The Stupid Files

Ah, no, I wasn't speaking specifically to you....

2012-01-02T12:41:00.001-07:00

For those to whom this is not obvious, one’s Facebook page is acollection – a peg board of sorts - of all sorts of stuff; opinion, referencesto things, photos, shares, links. If one goes to a friend’s page, one must beprepared to see and read things one might not otherwise seek out.

Likewise, if one goes to a friend’s page - meaning one consciously clickson that page or has consciously added that friend’s page to one’s own stream -one cannot complain about the information the friend posts.

There are twochoices; follow friends and suck it up or don’t follow them. Period.

Telling them what they can and cannot post – not allowed.

Inserting veiled threats? Also not allowed, juvenile and notintelligent….

Bottom line? You, dear reader, have the right to come here, read this andcomment on it if you wish. You do not, however, have the right to not beoffended by what is here (or on my Facebook, if you’re subscribed to my page).

You also don’t get any points for making the false assumption thatanything I post is meant in any way to be ‘advice,' nor do you get to show off that you're belly-button-gazing by assuming I'm speaking to you personally. I am not. What I write and post is information and thatis all it is (except in the rare occasion that I DO post something for a specific person - and they will absolutely know it is there for them).

If you take to heart anything I write here, take it personally or are offended byit, that’s not my issue. You choose to read so you have the responsibility ofdealing with the consequences of that choice.

I am well-educated and old enough to have had a life of experiences so yes,occasionally I do think I’m right about stuff and yes, perhaps more often thanoccasionally. But YOU dear reader, are in no way forced or coerced intoagreeing with me or even reading what is written here….

This is the conversation that ensued from my having posted the abovegeneral interest article on my own personal Facebook. The commenter below chose to cometo my page, read the post (which I did NOT write but with which I fully agree) complained about having read that article and then suggested that I was targeting them. Ridiculous.

This person is a senior administrator at a school for gifted students, and occupies a prominent spot in the "should know better than to argue illogically" category.

To be clear, I in NO way coerced, cajoled, enticed,entrapped, dragged, induced, pleaded, begged or even invited the followingperson to come to my page, nor did I send the page or the link to them. They came upon my page by choice, so their implication, “you shouldn’t post stuff thatmakes me uncomfortable” is annoying.

Here's the article; please read it.

(The Truth About Christmas [NSFCWCC](Not Safe For Christians Who Celebrate Christmas)

Commenter:

I don't understand the need for provocation, unless you geta kick out of being a provocateur. Besides, isn't it a bit lazy, especially forsomeone who touts himself an Ivy League academic to use the Bible, a text thatone doesn't believe in, to establish anti-Biblical "fact?" (Moi: thebible is excellent at disproving itself, for the record, so yes, manyintellectuals use it in the way described here. The commenter is referring toChristopher Hitchens, who read – and fully comprehended - more in his 62 years than 20 other peopleread in their lifetimes combined and was able to quote, reference, cross-reference, adjudicate, and elucidate the bible in an immensely scholarly way ….)

It's a bit like shooting someone for being an NRA member.You are better than this.(this, in case it isn't obvious, is a bit of a slam....and yes, it might be appropriate to shoot certain NRA members; particularly those who are unaware and uninterested in the NRA's political policies and bent).

Moi:

Did you actually just say you don't understand the need??Seriously? You don't understand the need for people to UNDERSTAND what they'reactually doing?

People have the constitutional right in this country (being Canada, if anyone is interested)to believe whatever they wish. They also have a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY tounderstand their beliefs and by understanding them NOT to inflict them - andconvolutions and outright falsehoods - on others, like me, who like FACTS andwho don't wish to be marginalized, scorned, hated, mistrusted for saying"HEY, wait a minute, here's how this particular thing actually came together."

Commenter

I understand the need for thoughtful conversation, whichthis isn't. I understand that people can understand what they are actuallydoing. I am pointing out that this comes across as provocation, no matter howwell intentioned it claims to be. It doesn't comeacross as a serious exploration of anything other than "Aren't Iclever?" (Merry Christmas, bitches???} And, going straight to "Areyou advocating for a dictatorship/1984 style of Just Do What Big BrotherSays???" is the presentation of a false dichotomy.(really?, when this commenter is telling me not to question things? um.... )

People have a constitutionalright to believe what they want. I would suggest that a correspondingresponsibility might be to have some respect and decorum with those, whom youclaim to respect, who might have a different point of view. Who is being"marginalized, hated, or mistrusted?" Finally, by posting theoriginal post, who is doing the inflicting?

Moi

‎1. This IS the basis of thoughtful conversation; however,these comments are very much an attempt to end that conversation. "Youshouldn't challenge religion because it makes people uncomfortable" is nota valid argument. I refuse - and I cannot make this anymore clear how MUCH I refuse - to be cowed into silence by the fact that somepeople will NOT consider what facts exist.

2. People MUST understand what they're actuallydoing, when what they do and what they think they believe informs so much oflife and culture.

3. It is only provocation because people are sovery, very unwilling to consider that their beliefs may not be grounded wherethey think they are. "I didn't know that," MUST also apply topeople's belief systems. (I will add in here again that nobody is forcing anyone to read my Facebook posts. Provocation requires a different setting).

4. If your doctor came to you with all sorts ofwitch-doctory, which he/she believed in, was bonded to, which had been passeddown in their family, and, yes, which they had the right to believe, and wantedto doctor you based on those beliefs, would you say "I must respect thosebeliefs?" I think not.

Beliefs are NOT protected from questioning orrevision or termination when those beliefs are shown to be false. Otherwise, we'dstill be sacrificing children to appease other gods. (This link is to an article thatappeared today, widely in international news. The act is abhorrent, so all you Christiansremember, before you start casting aspersions on these people, that childsacrifice is part of your tradition).

Religion and religious beliefsare NOT - and in no way deserve to be - protected from questioning. That peoplebecome so angered and uncomfortable and accusing when those beliefs are put toquestioning indicates a certain fragility of those beliefs....

5. Are you saying that my postinginteresting information on MY feed - which one can subscribe to or not - is'inflicting?' Are you suggesting I censor myself so as not to offend those whohave every right to read or not when absolutely no offence is intended? Are youseriously suggesting that in the area of beliefs; that I never post anythingthat might challenge?

I will tell you quitecategorically, that will NOT happen. Facebook - and my blog - are both opt-inand no, I'm not putting any disclaimer on either of them.

The FACT is this particular holiday IS a remake ofSEVERAL earlier, pagan festivals. The FACT is that early christians reviledthis holiday nearly across the board and there are still many fundamentalistchristians who do not celebrate this holiday at all for these reasons and whothink it an abomination that any christian does celebrate it.

The FACT is this holiday was not celebrated at allprior to 1850 and not established as a holiday until 1870 - and that shortlyafter that, people who sell stuff realised an opportunity to sell more.

The fact is, IF the main character existed, he absolutely was NOT born on December 24th or 25 and the fact is that several other 'gods' were alleged to have been born on the same date by the same method, so there should be some scepticism about the entire story.

If these realities are offensive to some, then Isuggest those some should take a long hard look at WHY. It is not intelligentto cover one's eyes and ears and holler "DON'T SAY THAT! DON'T SAYTHAT."

I am always confused and often shocked by howvehemently people will defend things which they also refuse to understand.

Religion and beliefs of ANY kind are not sacredground, not in general and not on my page. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny,perhaps it should be reconsidered. That applies to every other aspect of lifeand it does, despite the suggestion here that it shouldn't, apply to religionsas well.

Whether I challenge beliefs and traditions, andwhether I respect those beliefs and traditions has absolutely nothing to dowith my respect for PEOPLE.

I respect my friends very muchand my respect for them is in no way tied to their beliefs or their faiths - orlack of. (To be clear here, my respect for my friends in no way necessitates a respect for what they believe. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of how lovely is the person spouting it).

