Thursday February 18 was a strange day in Austin. I had a client who was 30 minutes late for an appointment, telling me he thought there had been some kind of "big wreck" on one of the city's major thoroughfares which had shut down traffic. That certainly isn't something out of the ordinary in Austin. But as is turns out, it was a more than just a big wreck. Someone by the name of Joe Stack had crashed his plane into the side of a building. It was a sad, crazy day in Austin. An act of terror? Here? Really? Please, wake me up. Really?

But is it "terrorism"? It seems like there are a lot of people debating the semantics of this. Why, I am not quite sure. Terrorism is, by definition, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". Terrorism knows very few bounds. It is a pretty broad definition.

You know that the issue of semantics (and fear) has grown to epic proportions when you have an Austin American-Statesman headline that reads "Was attack an act of terrorism, rage or spectacle murder". We really need to categorize this? Really? Any act of violence like this will "intimidate or coerce societies or governments", especially in their response to the tragedy. Can we not just leave it at that?

This goes far beyond an issue of semantics. It goes deep into our psyche, our beliefs, our values.

When I was growing up, Canadians were always a little shy about being overtly proud of their nationality. Unless it comes to hockey - our national pastime. But even the Canadian men's hockey team had a 50 year gold medal drought at the Olympics until 2002. As a Canadian living in the United States, the Olympics are always an interesting psychosocial challenge. I am always reminded of the Canadian medal count, and how it compares to that of the United States. Our Olympics sport self-image has almost become a bit of a Canadian inferiority complex.

I think I really started to notice a collective change sometime around, well, 2002 - the year that the men's hockey team ended their 50 year drought. When they won - the whole nation cheered. Loudly.

The Live Music Capital of the World. You see it as soon as you fly into Austin Bergstrom International Airport. The City of Austin have been using this as their motto for quite some time now. I've never really doubted the truth in it. I discovered Austin because of the music. When I found out that there were more guitar players per capita in Austin than in any other place in the universe (my statistics), how could I not want to visit?

After peeling away the layers upon layers of Austin guitar players, you then discover the vibe, the sound, the feel that is "Austin music". It is a blend of many musical styles that has grown and evolved organically to create that unmistakable vibe. It's Joe Ely, live at the Liberty Lunch. It's Sarah Hickman or Lyle Lovett or David Garza at the Cactus. It's Stevie Ray Vaughan at Antones. It's Asleep At The Wheel at the Broken Spoke. Or how about the Arc Angels at the Opera House? Or Soul Hat at the Black Cat Lounge? Or Storyville at Stubbs?

Much of that "Austin sound" has been fostered by the laid-back music scene, where artists could come to play their music amongst others who would appreciate it, groove to it, and cultivate it. You came to Austin to play music in the presence of others who love music. My own personal experience as a musician was reflective of that.

But sadly, we are now faced with yet another Austin music landmark closing. With this week's announcement of the closing of the Cactus Cafe, I am left to ponder the evolution - or perhaps devolution - of the Live Music Capital of the World.

When I was in high school, I was a self-professed "math and science geek". Well, perhaps I didn't use the word "geek" as such, but my grades made it quite apparent that that was where my academic strengths were at the time. In contrast, English was my worst subject. English always consisted of reading books that someone told me were important or epic that usually ended up being irrelevant or downright boring. This always ended up in a litany of book reviews and reports.

And then there was my senior year - and the much-dreaded Canadian literature class.

At the time, I was convinced that "Canadian literature" was a bit of a misnomer. As a high school senior with an interest in calculus and physics, it was hard to fathom many Canadian authors worth studying. But it was in this same class that we were given an assignment to either write a book review of a Canadian author of your choice, or to select a Canadian musician and review their lyrical content. Suddenly, writing had some degree of personal relevance. This got me to explore my thoughts on issues relevant to my world, and to do so on the written page. I discovered that the writing process was, well, almost enjoyable.

I can't say that I started off writing because it was something that I felt a natural talent or inclination to do. But now, I am thankful that it is a part of my daily world. So now I am left to ask - why do I write?

It is no small wonder that I don't run with an iPod or mp3 player, simply because I find this to be a great time to get away from all the distractions of daily life. The peacefulness of hearing my feet strike the ground, my breathing, and then, my thoughts. And then - the moment. That precious moment. And another. And another. It's almost like a string of pearls - each moment beautiful of it's own accord, strung together one by one. A time when all stands still, when stuff just doesn't matter, but the moment does.

Today's 3M half marathon was a great reminder of how running provides us not only with an environment in which to "let go", but also a metaphor for life as we know it. This metaphor also stands to remind us of how we err in daily life, and how we can excel.

Even when you know that stuff happens, that distractions rule your existence, it's a challenge to rectify it. It is so hard to simply "be in the moment" and to let go of our attachment to emotions, drama, angst, anger, frustration, discontent, and a plethora of unpleasant stuff. And let's face it - can you be self-actualized when you are chasing stuff around all day?

In the decision, it was stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy that ""when government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought."

I didn't just read this, did I? Imagine, if you will, Corporation A (or Special Interest Z) with big budget, seeking support from Legislator B, "offering" to produce ads etc denouncing Legislator C, in return for "consideration" of their "policy suggestions".

Hold on a second. I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court decision. Fortunately, my First Amendment rights allow me to do so. Whew. Something about this whole thing just doesn't make sense. A 100-year-old policy - gone - as quickly as it takes to say "Holy Campaign Finance Reform, Batman".

I think it's safe to say that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has opened an interesting can of worms recently at a rather inopportune moment. They have published what is, to my understanding, an evidence-based report on screening for breast cancer, including the use of mammograms. Emotional topic, without a doubt.

There have been some rather extreme responses as can often be expected when the discussion is driven by emotion. This discussion is taking place at a time when the current health care reform climate is volatile at best. People have already started proclaiming that "this is rationing of care - and exactly what health care reform is going to do", "this will prevent women from getting the care they need", and "hell yes, as a doctor I am still going to perform them regardless of what the study says".

Let's make sure that we understand the conclusions of the report.  All suggestions are given a grade that reflects the level or degree of recommendation. Recommendations are just that - recommendations, not demands or rules.

The part that seems to have everyone outraged is this: