work, while dads finally gets to do his equal share and help care for the kids too by being a hands-on father who is actually there when the child needs him.

If I was eligible for paid parental leave, I would totally take it. While browsing this topic I also found this website: http://www.canadastop100.com/family/ which has a list of the top family friendly employers in Canada. Makes me wish I worked for one of those corporations.

I should also mention that my sister and her husband are now expecting, so I could end up at various points taking care of my niece/nephew plus my own kid on a regular basis. The two cousins can go on playdates together to the park / petting zoos / the beach / etc. That should save the wife/myself and my sister/her husband money on daycare...

Canada's Daycare Crisis

Government Supported Daycare is an important issue for many Canadians. Some Canadians however disagree on the issue of daycare, mostly because they dislike the idea of taxpayers paying for it.

Like healthcare, education and the economy, universal daycare is one of those issues that is being recognized as an economic issue which benefits working families. It allows families to leave their young children, usually between the ages of 1 and 5, with a daycare provider and the government helps pay for the costs of the daycare.

Recently I learned what a local daycare in my neighbourhood charges for their monthly services... Here is what they charge per month:

AGE	MONTHLY	DAILY
INFANTS	$1,820.00	$84.00
TODDLERS	$1,650.00	$77.00
PRE-SCHOOL	$1,280.00	$60.00

And I was like, whoa! $1,820 per month for an infant???!!! (I also said: Wow. I am in the wrong business...)

I was also amused by the $15 per meal that the daycare charges for lunches. I have the impression that my local daycare is more upscale/expensive than the average daycare*.

Thankfully the government does pay for a chunk of that $21,840 per year, but it made me realize why some people choose to get nannies instead. Depending on how many kids a person has, the nanny might actually be cheaper.

Doing the math it makes you realize that staying home to take care of your infant for the first year / 18 months doesn't seem so bad. It is when they become a toddler or pre-schooler that daycare starts to look more reasonable.

* As mentioned further above, I think my local daycare is more expensive than the average daycare in Toronto. I checked and determined that the average monthly cost of daycare for toddlers is $1,324 per month. Other areas around the GTA average barely above $1,000 per month.

Across Canada, Toronto has the most expensive daycares, whereas Quebec is the province with the least expensive. Why is Quebec cheaper? Because Quebec has capped the cost of daycare at $174 per month across all age groups and the rest is covered by government subsidies.

The other problem with Canada's Daycares is Waiting Lists.

Some waiting lists are so long it could take years before a spot opens up.

Each daycare can only take in so many kids, and once filled parents have to sign up for a waiting list. That means if there are only two local daycares and they are both full to capacity, that a parent might have to drive pretty far just to drop their kid off at daycare.

For example years ago I dated a single mother who lived in Scarborough, but she would take her 4-year-old with her to work every day in downtown Toronto to drop him off at a daycare and then speedwalk to work at the TD Bank...

Why? Because all the local daycares in Scarborough were either too expensive or had a waiting list, the TD Bank didn't have a daycare for employees, and the daycare she found downtown was close enough that she could walk there after work to pick her kid up.

So therein lies the problem...

Canada has too few daycares, those that do exist are expensive and have waiting lists, and not all the provinces have such a wonderful system as Quebec does.

Makes me want to move to Quebec, although the waiting list problem is still an issue there.

It is therefore no surprise that the birthrate in Canada and the USA is so low.

Canada - 10.28 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
USA - 12.49 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)

Now you might think that seems okay, until you see what the death rate is and how dependent Canada and the USA have become on immigrants. Couple that with higher birthrates for immigrant families, and you realize people born in North America just are not having that many kids when it comes time to do so.

And there are many reasons for that.

• Too much student debt causes people to delay having kids.
• Too much debt period, whether it be car loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc.
• Lack of government support for families, in the form of daycare, paid parental leave, tax benefits for working parents, etc.
• Poor economic conditions makes people more hesitant about having children or multiple children.

Many other western countries (eg. France, England, etc) are also having the same problem. The birthrate is so low that it is ultimately hurting the economy over the longer term and making countries dependent on immigrants to maintain population growth / economic growth.

What that tells you is that Canada/USA needs to be doing more to promote people to start having more kids. Most of Canada is actually underpopulated and is only using a fraction of Canada's economic potential.

CONCLUSIONS - THE VALUE OF SUPPORTING FAMILIES

Decades ago some countries would realize they were in dire straights when it came to their population and would actually pay people to have more children. (Which is the opposite of what China does with their One Child Policy, which taxes people for having multiple kids.)

So whether they are supporting families via payments per kids, paid parental leave, universal government subsidized daycare, or other policies to promote kids being born, the ultimate effect is that over the longer term these actions boost the economy.

So the next time you hear someone complain about "paid paternity leave", "child support", or "free daycare" gently remind them that those government policies are actually the boosting the economy. They are planting seeds so that future generations will be wealthier.

Understanding the Body Language of Women

Understanding the Body Language of Women

Old Married Couples who Argue at Work

Old married couples argue a lot. You know the ones I mean.

Especially if your parents argued a LOT and never got divorced even though they wanted to get divorced but "stayed together for the kids". Then you will know what I mean on an intimate level because it happened to you.

But I have to wonder which is more traumatic for a child:

1) Getting a divorce.

2) Staying together and putting your kids through hell as you argue constantly.

Option 2 could even include spousal abuse, which means the children might be witnessing all manner of spouse on spouse violence - and growing up might continue that cycle of violence with their own spouse.

Any kind of spousal abuse is immediate grounds for divorce in my book. Regardless of who the victim of the abuse is, they should also make efforts to document the abuse with photos, video and visiting a doctor, and police.

And back up photos / videos online so the spouse cannot delete them. Quick and easy way to do that is to email the files to a friend or family member for safekeeping. Or multiple friends / family members.

Anyway, even without abuse you need to be thinking "What is the effect of all this arguing on the children?"

Well it is traumatizing to say the least. To the point that children sometimes run away, attempt suicide due to stress, get into drugs or alcohol, develop severe depression, become violent and act out, etc. I don't have any scientific studies to back this up, this is just my observations based on years of witnessing various parents who probably should not be together and argue so much their kids are traumatized.

It would be very interesting to see a scientific study done on the topic. It is possible there is several studies on the topic, so feel free to try and find one and then post the link in the comments.

Male Forgetfulness / Distractions at Work

I am feeling guilty today because I forgot something important yesterday - and I am in the proverbial doghouse today because of it.

Now I admit I was very busy working yesterday plus I am suffering from an allergic reaction to a bee sting that has me limping everywhere.

But I still should have remembered.

I admit it. I am not making up excuses. Yes I was super busy. Yes I was distracted from the pain I was in. But I still should have remembered.

Think of the worst thing you could forget about when it comes to your wife or girlfriend, and there you go. That is what I forgot.

Even if you are thinking of the same thing I am thinking of you should still be: "Oh!!!!! Yep, you totally should not have forgotten that! You're pretty dumb to forget that!!!"

So apparently I am pretty dumb.

And I feel really guilty and bad about it. Moron me forgot something this important.

Next week...

Apologies at Work. How to Apologize for being a Braindead Boyfriend.

Single Vs In A Relationship

I chose to share this because it was funny. Huzzah for being in a relationship! Sucks to be the people who are not.

5 Ways to increase your chances of getting Laid on a First Date

#1. Clean yourself up and dress masculine and sophisticated.

Three reasons why this improves your odds. Women like men who take care of themselves physically, they should be clean and well groomed. Secondly, women like men who know how to dress themselves - so wearing sophisticated and manly clothing improves your odds dramatically.

So for example just wearing a manly yet sophisticated jacket from Kish Wear - Men's High Fashion, dramatically improves your odds your date will like you.