That respect does not necessitate my censoringmyself - and those who respect me shouldn't ask that of me and I don't ask itof them.

Commenter:

It's my failure. I just can't make the argument so that youget my point. I don't want to stifle your free speech; I just want you to beconsiderate of those to whom you speak about very personal things. I havealways admired your intelligence. I believe theTaoists, however, when they suggest that intelligence, unlike wisdom, istemporary and fleeting. Wisdom, on the other hand, has endurance and resonance,but can only be achieved when intelligence is combined with empathy.

Moi:

The important thing here is this: I am not addressing anyoneor speaking 'about' or 'to' anyone. I am commenting on, or posting information.Unless I post information directly to someone or on their wall, the informationI put on my feed is GENERAL and not directed toANYONE in particular.

I would not walk into anyone's church and startpointing out the fallacies of their faith. On MY Facebook feed, anyone whoreads my posts is coming into MY 'church'...

I also want to point out that I refuse to use theterm "You" in any other capacity than the general; otherwise, itcomes to personalising a general commentary.

I understand that people have PERSONAL religions orbeliefs but that reality does not preclude the other reality: that I have aright to comment, that those beliefs are just that - beliefs - and that peoplehave a responsibility to know what they're talking about if they're going toget all up in arms when they read general information of the "Hey, did youknow?" variety.

And I totally agree with the idea of wisdom vsintelligence. Which is why I understand the difference in respecting my friendsfor WHO they are, REGARDLESS of WHAT they believe.

Like I said, I adore my friends and myacquaintances because of WHO they are, how they live, how they treat theirfamilies and friends etc; and I am very interested in what they believe.

I am usually pretty confident that my friends andacquaintances are wise and intelligent enough to make the distinction betweenthe who and the what. I also know that my friends and acquaintances - and mostpeople for that matter - are good people regardless of religion/beliefs.

What I will never understand is the very commonreaction to new information, where it pertains to religion and beliefs, of"how dare you," and "you have no right," and "you mustbe angry" or "you must have had some trauma caused to you,"rather than, "I didn't know that."

I think those reactions come very much from theperson not making necessary separation between who they are and what theybelieve - they take it as if information is about THEM when it is absolutely not.I would say, however, such reactions might reasonably be considered indicationsof such a person's insecurity about their beliefs.

This is why the question, "If all religionsand their characters are myth, are you still the good and moral person you arenow?" must necessarily be answered "yes."

That "yes" is why I am astounded by suchangry reactions to information.

The fact remains that religions - all of them - arebased very much in myth and also very much in the writings of tribes from 2000years ago and, in the case of christmas, VERY much manipulated by certainforces that have obvious presence.

One cannot stridently demand that 'christ be putback in christmas,' when that is a very modern concept in the first place. Asimple reading and comparison of the first four gospels will very quicklyreveal how much of the modern christmas 'tradition' is a recent structure.

I should make it absolutely clear here that I haveno dislike or opposition to the holiday. There are all sorts of social, psychologicaland physical reasons for a celebration in the dead of winter. However, I detestthe commercialism and the coercive parts of the 'christmas' celebration - the expectation that one has lights on the house and a tree in the window and that one wears red and green and buys gifts for strangers and spends way, way too much money and is perpetually happy. I'm not a sheep...

It bothers me not at all that others choose thatroute but it is fraudulent to demand others recognise one's tradition when onedoesn't understand the tradition and its roots oneself....

It does, however, piss me off to no end when peoplemake judgements on my character and intelligence - and when they suggest I amunwise - because I have done (nearly six years') research into what I grew upbelieving, my own religion and my cultural heritage, and what my family hasbelieved for TEN GENERATIONS, and post information on my own public feed.

And it bothers and astounds me that people are, in2012, so inflexible and unwilling to understand the foundations of theirtraditions and resort to covering their eyes and ears and stomping their feetrather than taking the intelligent step to "I didn't know that."

Mary's boychild: The biological impossibility of the virgin birth

2011-12-12T23:39:00.000-07:00

Recently, at work of all weird places, two colleagues tried to convince me there was positive proof that christ was a real person.

One of my colleagues said there is actual documentation - something like a birth record - of christ's birth. I searched Google for any mention of such a document or anything that could be considered such an important document and came up dry. I can safely say the allegation of a birth-certificate is false or the catholic church would be crowing like a million turkeys... ok, yeah, they already do that. (Seems Obama is in good company in the missing birth certificate department, at least was for a while....).

The other colleague said proof for christ was a group of ossuaires - boxes containing bones, none DNA tested, one, and none possibly producing the slightest possibility of DNA linking to 'Mary' for whom there is utterly no evidence of existence. Click here for the link I gave him. It refers to an article that my colleague says is less "factural" than National Enquirer. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_36.htm

In the second case, my ernest but uninformed colleague is certain the ossuaries are the real McCoy and suggested I watch a documentary on them. The fundamental flaw in his argument that the bones contained are those of christ and his brother (otherwise known as Joshua and James - yes folks, JOSHUA, not Jesus, Yeshua being a Hebrew name NOT translating to Jesus) is the absolute lack of evidence such persons existed in ANY form.

I have watched the film and I have read a bunch of stuff on the making of it and the people in it and behind it. The Simcha character - the guy who supposedly discovered the ossuaries - has been widely shown to be bent to fraudulent representations in his subject matter. There is no evidence to support the veracity of the claims those ossuaries contain anything other than regular old bones or that they date from ages ago. Carbon dating shows those boxes to be relatively young - i.e. 150 years according to some reports and 50 - 60 according to others.

More importantly, there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of the person in question, let alone his deity, although there is quite a bit - reams, in fact - that points to christianity's key character being just that: a character based on many that have gone before. If the person did not exist, then all questions related to those ossuaries are moot. The entirety of the christian religion relies on the existence of this 'person,' which is why every effort is made to support the myth. Without it, all is - and should be -lost. Click here for an article on the supposed discovery of the "holy foreskin." I know. Gross.

From a biological point of view, there is no way a virgin can conceive; once the deed is done, she's no longer a virgin, so that doesn't count (the bible says she was untouched, so I suppose one could argue artificial insemination but that's a stretch), or could be pregnant by virtue of a spirit; that idea is massively implausible.

In nature, there are organisms that reproduce asexually. In cases where females produce without benefit of males, the offspring are ALWAYS female.... This biological reality means that if he existed, christ was indeed human, created in the usual way by two human parents.

The idea of spirit impregnation is ridiculous, but would mean the resulting child would HAVE to be female, given a spirit cannot be understood to have a genetic structure. If it had, it would necessarily be human and not spirit and we're back to two human parents.

Mary, being female, could have only contributed an X chromosome to the equation. A male offspring would therefore be impossible, if one is willing to give any credence to the idea of a spirit.

This biological reality means there is no possible way the bones in those ossuaries are anything other than human. For the record there is no biblical or extra-biblical explanation for who 'Mary" is or where she came from. The only small nod to her otherwise is when she disappears into thin air, conveniently, at the point in the story where she has outlived her usefulness.... For the record, the virgin birth story appears in only two of the four gospels and even in those, it is not consistent.

The four gospels were written many years after their key characters would have died, so none of the writers were eyewitnesses. Matthew was written more than 60 years later and the other three many years later than that.

Otherwise, the virgin birth myth is present in many, many mythologies, all pre-dating christianity, "many" meaning more than 25... But, as with Harry Potter, the presence of a book does not mean the story contained within is real in any sense.

Apart from the obvious impossibility of a spirit/human offspring, there is no credible evidence at all that the christ of the bible did exist, even if he were human. There were approximately 38 historians writing - prolifically - at the time; none of them mentioned this person. The only extra-biblical mention of a person with the title 'christ' (because that is a title, not a name) was by Josephus, who most scholars believe was a fraud and who did not live in the area purported to be the home turf of christ, so cannot be considered an eyewitness. Josephus's comments at the time run to "I hear there's this guy." That is hearsay related by someone who heard it from someone....

I appreciate people have faith but with faith comes a profound responsibility to understand what one has faith in. Believers should be driven to comprehend - they should be desperate for and focused on comprehension. They should know what their 'holy' books say - in detail. And they must understand how much of their books are scavenged from other, earlier mythologies.

They must NOT in any case rely on "proofs" that are anything but proof and are manufactured or manipulated. Believers should be brutally offended by the offerings of fraudsters who prey upon their beliefs - beliefs that are so strong believers will accept ANYTHING that looks to support their myth.

This is true in all religions. Muslims still believe their prophet was right in saying the world is a flat disk that is circled by the sun, despite the undeniable proof the earth is round and orbits the much larger (read; greater gravitational pull) sun. Belief in a flat earth is, however, no less ridiculous than belief in a talking snake, man-regurgitating fish, or flying horses.

In my case, coming from 10 generations of believers - ministers in every one of those generations and five in this one alone, and from a highly, culturally religious family - the NEED to comprehend lead me to research which lead me to atheism because biblical things do not and cannot stand to scrutiny.

I cannot have faith in a 'god' that waited until humans had been on the planet some 100,000 years before revealing itself, nor can I ignore excellent science that proves the earth is much older than 6000 years; I cannot have faith in a 'god' that constantly destroys what it creates; I cannot have faith in a 'god' that orders the death by murder of (if the bible is to be understood) more than 2.5 million people; or who orders parents to kill their own children or the children of others; or causes bears to rip children apart because they laugh at a man's baldness; or makes a law that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist; or decrees we must keep slaves and tells us how to treat them and to what point we can beat them; or who finds people's car keys, assists football teams to win games, but ignores the millions starving. The bible is immensely historically inaccurate and most of the great stories are, again on scrutiny, highly implausible.

There is a GREAT freedom in not living one's life in fear of a wrathful and vengeful 'god,' in terror for one's afterlife, and in knowing that humans are intrinsically and necessarily moral and need not cower before an angry, jealous, narcissistic 'god' who cannot ever be appeased by the beings it is reported to love and from whom it must have constant adulation but who, despite all that supplication, it constantly threatens with eternal near-death.

The tartan of a life

2011-12-09T10:52:00.002-07:00

This post is a Christmas card for my aunt and uncle in that beautiful, warm, green place by the water.

You cannot know how much I love you and how important you are to me and mine.

Everything that is good is grounded in you, that place, the now, and the forever-will-be-part of the very chequered tartan that is my colourful life.

Boys are often dumb...

2011-09-20T11:40:00.003-06:00

I am endlessly curious about and fascinated by what seems to be a generalised belief held by many men that the type of car they drive, the name given to the work they do, the fabric their clothing is made from or the leather used to make their shoes (Snake? Really? They don't see the irony?) conspire to enhance their general attractiveness and the size of their physical attributes.

Boys, this is not true. Yeah, that's a cool car (your music sucks and is way too loud) but it doesn't make a man of you; yeah, your big, fancy title is interesting but you're probably being paid WAY too much for the actual amount of work you do and in today's times, post Lehman Bros et al, that title and your what's written on your pay stub are suspect; your suit is great but the likelihood you picked it yourself - pretty slim... and those shoes mate? C'mon. As for the physical attributes, let's just say, it's not the gun, it's the gunner....

Here's a tip, boys: real girls - and boys - like the colour of your character and the depth of your ethics; when all the accoutrements are stripped away, without excellent character and ethics, what is there?

Either....

2011-09-11T15:45:00.000-06:00

I'm really smart and people agree with me

Or, they think I'm idiotic and my stuff's not worth commenting on....

Either way, I would love some comments, dear readers.

Debates with believers part a million....

2011-09-11T15:23:00.002-06:00

This is yet another repost of an exchange that occurred on a social network. Before I get into this thread, I'd like to note again how readily believers read general comments, take them personally and wade into an argument. Anything that is italicised and bold has been added by me in this post to clarify my thoughts on the exchange.

I'd also suggest readers of this post (and other similar post that appear here also) note who is using the word "YOU" in their comments - and how and when they're using it, and who isusing the word "I" - and also how - when commenting or replying.

The use or not of "You" issignificant. I have bolded the occurrences of "you" in this thread(some may have been missed, however).

Also, although I have inserted the Latinterm 'sic' behind spelling errors in the early part of this thread, I eventuallygave up....

Finally, if you're reading this and it feels a bit like déja vu, you're right: I posted the early part of this conversation last week. This week, however, a bunch of other people decided to gang up on me.

As always, I invite your comments but PLEASE READ the entire post first, yeah?

Progressive Christianity: the definitiveoxymoron.

This was my general, not-directed-to-anyone-in-particularcomment.... This is the conversation that followed.

JP: Depending...

WriterWriter: I'mnot sure how 'progressive' relates to '2000 year-old tribal writings'....

BW: here's mytake on religion in general.....
If youbelieve.....then you can't persecutethose who don't .....
If you don'tbelieve....then you can't persecutethose who do....
(Justto note, the person who made this TRUE comment resorts to some persecution andthreats later in this conversation.*)

WriterWriter: True.
However, asking questions is not persecution.
Asking for substantiation is not persecution.
Pointing out fallacies, inconsistencies, falsehoods is not persecution.

Those are the rights of rational, thinking peoplein a democracy.

In THIS democracy, freedom OF and freedom FROMreligion are protected by our constitution and Bill of Rights but neither ofthose protect any religion or any subscriber to religion (of any type) frombeing questioned.

JP: It can bewhen the tone is mocking. (I'm not sure what 'it' refers to here orwhen the 'tone' is mocking). Its(sic) not a question when you are"pointing out realities" (actually, I said fallacies, falsehoods and inconsistencies).

For some people, this (I'm not sure what 'this' refers to here) is a part of theirreality, and whether you believetheir view of reality to be true or not, that (not sure what 'that' refers to either... )needs to be honored (sic) (WHY??).

Its (sic) not a question when youconsider those who think rationally different from those who don't (no, the writer is correct; it is not a question to think those who think rationally are different from those who don't).

There arelots of religious people who think rationally (Ok, I'll concede this point except they don't on the points of religion, which is not rational in any way and doesn't pretend to be rational: hence, faith).

It's not a question when the"question" makes others feel small.

(Ah, yeah, it is. Their feelingsmall has no bearing on whether a question is a question).

Perhaps those within religionhave made you (why did this suddenly becomeabout me?) feel small and insignificant and that's why you attack* (question?) it with suchvigor (sic). There is a difference between an opinion and a question. I respectyours (my question or my opinion?), as a rational, thinking humanbeing (I don't know if the writer means they are or I am the rational being).

I hope the same courtesy can be given to me. (Whendid this suddenly become about this commenter? My initial four-word post isentirely general).

WriterWriter: How did thisbecome about anyone in particular???

Why is it people always try to find reasons (i.e. I've been made to feel small)for atheism? Why should there be any reason beyond there's NO evidence for anygod: not the god of the christians and jews and notthat of the muslims - no more evidence than there is for ANY of the 5000 or sogods that have passed through human history.

Here's a question: If you had been born in the Middle Eastto parents who follow Islam, would youstill be a christian? (This question was never answered)

I will say I disagree intensely with the idea that religion'needs to be honoured.' Why?

Being affiliated with a religion - ANY religion - does not make a person goodor nice or honest or ethical; nor do such affiliations insure morality. So honour then based on what?

Tell me why I "need to honour" beliefsthat are based on no evidence. Why should such beliefs benefit from any morehonour than a belief in Thor or Krishna orpink unicorns?

... please give me any example ofwhen I have attacked.

Also please tell me why questioning with vigourconstitutes attack. (not answered)

WriterWriter: I wish I could take betson how much - if any - of this excellent article will be read by certainparticipants here but there yougo...

And before anyone slams me for being aggressive or mean or too frank whateverterm, I didn't write this...

