weeeeeee!

oh no!

christmas is over. school commences again tomorrow and I am suddenly feeling very tired, the stress of relaxation catching up to me.

the holiday was rounded out by a very nice trip to pender, with sam, tippi and kerria. we got drunk and watched simpsons and argued over board games and did some hiking. Tippi and I, after being ditched by the girls, went hiking along a small spit which turned out to be one of the most beautiful places I have ever been. It was a gorgeous forest surrounded by a rocky coast and the view was of the various gulf islands and the ferry terminal, which many may not find beautiful, but I love the ferries and watching them sail in just added to my perceived beauty.

On pender we ate like kings. My plan to cook more is working out wonderfully. I made artichoke, roasted garlic, spinach and zucchini pizza on the first night, then sam made stuffed peppers and crumble stuffed apples. Back in victoria, kerria and I made a meal with red broccoli and squash and peach crumble. I can't really afford to eat this well, but it is damn good. Although making crumble is pretty easy. Has anyone ever become sick of crumble?

Had a long talk about biology and realised that I really believed that biology informed all of our action, that society and its pressures stemmed solely from biological pressures and that we were powerless in the face of these pressures. After a somewhat stressful conversation, I am not so sure. I know that I harp on incessently about agency, and I certainly believe in agency, but a psuedo-agency, whereby one's biology forces one to make a certain decision while one believes themselves in control. This is not necessarily an urgent pressure - rather, it is a slow process, similar to waves breaking rocks into sand. One can make "socially conscious decisions" but ultimately the power of biology would win. This is what I thought, even if I hadn't fully fleshed it out. Anyway, I am going to try to flesh it out more, without pissing off the people who are willing to discuss it with me. The upshot of the argument, by the by - the main point of contension - was that men and women may think differently and do so not because of social pressures but because of biology.

The theory is admittedly convenient because it partially excuses socially inappropriate behavior.

watched Hotel Rwanda. gah. was angry at the western powers for withdrawing but couldn't figure out what an army would do in the face of genocidal hatred of a large population by another population. Large scale relocation? massive protection of a refugee camp? I haven't looked it up yet, but can someone provide an example of when an army was able to stifle genocide, when that army was not interested in being partisan or contributing to the death count. I also was a tad disappointed that the movie was so one-sided. I believe that the bloodshed was directed both ways, although I may be missing some of the subtleties.