The problem is that most men tend to dress like slobs, and that does not impress women very much. At the same time however you don't want to come across as emasculated - what you want really is to give the impression with your clothes that you are like a rugged James Bond type who can fist fight a bear and then go dancing all in the same night.

#2. Only go out on dates on Friday night or Saturday night.

Honestly, timing is everything. Women work just like men do, and they don't want to spend the night at a man's place when they have to get up the next morning and work. That would mean showing up at work possibly late, in the wrong clothes, and all sorts of problems. Thus dates on Sunday nights to Thursday nights have a dramatically lower rate of people getting laid. Also, never meet for coffee in the morning or afternoon. Coffee dates are for suckers. Women use coffee dates to browse for men. They are significantly less likely to sleep with someone when they are just browsing.

Avoiding eye contact on a date is a great way to NOT get laid.

#3. Look into her eyes when you talk to her.

This is really important. Do not avoid eye contact when talking, as some men do when they feel uncomfortable. Instead what you need to do is every time you are talking to your date then give them your full attention by looking deep into their eyes when you are talking to them. Try to repeat that when they are talking to you too.

Don't stare at her breasts (although you can sneak a peek briefly), don't check the time on your phone, don't use your cellphone when bored unless she goes to the bathroom (in which case turn it off when she comes back), don't stare at a TV or other women. The only person who should be the centre of your attention is her.

#4. In conversation avoid anything controversial or trivial arguments.

Don't talk about abortion (she may have had one), evolution vs creationism, politics, religion, etc. Instead stick to entertaining topics. If sports come up talk about them briefly, but don't go into great detail about your favourite sport unless she is also very interested in that sport. And even so, know when to stop. If she looks at her watch it is time to switch topics. When it comes to pop culture don't get involved in trivial arguments and then check who is correct on your cellphone. It makes you appear to be the type of person who always has to be right - and arguing about something trivial on a first date is not a good sign.

#5. Clean your apartment / house as if your mother is coming over.

Nothing messes with your feng shui than having a huge mess in the place. You are not going to want to invite a woman over when your place looks like a giant laundry basket of dirty clothes. All your clothing should be in the closet, or neatly piled in a proper laundry basket (or stowed in a laundry bag). The floor should be clean, there should be less than 3 dishes in your sink or the sink should be empty. Your entire apartment / house should be spotless, as if your Great Aunt Ida is coming for a visit soon and she smacks you with her cane if the place isn't perfectly clean.

Furthermore the only things left out, clutter wise, should be your musical instrument, painting, woodworking project, architectural designs, poetry notebook or something creative which you have left on the coffee table. This gives you something to talk about. If you don't do any activities like that your next best option is a coffee table book about traveling overseas. (Because like your Great Aunt Ida, women appreciate a man who is creative / likes to travel abroad. She may be a stickler for cleanliness, but Aunt Ida loves to talk about all the trips she went on when she was younger.)

The same rule above also applies to your car or vehicle. It should be clean, spotless and the only piece of clutter should be a book / map of an area you want to drive to sometime (eg. Ontario's wine region in Niagara).

NOTES

These are just 5 tips that increase your chances of getting laid. They are not a guarantee. You could still mess up by insulting her in some unforeseen way. Or she could turn out to be a headcase / damaged goods, in which case you are better off without her. (Far too many women out there have developed some weird psychological hangups that make them unable to have long term relationships. If you sleep with such a person they might end up stalking you, treating you like dirt, messing your mind, any number of things. You are better off avoiding headcases as they need professional treatment before they can even stand a chance of having a long term relationship.)

Getting laid on a first date is actually a good signifier that your relationship will last a longer period of time and lead to a lasting relationship (possibly even marriage) - at least when it comes to modern women. Conservative / religious women expect to be wooed a lot longer before the courtship reaches the bedroom.