Progressive Religious Believers' Big Hypocrisy: Cherry-Pickingthe Parts of Religion they Like and Don't

Ifyou're just going to use your own conscience and your own mind to decide what's right orwrong, true or false -- why do youneed God?

JP: I didn't "slam" you for being too aggressive* (Um, yeah, ya did, by alleging I attack). I don't think you'remean or being to (sic) frank (We'll keep this comment in mind too, forlater...). I'll read yourarticle, if thats (sic) who you meanby "certain people".

WriterWriter: Lotsof people are following this thread. Lots won't read that.... Like I said, don't take the general personally.

WriterWriter: Just to quote you, " Perhaps those within religion have made you feel small and insignificant andthat's why you attack* (question?)it with such vigor (sic)."... Yousuggested I attack... attacks are, by definition, aggressive.

What I will say to all the religious readers ofthis thread is this: my comments here provide you every opportunity to provide evidence, proof, backup,substantiation, etc. and provide youa wide-open opportunity to convert someone.

What I often - and I mean 99.9% of the time - getin response to my questions or suggestions is defensiveness, not reply. (for evidence of this, keep reading...)

I have asked SEVERAL people (two pastors) to definethe 'beliefs' I have and have had NO answer - although they have both respondedwith insults (about my character and intelligence, much preceded by 'you are,' or 'youshould' type comments) (Twitter).

I have asked for substantiation of the main playersin the stories and have again had insinuations and outright insults but noanswers.

I have asked simple questions like the one I postedtoday about Noah (where did he get polar bears and south-pole penguins, etc) and another about how 'god' managed to create light three daysbefore the light source, but have been told (and YES I WILL pull the directquote) that I am intellectually bereft and incapable of comprehending thebible.

I have provided endless links to excellent writersand research sources, videos, refutations, encyclopaedic references and havehad back only biblical references to support biblical references: the conceptof circular reasoning seems to escape.

Finally, I have had any number of insinuationsabout my mental health in the sense that I must be mentally damaged to bedoubting something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

But not one has taken the much-profferedopportunity to convert an educated person who comes from generations - TEN - ofstaunchly christian family that has at least one pastor in each of those 10generations (five in this one). (They have, however falsely accused me of saying they're stupid because I have read more than they have....)

If I were on the other side of this fence, I'dsay that someone like me was a hell of a catch and I'd make every effort toresearch my sources, know what I was talking about, answer questions, read theheck out of every possible resource, back up my answers and be real in order tohook such a fish.

NOTE:

(Ihave emphasised certain words in the next comments to highlight the use ofcharged words. I just thought it was an interesting contrast to my having triedto keep my comments as neutral as possible, considering the subject matter)

GP: RESPECT!!!........a very SIMPLE concept......but not... seeminglyfor you!!!! (aaaannnddd cue the attacks).....RESPECT my son forhis belief system......RESPECT me....for mine!!......I don't give a rat's assfor what YOU believe (So, I have to respect this person's belief system but they don't give a rat's for mine. OK.... )......it is YOUR belief system!!.....I listen to to (sic) what you believe......I don't question it (maybe you should?).....it is YOURS......your verbalretaliations (VERBAL? Maybe they're using reader.... Retaliations? WHERE?) come across as a personal attack.....noone is really caring to debate you.....mostof us don't have the time or energy too (sic).....not that you would listen anyway's (sic)!!......you just delete friend's (sic)......or block comment's (sic)!.......becausethey anger you!.......and....justfor the record......you have raised your children in YOUR belief system........so how are you different than ANY of ???......

(For the record, I have not raised my children in any belief system:they are and have always been free to consider all or none).

GP: ‎~R~E~S~P~E~C~T........ Thank you BW....you nailed it! (relates to the third comment in this thread)

DN: I truly geta kick out of people who can open there (sic) mouths and spew their thoughtswhile while (sic) anyone who tries is so wrong (except I am STILL waiting for any of these people to comment on the SUBJECT rather than attacking me). Respect oh there's that wordagain. Respect. I guess that word only works for certain individuals. Sounbelievable. i personally don't care to read someones link (translation: I don't care to educate myself....).

maybe these links are spewing propaganda for atheists (so, let me get this right; this writer won't read any links I post because they don't want to read anything that might be "atheist propaganda,' whatever that is...?).

Ohyeah right i'm probalby not educatedenough to understand. Im sure i will hear about it. My thoughts and beliefs aretotally wrong (OK, if you say so.... ).

BW: I'd just liketo know why it is you demand justificationfor someone elses beliefs? You seemto crusade against religion with radical passion, and respondwith someone elses diatribes about their own personal convenientchoosings and how that just makes a mockeryof the whole belief system......Youenjoy fitness activities and photography, and no one slams those activities or crusasadesagainst them or blogs about the lack of proof that fitness activities areindeed healthy...no one on here challenges anything that you enjoy, believe, or take comfort in. And yes, the beauty of theweb is that it is indeed an open forum, ...but using it to take a stabat the beliefs of a life long friend and her family , for all the world to see,shows a complete lack of respect. Ask yourselfif the challenges are worth the cost of a life long friend?
(Ok.I must note here that I did not and did not intend to single out anyone. Mycomments were - and are, as much as possible - GENERAL. This commenter issuggesting - via veiled threat on someone else's behalf - that I should shut upor lose a friend)

WriterWriter: Nope. I did NOT attack, pinpoint, or disrespect Jaredwith my initial post. It is GENERAL and not about anyone specifically.

Secondly, I note - as always - that theparticipants in these threads rarely, if ever, reply to specific questions andresort VERY quickly to attacking my character. (See? No names and no identifyinginformation)

But this idea of respect is really interesting:I will say quite categorically that those of us who err on the side ofevidence, proof, verification and reality are on the short end of the respectstick.

It isn't a question of not respecting thePERSON. Not at all: it is, however, a question of retaining respect at the sametime as having the RIGHT (and responsibility) to ask questions about thingsthat don't make sense, aren't true or don't add up.

I have always and will always have respect forpeople's beliefs - and for this country's constitution that protects the rightto believe - and the right to FREE of belief.

HOWEVER, those who claim a belief in somethingare substantially responsible for providing some reliable evidence and supportfor those beliefs. What almost always happens is when those beliefs are put tothe test, rather than a rational discussion ensuing, the above types ofcomments occur.

Reacting angrily and throwinginsults at a writer who says something one does not agree with or know about isNOT a discussion: it is tantamount to a temper tantrum and has no relationshipto discussion.

DN, PLEASEtell me - and QUOTE me - where I have "spewed propaganda foratheists," and what exactly that might be.

GP; Please,please, please tell me what it is I believe given that the definition ofatheism is an ABSENCE of belief. Secondly, please tell me where I said anythingdisrespectful to or about J; andfinally, SOMEONE please explain how a general comment became about anyone inparticular!

BW, Iam not 'demanding' justification: however, I am educated, as I grew up in achurch environment and come from a very large family of religious people - andten generations of the same.

Yes, now that I have stepped back and have spentmore than five years reading everything I can get my hands on and researchingwhat I grew up believing, I am asking people to substantiate what they say theybelieve (in this conversation because they jumped in to the conversation. Idon't walk up to strangers and start in on them...although, sometimes I'dreally like to.).

Re yourcomparison of real things - tangible things like running and photography - tothings for which there is no evidence, proof or substantiation for 'real' it'sa stretch.... (I have evidence for my photographs and for my running - or lack thereof at the moment, given my waistline; Believers have no evidence whatsoever for the claims they make)

I am SHOCKED by how angry those same peoplebecome when they encounter information that is at odds with what they say theybelieve. I am also shocked to comprehend how unwilling people are to readanything that challenges their paradigm.... wait. Actually, no, I'm notsurprised by that at all: the only way to be sure of one's beliefs is to neverput them to any significant test... but I digress...

To the original post: My comment, thatprogressive christianity is an oxymoron is NOT directed at anyone in particular... (redacted); however ... chose to make it about ... and others here havegone there too.

Secondly, this is MY ... feed. I am comfortablespeaking as I do and have no embarrassment about the opinions I hold or theresearch I've done or the things I post. If others are offended, they haveseveral choices:
Self-censorship;
Research - and post countering opinions (butplease understand that I may also continue to post other also-counteringopinions and information;
Remove the 'friend' connection.

However, under no circumstances will I be cowedinto censoring myself because others don't agree with me. Just because peopledon't agree does NOT mean that I am wrong or disrespectful. It means that Irespect people enough to engage them in a very complex subject because I believethem intelligent enough to engage.

Finally, to the point of respecting religion ingeneral: WHY. Why should any philosophy deserve any respect simply forexisting? Why should one religion deserve more respect than any other - andmore than no beliefs - when thousands of religions - and gods - have precededit and when there is no more proof or substantiation for it than any other inexistence now or in the past?

Why should the North-Americanversion of religion deserve any more respect or be accorded any more 'truth'than religions elsewhere?

Have yourbeliefs but don't be surprised, and don't resort to insults and insinuations,when people who choose to really consider what 'belief' and 'faith' mean askpointed questions.

And DON'T take the general personally: itindicates a certain insecurity.

As always, I hope you will, even in the smallest way, take advantage of the links Ipost here:
GretaChristina is one of my favourite writers: here is some of her work,particularly on the subject of believers debating atheists

..and on the dangers of 'progressive' christianity':

Some readers may not like this stuff - but notliking it only means they don't like it, not that it's wrong;

Stuff that challenges one's paradigm will do oneof two things: it will allow them - or force them - to go find material thatsupports their beliefs and paradigm or it will bust them out of their beliefsand paradigm. THIS applies to me too, which is why I read EVERYTHING for oragainst my subject matter.

GP:Wowzer's.....you just don't get it...on any level....

DN: Oh julie you crack me up. Your rants are hilarious

BW:You're strong in your convictions....we get that.....but so are Grace and Jared, and all who believe....
(Fine. My issue is that you hold these convictions you refuse to challenge AND you get all angry when anyone else challenges them.)

Your posts and questions indicate to me that you're looking for proof and answers (Congratulations, Sherlock....)

but challenging people on a public forum isnt the way to go about it. (Women should shut up and not speak in public? Don't ask questions in public so we believers won't have to be shamed in public?)

Perhaps you should investigate a term at a bible college where you are encouraged find your own answers.
(Ahahaha... I can't imagine how a bible college would even consider letting me in or what they'd do with all my questions, but reading everything I can and asking questions of believers is exactly how one goes about finding their own answers... or do you mean finding the answers YOU want me to find?)

While you may view your posts/comments as matter for debate, they are delivered in such a manner that they are viewed as an attack....
(This is exhausting. "... viewed as" does not equal "are.")

you're making these people defend and justify what they believe in and you simply DON'T have that right.
(Ah, yes, I sure do. I every right to question the extraordinary claims of 'believers.' its one thing to enter in to a fact based debate (Religion is not fact)...but the truth of the matter is that what you have here is a debate based on beliefs where there can be no victor....your beliefs/views and opinions cannot trump anyone elses just because you want them to (Ok, that's just dumb: these people all jumped into what was NEVER supposed to be a debate and then tearing me down because they chose to engage???)

Quotes from various blogs are also someone elses opinion that you seem to think back up your opinion....(Ok. I don't know if this person finished school but I'm pretty sure they went at least to grade nine or 10 - where they would have had to go to the library, read other people's writing and use it to support the points of their own essays.)

If you can believe said blogs without challenge (When did I say I 'believe' blogs without challenge?), why can't the faithful believers of the world believe in their convictions with the same courtesy?? (They can. They just can't be pissed off if I ask them a question and they can't answer it). you've made your point....your (sic) a non believer......no one bothers you about it (EXCUSE ME??? No one bothers me about it??? NO ONE has put a LOT of time into writing the above comments.... )......so let it go.......unchallenged as it is....

So, GP if I understand correctly, as long as I don't say anything - no matter how general - that you disagree with, all's well; but the second I make a general comment you don't like, or ask a question that I'd like an answer to it's a personal attack?

Are you also suggesting I have no right to question religion on my own Facebook page?

Are you suggesting that I censor myself because my opinions and the links to other opinions I post offend some people? Would you apply that same expectation to yourself?

Dave, I'm glad you find this amusing. I also find it quite amusing that a completely general comment was taken personally to the point that four commenters came out swinging....

I'm not sure how my four-word general observation, or my comments in response to others here constitutes a rant or why the very pointed and very personal comments do not....

If anyone who has commented here would like to ante up and QUOTE me when I have personally attacked any specific person here, please do. Just be mindful that I will do the same.

One must be judicious in their use of the word "YOU" in exchanges such as these....

Anyway, this exchange continues, even as I write this blog. The players are either cornering themselves or exiting the conversation because what else can they do besides end up looking stupid.... E.G.:

BW: I have no interest in proving, or disproving any of it....it just doesn't matter to me one way or another....

I think it's weird to weigh in on something you not only don't know anything about, but when you actually don't want to know.....

This is for all those sweet religious people who say I attack them...

2011-09-04T11:31:00.001-06:00

Every time I say anything or ask any question pertaining to religion, a legion of the faithful tell me I'm a horrible person, that I don't respect them and that I have, essentially, no right to speak or to ask those questions or to hold them accountable for the myth they foist upon people - other people who can't or won't speak up or who are too lazy or terrified or brainwashed to do ANY research into what they think they believe.

NO, I do NOT respect that attitude and NO, I do NOT 'need' to honour someone just because that person chooses to believe in myth.

Until you, Mr. and Mrs. Religious-of-any-type can give me some EVIDENCE that your god - one of more than 5000 in human history - is the IT guy, then you can screw off with your admonishments in my direction.

This one's for Rob..

2011-09-02T09:44:00.002-06:00

My English nephew, Rob, was with us for several months last year. He thinks Canadians have weird customs.

Washing computer keyboards in the dishwasher was definitely up there on the list...

I won a mug!

According to people who think they know me better than I know myself...

2011-08-08T11:04:00.001-06:00

... I am
Self-righteous
Self-absorbed
A 'feral heathen'
A liar
A bitch
Arrogant
A racist
A radical
Angry Atheist

These labels and insults have been thrown at me, in public, by 'friends' of the "flesh and blood" type.
Why?

Because I question anything that doesn't come with a reasonable amount of logic and proof;
because I think that professionals, who have spent years becoming educated, who do their jobs because they like their work and are committed to their clients and patients, should not be insulted with the implication that they can't or won't do their jobs without the go-ahead from an invisible man;
because I am proud to be Canadian and because I think Canadians should not only understand their country's constitution and Bill of Rights but they should whole-heartedly support them - and each other;
because the colour of a person's body organs - no matter what that colour is - should never, ever be used as a weapon or a defence against reasonable, rational questions;
because I am willing to cause an uproar rather than be false or to placate;
because if one makes a statement, they must be willing and able to back up that statement, provide support for the statement and be prepared to defend the statement; and they must be willing to add to their knowledge, change their opinion and abandon their 'beliefs' when they are shown to be untrue: resorting to insults rather than understanding, supporting and defending statements is an abdication first and and admission the person slinging insults does not have any grip on their subject matter.

Because she was a much more intelligent person than people ever gave her credit for being and because this quantifies me too, I quote Marilyn Monroe:

"I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best."

I add this too: "Well-behaved women never make history."

I don't presume to make history and I won't be "well-behaved," which really amounts to not saying things and to compromising myself in order that people who choose not to understand things outside their own paradigms are not moved to discomfort. I refuse to be false and fake in order to assuage the sensitivities of people who presume to know me and tell me who I am and what I believe.