As such it is best to avoid women who are not your counterpart in terms of belief system. Atheists probably should not be dating Christians and vice versa. Muslims and Christians dating, not such a big deal because Jesus is a prophet in Islam. Before meeting women for dates (assuming you met them via online personals) screen out any who are potentially problematic because of their religion. Women who describe themselves as spiritual are okay (and often free spirits sexually), but Roman Catholics or Russian Orthodox might have some antiquated ideas about marriage before sex. (Which is funny, because people who don't have sex before marriage are more likely to have a divorce.)

Now I am not saying you cannot date women who are of a different belief system than yourself. Go right ahead. Just understand that it is not going to be easier when it comes to trying to make the relationship last more then 2 months.

Pickup Lines for Women to use on Men

Some of these are a bit disturbing, others are just funny - the images were produced by Cosmo - and what they are promoting is pickup lines for women to use on men.

I personally find that pickup lines men use to be quite lewd and rude, so how are these any better? Is Cosmo trying to say that using these lines are acceptable just because it is a woman saying them? I don't think so. I think any pick up line that "crosses the line" in terms of rudeness should get a man slapped across the face.

And what standard is this setting for women? Sexual aggressiveness is fine and all, but what about how men will respond to such questions of sexual availability? Some men will no doubt take it too far.

Call me old fashioned, but a little romance is always better that a cheesy pickup line.

Fred Vs Martha - What are they thinking?

Fred is attracted to a woman named Martha. He asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and after a while neither one of them is seeing anybody else.

And then, one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Martha, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?"

And then, there is silence in the car.

To Martha, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn't want, or isn't sure of.

And Fred is thinking: Gosh. Six months.

And Martha is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of relationship either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I'd have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are, moving steadily towards, I mean, where are we going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this person?

And Fred is thinking: ...so that means it was...let's see...February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the dealer's, which means...lemme check the odometer...Whoa! I am way overdue for an oil change here.

And Martha is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship, more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed - even before I sensed it - that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that's it. That's why he's so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He's afraid of being rejected.

And Fred is thinking: And I'm gonna have them look at the transmission again. I don't care what those morons say, it's still not shifting right. And they better not try to blame it on the cold weather this time. What cold weather? It's 87 degrees out, and this thing is shifting like a garbage truck, and I paid those incompetent thieves $600.

And Martha is thinking: He's angry. And I don't blame him. I'd be angry, too. I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can't help the way I feel. I'm just not sure.

And Fred is thinking: They'll probably say it's only a 90-day warranty...scumballs.

And Martha is thinking: Maybe I'm just too idealistic, waiting for a knight to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting right next to a perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, a person I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic fantasy.

And Fred is thinking: Warranty? They want a warranty? I'll give them a warranty. I'll take their warranty and stick it right up their...

"Fred," Martha says aloud.

"What?" says Fred, startled.

"Please don't torture yourself like this," she says, her eyes beginning to brim with tears. "Maybe I should never have...oh dear, I feel so..."(She breaks down, sobbing.)

"What?" says Fred.

"I'm such a fool," Martha sobs. "I mean, I know there's no knight. I really know that. It's silly. There's no knight, and there's no horse."

"There's no horse?" says Fred.

"You think I'm a fool, don't you?" Martha says.

"No!" says Fred, glad to finally know the correct answer.

"It's just that...it's that I...I need some time," Martha says.

(There is a 15-second pause while Fred, thinking as fast as he can, tries to come up with a safe response. Finally he comes up with one that he thinks might work.)

"Yes," he says. (Martha, deeply moved, touches his hand.)

"Oh, Fred, do you really feel that way?" she says.

"What way?" says Fred.

"That way about time," says Martha.

"Oh," says Fred. "Yes." (Martha turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it involves a horse. At last she speaks.)

"Thank you, Fred," she says.

"Thank you," says Fred.

Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted, tortured soul, and weeps until dawn, whereas when Fred gets back to his place, he opens a bag of Doritos, turns on the TV, and immediately becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a college basketball game between two South Dakota junior colleges that he has never heard of. A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind tells him that something major was going on back there in the car, but he is pretty sure there is no way he would ever understand what, and so he figures it's better if he doesn't think about it.