So, in response to the insults lobbed at me:

Yes, I am occasionally self-righteous; I come to that as a result of being a voracious reader, from having an insatiable curiosity, to owing a large, large dose of skepticism and from being endlessly amazed by human behaviour; and to a confidence in my own intelligence.

Yes, I am, like all humans, occasionally self-absorbed. If there is one among you who is, in this area, 'sinless' let ye cast the first stone. Self-absorption is the basis of insecurity.

Yes, I am a feral heathen. I have returned to a wild, undomesticated state where it concerns fantastical beliefs because I question everything - myself included - on a daily basis. I am proud of my flexible mind and I defend my - and everyone's - right to question. I encourage you to click and read the definition of "feral." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feral

Yes, I occasionally lie - as does everyone. This is true of all of us and more true of some of us - see 'religious leaders' and politicians for reference. Also remember the last time you lied to someone because telling the truth would have ripped out their heart....

Yes, I can be a bitch. I am particularly bitchy when people call me names and tell me I'm a lesser human because I don't think or believe as they do. I am bitchy when people tell me I have beliefs but won't define what they mean by that; I am bitchy when people diminish the commitment and skill of those around them; I'm bitchy when I'm too hot or too cold; and bitchy when I'm hungry and tired. I know those things make me completely different than all other humans....

I, like all humans, have my moments of arrogance. I, also like most humans, temper those moments with many more moments of insecurity.

I am not a racist. There is no such thing as 'race.' This would take me 20 pages to explain so I shall direct you to anything written or spoken by Nina Jablonsky, who is an expert in this field and who is a passionate defender of HUMANS, regardless of biological adaptations (Click link for Jablonsky's TED talk).

I will agree there is 'racism' which is the name humans give to the practice of hating and killing each other based on the colour of a large body organ. I do not care if a person is sixty ways from rainbow on the outside; I do care very much about the shades of their character. (added) Apparently, Morgan Freeman agrees with me.

Yes, I am a radical, which is the apt and correct term for anyone who does not immediately accept everything fed to them and who will challenge things that don't make sense or are outright fabrications; and it is an apt term for people - female people - who don't always behave as some people think they should. Dr. Martin Luther King was a radical; John A. MacDonald was a radical; Marie Currie was a radical; Joan of Arc was a radical; Queen Elisabeth I was a radical; Rosa Parks was a radical; Mandela is a radical; my grade 11 English teacher, Mrs. McLean, who was the only university-educated person in her Irish Catholic family, was a radical; Einstein was a radical; Copernicus and Socrates were radicals. Dr. Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and St Augustine are radicals (were, in the last case). Here are definitions of radical: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/radical.

I am an atheist. That state does not make me angry. Being reminded every day of my young life that I was a sinner made me angry; people 'praying' while their children die makes me angry; people hating other people for what goes on in their private lives makes me angry; people shooting/bombing/kidnapping other people because of fantastical beliefs makes me angry; the refusal of so many to scrutinize what they think they believe; to put their belief system to the test; to consider other possibilities and people who lack the ability to say "yes, I was wrong," make me angry.(CLICK THAT LINK!)

Yes, I am angered when people do not know what they're talking about, don't know what they believe, don't understand where their beliefs come from and won't make any move to put their beliefs to the test, opting instead for calling me angry, self-absorbed, arrogant, a bitch. I can hear those insults reverberating off the walls that make the corners into which those who insult me - rather than really understanding what they believe - have backed themselves into....

In addition to all these things, I am a compassionate person. I love my children, am proud of them and fascinated by the wonderful humans they are, by their endless abilities to form friendships, by their love and by their humour.

I am a curious and interested person.

I love my friends regardless of their foibles and their failings but for their humanity and their love. I am unsatisfied but that is my motivation and inspiration to learn.

I will end a relationship when it is a appropriate. I will be sad about doing so but I will not regret it.

I am loving and kind and flawed.

I am human.

I am me.

Human: suposed to be smarter than dogs... but not....

2011-08-03T10:28:00.000-06:00

Photo: Leah Hennel for the Calgary Herald

Last week, a Didsbury couple was viciously attacked by a couple of akita dogs. This headline provoked howls of "put them down" (the dogs) and all sorts of knee-jerk freak-outs.

Not to downplay the seriousness of the attack - because it was very serious and two people are very seriously hurt - but the humans in this scenario fall just short of deserving what happened. Had they any sense, they would have known and they would have acted prior.

Here's the article - and there are loads of similar reports. However, not one of those reports expands on certain key details of what happened. The Herald(amazingly) quoted the director of this city's animal and bylaw:

"Keeping the parent dogs together after a litter was born isn’t recommended ...," said Bill Bruce, director of Calgary animal and bylaw services.

“It’s likely (the mother) is going to be highly alert and not trusting [the breeding male],” Bruce said.
"Bringing the beagle into the situation possibly aggravated things further," said Bruce.(ABSOLUTELY aggravated!)

What the media fails to report and what the humans in question utterly ignored is this: the female dog was protecting four-day old pups; a "threat" - the couple and their beagle - entered the garage, which amounts to her den for the bitch; the couple put themselves and their own dog at risk by invading (in the dog's understanding) the nursery. If the 'threat' was on the ground, meaning the beagle was loose or even on a leash, one could - and should - expect that the bitch would see that as a danger to her puppies and that she would react to protect them.

If, in addition to invading the den, the couple that was attacked came near the puppies at all but certainly let their beagle near them, an attack is exactly what one might expect to occur, particularly considering the proximity of the mating male.

The dogs' owners obviously had not enough breed knowledge but also didn't have basic dog knowledge or they would have know that the breeding male of any breed should never be anywhere near the pups or bitch. Had they had breed knowledge, they would have known this applies particularly to akitas. They would have also known to provide a safe, sheltered, away-from-traffic location for bitch and pups. The garage, through which the attacked couple had to pass every day to get to their accommodations, was not a safe place for the dogs, the puppies or the humans.

If one understands how aggravating it is for dogs that letter carriers come every day, make a bit of noise and leave, it isn't much more of a stretch to understand how a new mommy dog, who is already protecting her brood from a male that would just as soon eat the pups, could react to the annoying comings and goings of humans and yet another dog.

This is a horrendous situation for all involved but the events were predictable. Dogs, despite being domesticated, are instinctual and their instincts will override their training and their attachment to humans in certain situations - new puppies being an obvious case.

The owners are to blame to the extent they did not provide a secure, protected area for the bitch and her brood, where the other couple would not have to pass by, regardless of previous interaction. The attacked couple might also have informed themselves about what behaviour to expect. These dogs did exactly what an informed owner would expect them to do in this situation.

One can never, ever assume anything with any dog no matter how domesticated, docile or 'known' the dog is. Dogs are still animals and they will, when they perceive a threat, protect themselves and, as in this case, their young. Common sense. Any dog behaviour book will make this clear.

I can speak to this personally: when my eight-year-old dog was injured and in terrible pain, he did exactly what I expected and tried to fend off anything that might have been the cause of that pain. He didn't know what had happened; he didn't know if he was being attacked; he knew that he was in great pain, on the ground and unable to retreat so he made to bite me. I dropped a towel into his mouth, which allowed him to bite down but also to focus on me long enough to know I wasn't going to hurt him more.

What SHOULD happen in this "attack" (which is more aptly described as a protective attack) situation is that the couple that was attacked sue the owners for putting them and the dogs in a very dangerous situation; and the owners should be banned from ever owning dogs. What will probably happen is two healthy dogs, who acted on instinct - exactly how a knowledgeable owner would expect - will be euthanized to pay for the stupidity of their owners.

I theorize often that most humans WISH they were as smart as dogs but, given Dunning-Kruger ("...occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically - they're too stupid to know that they're stupid. they're actually not smart enough to realise it."),situations like this will occur again. For sure. Guaranteed.