The next day Martha will call her closest friend, or perhaps two of them, and they will talk about this situation for six straight hours. In painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she said and everything he said, going over it time and time again, exploring every word, expression, and gesture for nuances of meaning, considering every possible ramification.

They will continue to discuss this subject, off and on, for weeks, maybe months, never reaching any definite conclusions, but never getting bored with it either.

Meanwhile, Fred, while playing racquetball one day with a mutual friend of his and Martha's, will pause just before serving, frown, and say: "Norm, did Martha ever own a horse?"

And for fun, below is another example of how men and women think differently.

Snog Burning at Work

A lot of Canadian men out there have been growing beards lately, apparently unafraid of what women might say about the dreaded snog burn that comes from kissing a man with a beard. What is behind this trend?

Honestly from what I can tell the whole question as to whether to shave or go primal largely depends on several factors:

#1. Social acceptance at work and/or can I get a job with a beard? Because lets face it, people have in-person interviews so they can see what you look like.

#2. Whether the girlfriend or wife likes facial hair. This can be a big deciding factor for many men.

#3. Whether celebrities are doing it too. eg. We see George Clooney doing it and think we can too.

#4. Whether a particular person actually looks good with a beard. Because lets face it, we don't all look like George Clooney. Some of us look horrible with a beard.

I suppose it would not be so bad if we all lived in Muslim countries where beards were both socially accepted and even expected of men.

In contrast to a more moderate country like Iraq, where mustaches are more socially acceptable.

The whole trick with growing a beard - which I have done numerous times in the past - is that growing one changes how people view you.

Back in Summer 2002 I grew a beard for 3-4 months (and looked like Jesus) and discovered that people treated me differently. Rudely. I call it "anti-beardism".

Thus if so many people consider beards to be unattractive, why would some women consider beards attractive and enjoy "snog burning" (kissing a bearded man)?

Personal preference? Because it tickles / burns your face, sometimes even causing a rash?

I do not have an answer. Any women who read this, feel free to provide your answer in the comments below as to why you enjoy kissing a man with a beard because we really want to know.

Facial hair styles through the decades...

1920s to 1930s - Mustaches.

1940s - Sideburns.

1950s - Beatnik beards and mustaches.

1960s - Hippie beards.

1970s - P*rnstar mustaches.

1980s - Stubble.

1990s - Goatee.

2000s - Peace Patch / The Movember.

I would also point out that for men university and college is a big liberator for facial hair. Walk around an university campus and you see men who look like Grizzly Adams, cavemen, 1920s gangsters and James Bond villains.

Enter the business world and every man (almost all) are clean shaven. Can you name a CEO with a mustache or goatee? Probably not.

Same goes with lawyers. Ever seen a lawyer with a beard? I have not.

Politicians. Sometimes, but it is a rarity these days. Nobody wants to be compared to Hitler or Stalin.

George Clooney could probably pull off a pretty handsome Stalin if Hollywood ever wanted to make a biopic on him.

And then there is the Fu Manchu style mustache... popularized (not really) by people like Hulk Hogan, Samuel L. Jackson and a few others.

You are more likely to see that particular mustache on an American football player or redneck than anyone else.

Some men also grow beards during the winter.

Just, you know, to keep their faces warm.

Makes perfect sense.

But if they're applying for a job chances are likely they will shave it off just to look younger.

Or shave it off to increase their chances of attracting a woman.

But grow it again later, once they feel like expressing their individuality, after they feel secure in their job and love life.

Her Diary Vs His Diary

Sometimes you just need to avoid over-thinking things.

Typical Guy Mistakes at Work

LOVE / SEX - I was tempted to call this post "Being a Bonehead at Work".

As a guy I, on a regular basis, sometimes make stupid mistakes. Bonehead mistakes. Its not that I am stupid... its just that I wasn't thinking.

For women when men do that they call it something else. Being Inconsiderate, because we didn't think of their feelings when we did something stupid.

Now I want to point out that doing a Typical Guy Mistake happens a lot. We just don't think sometimes and we do something and only afterwards realize we were being a bonehead.

Somewhere out there in the world I can guarantee there is multiple men making a bonehead mistake right now... and at the same time there is a bunch of others who are regretting their action.

Typical Guy Mistakes aren't the result of greed, hatred or malice. Although some of them might be done in the name of laziness and/or efficiency. As guys we have a tendency to think of the most efficient use of our time... so if we can carry 3 boxes up the stairs in one trip instead of making 3 trips, well by golly, we're going to carry all three boxes at once!

And that isn't really laziness because we're doing extra effort to make more efficient use of time. It takes us more energy to carry all three boxes at once.

Now if we drop 1 of the boxes and it contained your great-grandmother's antique heirloom knitting needles and the knitting needles get broken... well, gee, we're sorry. We thought we could do it without too much difficulty and weren't thinking about the danger to your precious heirloom.

And such things just happen.

Another Typical Guy Mistake is when we blurt something out and we're being honest. Nothing wrong with the truth right? Ha, if only.

Another Typical Guy Mistake is when we embarrass you by behaving like a dumb*ss. You roll your eyes in embarrassment and look the other way and later berate us later about how its rude to ask Asian people where they're from and conversing with them in their native language (as someone who speaks Korean, Japanese and Mandarin I've done this a lot, mostly because I use any excuse to hone my language skills and get needed practice).

I think you get the point.

The thing about Typical Guy Mistakes is that we know we were being stupid when we made the mistakes, but we don't think we did anything wrong. This is an important disctinction.

Doing something stupid is a whoops. Sorry. I wasn't thinking.

Doing something wrong means we did something immoral out of greed, hatred, envy, etc.

Thus sometimes men will refuse to apologize for a Typical Guy Mistake because we didn't do anything immoral. We already know we did something stupid, but morality isn't part of equation.

We can apologize for our stupidity, but sometimes if we've done multiple stupid mistakes these things add up and women get annoyed at the sheer number of mistakes. If the woman in our life is the type who keeps bringing up old mistakes this isn't going to help either. At some point in resulting arguments she might even refer to him as "a Complete Bonehead".

Being a Complete Bonehead means you're a guy who makes Typical Guy Mistakes on a regular (perhaps even daily) basis. Watch old episodes of Tim Allen on the "Home Improvement" TV show from the 1990s and you will get to see a Complete Bonehead in action.

I am going to give a personal example. One week before Valentines I was at my girlfriend's place and we discussed me staying the night. It was still early in the relationship and she had mentioned wanting to stay up late sometime talking. I was all for snuggling and chatting. However my interest in doing so was apparently misconstrued as sexual lust and she got scared of the seriousness of the relationship and 4 days later we broke up.

Now... did I do anything immoral? Nope. Was it a stupid mistake for me to want to spend the night and chat? Yes.

Now during the actual break up I did another one. I complained about how she frequently changes her mind, cancels meetings, changes meetings and so forth. Sometimes she can't even make up her mind. (If you've ever dated someone like this you know how annoying and frustrating this is.) I felt she was being inconsiderate and selfish by not taking into account my feelings and schedule and the effort I was putting into doing nice things for her. ie. The one time she was supposed to come over for spicy spaghetti and watch movies, but instead she cancelled and went straight home because she was "too tired" from work.

I was upset and said something stupid. Regardless that its true that she does those things, it was still stupid of me to bring up the topic during the breakup.

But in retrospect she was probably just making Typical Girl Mistakes when she cancelled or changed all those meetings. She wasn't thinking, the same way I wasn't thinking.

She knew I was making the meal for her but it never occurred to her that I was making a huge effort making her a special meal and that I would be upset if she cancelled at the last minute.

Such things just happen.