In the age of the Internet, why dog owners don't access the endless free information out there is beyond me.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm wrong: it might mean you're wrong and you're defensive

2011-07-29T08:31:00.001-06:00

God is a creation of HUMANS

Earlier this week, a long-time friend posted pleas for prayer for her brother, who, as a result of a genetic issue, is prone to all sorts of stuff cropping up. He's 52 this year, which is amazing in itself given his syndrome - Down Syndrome: generally, people who have DS don't live to be middle-aged.

Over his relatively long life, he has always had teams of expert medical professionals caring for him and, again given his age, they've done an amazing job. He is very healthy, generally, funny as hell, smart and a really pleasant guy with a crazy memory for names and faces.

My friend has cared for her brother most of her life and particularly now, as her parents are both deceased - her mother within the last 18 months. She also has three adopted children who each have profound disabilities; one, a young adult, is severely disabled due to their birth-mother's alcohol abuse (Even knowing what I know about FAS and FASD, I am amazed at the extent of this person's disabilities; she is blind and has profound CP); another who is profoundly damaged due to having been shaken as an infant and who will be three months old for the rest of their life; and a third who also has Down Syndrome.

Suffice to say, my friend, who is an excellent caregiver and endlessly compassionate mum, has had a lifetime of involvement with medical professionals who are integral to the well-being of her children.

Although I appreciate that prayer - calls for it - seems to make people feel better in some situations, in this case, I thought it offensive; such calls imply that the professionals who have always provided excellent care for the children in this family cannot function - and their education, skill and experience cannot be activated - without entreaties to the invisible man, who, if one is willing to make the next logical (in terms of religion) step, is responsible for these children's afflictions in the first place.

I'm terrible at biting my tongue and, as my friend's message was in public on FaceBook, I replied that perhaps taking action and relying on proven medical people was much more beneficial than sitting around talking into the air (ok, I say 'prayer.' But I meant "talking into the air.")

The distinction I make in this case is this: my friend, who said her "God is greater than any doctor," implied that the more-than 50 years of medical support her family has had depends entirely on entreaties to this invisible, malignant spectre, who, one might easily assume, lies waiting to visit horrendous afflictions on the beings it is alleged to have created and can only be stopped by these beings constantly supplicating it. Such a presumption is disgusting and insulting to those who, regardless of entreaties, care for the wounded and afflicted.

She countered by saying "Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours," which is stupid on all counts: does she believe in her proven medical team - a team that has proven its worth for ages - or does she really believe that unless she rounds up the troops and has them speak into the air, those medical professionals will not have access to their experience and skill?

She didn't answer my counter - that I don't have 'beliefs' but I do have confidence in doctors generally - and that she should specifically, given her family's history. I also asked her to define my 'beliefs' for me, which she didn't: she just removed all my comments.

I appreciate that some people are very, very uneducated and have never had any involvement with doctors on the level my friend has; in those cases, I appreciate their belief that prayer works on some level. But for my friend to so reduce the skill of the support team she has and make that skill dependent on the whims of an invisible man - it was simply offensive. That she deleted my comments indicates she was in a corner: either she had to respond and deny her belief in prayer or disengage. Either way, face was lost.

Prayer is a waste of time. Period. There is no evidence at all of an invisible spectre and equally none for the idea that talking out loud into the air is anything but just that.

When intelligent people who should know better and who owe a huge debt of respect to a group of doctors that has literally kept their children and sibling alive all these years, devolve to talking into the air, it is offensive.

One of my favourite myth-busting websites is God Is Imaginary. It puts forth 50 proofs that 'god' is a creation of humans (all gods, for the record) and not t'other way round.

The first two sections of the site deal with and explode the myth of prayer with research and refutations of the inane apologetics of the religious, who, it seems, would rather make up all sorts of defences for their perfect being than simply say "this is utter crap" and get on with their lives.

In respect to people removing 'offensive' comments, it is a sure admission that one knows they're wrong and they're in a corner. Removing comments (particularly those that request evidence for claims) serves nothing more that as a confirmation that, no matter how much they protest, rail, scream and carry on, the religious know that what they say the believe is baseless, stupid bullshit.

On Honour and Sacrifice

2011-07-23T19:50:00.003-06:00

We're staying in a great hotel in the city we're visiting. The staff here is great - really, really great; we have a view and we have a dog with us, thanks to the pet-friendly nature of this main-drag hotel. Pretty perfect. None of what follows here has anything to do with the staff, except the resolution, which was fast and effective.

This morning, at about 2:15, seven very drunk young men decided to continue their party in the room facing ours.

Two interventions and an equal number of threats from Woody (who owns that name, being inflexible in his expectations that they either shut the fuck up or leave) did nothing to quiet them down, so it wasn't long until my temper got the better of me and my palm hit their door, loudly, a couple times.

I tried to get my 'mommy' out on them but, beyond their surprise at an older women up in their respective grills, none of them was man enough to say sorry. Not even my boiling and mostly undressed spouse looming above them (he's 6' 4" tall) convinced them they had seriously crossed the line. Assholes, all.

A real man NEVER forgets himself; he never imposes himself on others and he never, ever forgets that he is not alone on the planet; he never forgets that his behaviour and the things he says are a reflection of his character.

Suffice to say, seven young men seriously compromised their honour this morning and that sacrifice not only caused them to be evicted from this facility a mere seven hours after their arrival, it cost them their room charges AND ours.


What are these? These are HUMANS of the ONE human race.

The detail that rankles me the most, the detail that will sit with me and the thing that tore my soul, however, was not so much their sacrificed honour as it was one young man's final, desperate attempt to regain control - but an attempt that cost him, his friends and me everything. Everything.

He refused to acknowledge that none of what ensued would have, had he and his pals heeded the doorman's advice to be quie; simply be quiet and go to bed. It was 2:30 a.m. after all....

He said we were pressing on him because he is brown. He said a brown man cannot get a fair shake and that we were attacking him because we were racists.

Several weeks ago, I had a serious falling out with someone who had been my friend for more than 20 years. This person also alleged racism in my direction. My comments to him - which he has not had the decency to respond to - and to this young man are these:

1. "Race" is a political construct; there is one human race, which comes in many, many colours:
2. "Race" has been institutionalised as a weapon by which people avoid responsibility, much in the manner the young man from this altercation used it.

The young man in question knew he was wrong; he knew he would be evicted and so he invoked the most hurtful, false and damaging thing he could. He alleged that he was innocent and that I was attacking him for no other reason than the colour of a body organ.

What this young man - and my was-friend, who is also black - did not realise is the immense damage he did to himself, me and his group of friends, all of whom have, save for one man, deeper skin tones than I.

I am disgusted by drunks. I am disgusted by people who will sacrifice their dignity and their honour to impress their friends; but nothing - NOTHING - can ever disgust me more than a man who is willing to use the colour of his largest body organ as a weapon by which to avoid responsibility for acts that he, himself, is responsible for.

The damage this young man and my ex-friend did by their allegations is immeasurable, not to mention that they both perpetuated a lie; and by doing so allowed that lie a continued strangle-hold on WE.

We humans.

We who share this planet and have no means or options for not sharing this planet.

Using the colour of skin as a weapon is abhorrent in any context and for any reason. It is skin. It's colour is nothing more than an adaptive feature that references a person's genetic history. Beyond that, the colour of a body organ has NO bearing on anything. Those who attempt to falsify a bearing are thieves, rogues and are morally bereft. This goes for unknown young men, advertising executives and presidents.

If you seek to avoid responsibility or you seek to silence others by means of invoking something that is NOT REAL (race), you are bereft of honour in a profound way.

Thou shalt NOT attempt to escape thy responsibilities by invoking a false paradigm that injures EVERYONE. Doing so makes one a scourge upon all humans.

And also....

2011-06-27T12:08:00.024-06:00

Not immoral!

WHY is it that some lies can be told and retold and repackaged and reformatted endlessly but the second someone says 'HEY, you have to show evidence for the foundation of your argument,' all hell breaks loose?