The only thing we can do is try and practice forgiveness and this works equally well for both sexes.

"Lets just stay friends" at Work

LOVE + SEX - Ever started seeing someone and then they suggest the two of you should stay friends for now and then maybe become lovers later? The concept is that you become friends first and then over time a romantic relationship grows. At a snails' pace, if ever.

Well there is something fundamentally wrong with that idea. Several things when you think about it.

#1. You are leading the other person on with the promise of possible romance later. Essentially you are wasting their time.

#2. You are browsing. Having a look but without making any commitments. If you end up seeing multiple people this way but aren't "together" with any of them you're basically just using all of them and taking advantage of them.

#3. The other person may hold off having relationships with other people because they don't believe in seeing multiple people at the same time. Even though you're "just friends" it is implied that romance will eventually follow and most people don't believe in browsing like that because its too much like cheating.

#4. Browsing can lead to cheating. Being "just friends" with multiple people can cause multiple romantic relationships to form and love triangles. This only leads to problems.

#5. People who try to control the flow of a relationship (aka relationship control freaks) usually don't have long term relationships because their controlling nature annoys people and is counter-productive to romance.

#6. This creates an unfair and unequal relationship.

My advice?

Anyone who suggests "Lets just stay friends" should be given either an ultimatum or avoided completely. In my experience these wishy-washy people need to make a decision (especially if they are the cheating type, since wishy-washy people often cheat). If they actually like you they should just date you. If they can't accept such a commitment then they just don't like you that much.

Sort of like the book "He's just not that into you."

There is no point in being left dangling on a hook while the other person continues to fish for bigger and better catches. Keeping you dangling means you're a backup plan, a 2nd fiddle, a spare wheel... except you're not even really that. You're a maybe. A might be replacement who may never be asked to fulfill a role.

And the silly thing is that the other person can change their mind at any time, creating an unfair and unequal relationship.

My advice?

Don't give such wishy-washy people the satisfaction of dangling people like that. They're not worth wasting your time on.

There are plenty of fish out there and you don't need to waste your time with someone who is wishy-washy and can't make a simple decision.

Being Sexy at Work

SEX - Do you know what sells lingerie? Its not the sex, its the mystery of what lays beneath and it leaves the female body parts up to our imagination.

It doesn't even have to be lingerie. It can be any kind of fashion item provided it actually clothes the body.

Take the photo on the right as an example. It gets the point across. Its attractive and alluring... but all of this depends on the imagination. Skin by itself doesn't provoke much imagination. Its the shape of the skin and the flesh underneath. Muscles. Angles. Curves. And you don't need bare flesh to see curves.

And this works equally well with men.

What looks more attractive? A man wearing an extra large baggy shirt?

Or a man wearing a tight-fitting shirt which shows his physique?

The answer for most people is obvious, the tight-fitting shirt.

The problem however is if you are overweight... and have rolls of fat that you want to hide. That is when the baggy clothes comes in because you are looking to hide fatty rolls.

Lets look at the following photos as an example... two similarly attractive women both wearing grey... but you can see the curves of this woman on the right because her clothes are tight fitting.

Now once you've learned this fashion sexiness principle you realize why you its important to do two things when trying to attract a mate:

#1. Stay fit. Get nice abs. Do yoga and cardio.
#2. Wear clothes suitable for your size that is either tight fitting or not too baggy.

And provided you have a nice personality to go with your sexy body you will have no problem attracting a mate.

Gold Diggers at Work

Earlier today I went on a first date (you know, a coffee date) with a girl I met via online personals. She was Russian, very attractive, but when it came time to pay the bill she apparently thought I was treating her (despite the fact that it her idea to have drinks together).

She was apparently so traditional that this was the sole reason why we did not schedule a 2nd date. She didn't provide any other reason...

Thus I am forced to conclude either she was:

A. Honest and just very traditional and used to men who pay for everything.

B. Lying and there was some other reason why she didn't like me.

C. A gold digger.

Now I would like to hope it was A, just because I don't like it when people lie to me, but there is the distinct chance it was C, she is a gold digger and just looking for someone to pay for her way through life.

I should point out that most men hate gold diggers. They just feel used and betrayed if a woman is using them for money.

HOWEVER, I should point out that some men also like gold diggers... but I should note these men are same type who get trophy wives and like prostitutes.

As an artist / writer I am fortunate enough to know that any gold diggers will be sorely disappointed with my finances. Artists / writers aren't exactly known for being wealthy and usually need a second career to make ends meet.

Thus while it would be nice to be rich enough to buy girlfriends expensive $3,000 puppies for their birthdays (ie. Toronto Maltese Puppies are really cute) the fact of the matter is I don't want a lazy girlfriend or wife who is dependent on me... nor is it practical.

Lets imagine you have a high paying executive career. You marry a gold digger. You get in a car accident and are unable to work. Your finances start to run low. Does the gold digger stick with you, through sickness and in health, til death do you part? No, the gold digger divorces your sorry butt, she gets nothing because frankly you aren't working any more due to health reasons and don't have any money to take, and then she is left with no career of her own to fall back on.

Thus marrying a gold digger simply isn't practical, for either of you. Oh sure, she could sell any jewelry you gave her (like the Marilyn Monroe song "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend"), but the end result is she is back at square one.



Madonna's "Material Girl" pays homage to the Marilyn Monroe song, but with an important difference. In the music video she ends up going out with the guy who brought her handpicked daisies.



Part of the whole gold digger phenomenon we could blame on tradition. Traditionally men were the bread winners and women didn't need to have their own career. In modern society its now considered to be more practical if both men and women have their own careers, their own money and they aren't financially beholden to their spouse.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer to go the handpicked daisy route. Not because its cheaper on my wallet, but because at least then I know the woman is being honest, realistic and practical.

Diamonds may be a Girl's Best Friend, but Diamonds won't buy you True Love.

Rob Fod Vs the Gay Pride Parade

CANADA - No Rob Ford? No problem.

With an estimated crowd of over 1 million people, Toronto's Gay Pride Parade went off with its usual rainbow-esque festivities as Torontonians celebrated 31 years of Pride, despite Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's controversial absence.

Where was Rob Ford? He was hiding up north in his cottage, avoiding everything to do with the Gay Pride Parade. Homophobic? Maybe. Or more likely he is trying to win votes from the white middle class suburbanites who elected him mayor in the first place.

The record-breaking event this year was more than a massive celebration that takes over several city streets. The parade is a constant reminder that there is still a lot to do to achieve equal rights for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities worldwide.

And the fact Toronto's own mayor refused to go really hammers home the concept that this is an important equal rights issue, even if you're not gay and have no interest in the LGBT community.

The three-hour parade, the largest of its kind in Canada, is part of the largest gay festival in North America (which means its also one of the biggest in the world) involves a 10-day Pride Week that generates about $100 million for Toronto's economy and draws 10s of thousands of tourists to Toronto.

Rob Ford claims he skipped the parade to continue a family tradition of spending Canada Day in cottage country. He also skipped all the other Pride events held earlier in the week, including a rainbow flag raising at city hall. He avoided everything and anything to do with being gay.

Ford has already faced plenty of criticism and accusations of homophobia.

In the parade some people waved signs denouncing Rob Ford, while others poked fun at him by covering their faces or genitals with cardboard cut-outs of Ford's face.

It was the first time since 1994 that Toronto's sitting mayor didn't march in the parade. Former mayors Barbara Hall and David Miller came out to attend.

As Miller shook hands one young man shouted: "Our old mayor is better than our new one," which drew a chorus of cheers. David Miller declined to comment about Ford's absence and focused on the positive instead.

"I believe this event shows Toronto at its best," says David Miller, who was Toronto's mayor until Ford took over in fall 2010. "In our city, everybody's welcome."