This week, writer Catherine Ford, who is not known for sugar-coating anything, wrote an argument for prostitution.

Suffice to say, humans being the idiots they are, saw the words 'prostitution' and instantly got their ridiculous moral swords out - on the women and men who work in the trade. As usual, people completely forget that it takes two (or more, occasionally) and that most purchasers are men, regardless of the sex of the vendor.

Needless to say, the religious idiots come out in full force when sex is the subject, and they make all sorts of stupid, wrong and discriminatory statements about what forms of sex are allowed, when, by who and for what consideration. And they base all this on two things: a presumption there is an invisible man and that the book 'written' by the invisible man is true and infallible.

Where I got into trouble - where I ALWAYS get into trouble is when I said "First, prove, or at least show some viable evidence that your invisible man exists."

This is the lie: that an invisible man exists and he creates all things, decides on who shall benefit from all the things he creates and that he will kill/maim anyone who contravenes the rules, which shift depending on interpretation of said rules. Despite that the idea of an invisible man directing traffic is fantastical in the extreme, it was requested that I accept a proffered 'olive branch' after one of the commentors tore into me, utterly misquoted me, refused to provide any support for his claim that the invisible man created sex and then gets to decide everything about how people do sex. And THEN, he said (I paraphrase here) 'well, I was actually just commenting on the original column.

Here's the deal people. Believe in whatever you wish to believe but do NOT expect me or require me to believe what you believe or revile me when I ask you for some evidence that your claims have any basis in reality. Asking for evidence, support, proof is NOT derogatory nor is it an attack on you. If you make a claim for something, you better be bloody prepared to support your claim - and your religious notions do NOT fall outside of that requirement.

Religion, despite its two-century hold on the idiot masses, is NOT exempt from questioning nor is it exempt from having to substantiate its claims. You may call me every name you can think of and you may pronounce any manner of future destruction on me but if you cannot support any of your claims, I can and WILL ignore everything you say.

About sex: Humans, eat, breath, evacuate (that means pee and poo) and they screw. All humans do it unless the are physically incapable and that includes priests, nuns, ministers, the homeless, the rich, the poor, your next-door neighbour, your parents and your children and probably your grandmother too. Unmarried old people in nursing homes OFTEN play musical beds.

The idea that only two differently-sexed people married to each other are the only people "allowed" to have sex is TOTAL bullshit and the idea that here is some invisible man who gets to say when it's ok and for whom to have sex is also super, super bullshitty. See EXTREMELY lucrative porn industry for reference and also see "high percentage of repressed religious people use a lot of porn and hookers."

(As an aside, I just heard a hilarious story by a hotel worker about what happened to the hotel's internal movie system when the Baptist Convention came to town; suffice to say, the switchboard was burning up and overloaded by the requests for porn made by the good Baptists staying in every room of the hotel.)

So, for your reading pleasure, excerpts from the conversation with the offending party, who was a known journalist for a major Canadian daily but who now mitigates their narrow viewpoint with the disclaimer, "I haven't been a journalist for a long time." I don't know about this person but once a journalist, always a journalist - and that applies to journalistic standards of integrity, honesty and balance....

NB: For the record, I am very offended by the original writer, Catherine Ford's comment implying that sex-trade workers (and the writer - a woman - specified women and girls, despite that many working in the sex trade are male) do not "walk the higher moral ground." There is NOTHING immoral about sex or selling it. There is, however, something terribly immoral in men preying on women, girls and males who work in that industry, and it is unethical and immoral to presume to impose one's values on others, particularly when one cites the desires of an invisible, improbable, murderous, stupid 'man;' if said invisible man can't figure out that light and dark (day two in genesis) must FOLLOW creating of sun, moon and stars (day four), I'm pretty sure said invisible man is fake or, if not, really, really stupid.
(for the other 400+ contradictions in the bible, click HERE)

For the record, I have removed irrelevant-to-this conversation comments: the conversation occurred on FaceBook and so several contributors stuck to the more general issue and need not be identified.

"

Whores and hookers – deserving workers | Calgary Beacon

www.calgarybeacon.com

(Name removed for privacy): Wow, I hope I never have to have her advocate anything for me!

(Name removed for privacy) I think I'll pass on reading this woman's column today. I'd like to keep my beautiful Sunday mood!

(Name removed for privacy): Luke 6:36-38 (NIV)36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. (unless you're the wrathful god who gets to create people and rules and then change the rules, deny knowledge and kill the people 'he' created)....

PM; Ah, Catherine. Only she can so efficiently claim the moral high ground to critique those who do the same while in the same breath agreeing with their perception of the behaviour (this from a 'christian' who believes in an utterly immoral, invisible 'man'). Still, if her view holds the day this should open up a new stream of previoously (SIC) untaxed revenue . . . .

(irrelevant post removed)

ME: Here's the thing: prostitution IS A FACT and it will be a fact, as it has always been a fact, for as long as there are men who buy sex (and even in the case of male prostitutes, it is usually men doing the buying).

Secondly, the FACT is that a high percentage of men who buy sex are married and affiliated with a religion AND, often, with a fundamentalist religion.

Sex is not immoral. Sex with multiple partners is not immoral - even with multiple partners at a time. However, repressed, controlling people who seek and have sought for centuries to control other people have deemed a natural, necessary, healthy body function immoral. (some of that control stems simply from the need/desire to see land transferred to 'legitimate heirs' rather than the concubine's children....)

Women DO have the right to be safe at work and for some women (and men), being at work means providing sex to men (and occasionally women) who buy it.

Prostitution, in terms of the act itself, poses no danger to society any more than your neighbours sex life affect s you. However, the job IS dangerous to the women and men who work in the trade because although YOU can say no to buying sex, they cannot say no to clients who abuse them and occasionally kill them.

Otherwise, it is critical to consider the preparation one usually has before entering into this profession; most prostitutes have been brutally used and abused at the hands of their family members - often males (fathers, uncles, their mothers' boyfriends).

Those who are inclined to talk about the immorality aspect of this issue would do well to start with how religion really screws with people's normal urges (and why so many religious men are buying sex...), and the outcomes of abused children, child porn and men (usually) who prey on little kids.

PM: Well, now that we've established that religion is the cause of prostitution I am looking forward to the study that shows that as religion has declined so has the demand that drives the sex trade. Fewer married fundamentalists = a decline in the prostitution industry. And here I was thinking all these years that there was a connection to people's need to feed their drug addictions . . . (p.s. prostitution as an act in itself has never been illegal in Canada). Solicitation for the purpose of and living of the avails of/pimping, is, or was, or whatever. (also for the record, the drug addiction and the prostitution are not necessarily cause/effect, despite they often occur together; there is much more research to show that the foundations for an eventual drug addiction and the impetus for choosing prostitution have their bases in the family - and the abuse most - some 96% - of sex-trade workers experience at home)

ME: QUOTE ME if that's what you claim I said.

I DID NOT SAY THAT and don't misquote me. IF you're going to argue this issue, then argue it rationally and honestly and STOP bringing your BIAS into it.( all of which are entirely counter to base journalistic standards)

I don't know what your educational background is but mine is VERY varied and INCLUDES a year's study of street crime with a focus on prostitution in the company of two experts who KNOW what they're talking about.

I said a high percentage of religious men buy sex and I said - and I will quote myself - "... repressed, controlling people who seek and have sought for centuries to control other people have deemed a natural, necessary, healthy body function immoral."

If YOU say those are religious people then OK but I did NOT say that. Do NOT twist my words like that. Seriously. It is shameful.

PM: Well, my apologies. I really didn't wish to debate the issue (really? Not evident from your inflammatory comments above, my journalist friend) My fascination was really with Catherine's rhetorical skill. I suppose there are still relgions (SIC) that deem sex to be immoral - even though such a stance appears to have little chance of, if practised, producing a second generation. But I cannot think of one that is widely subscribed to that holds such a view. That was my only point. I agree with what I think is your major point.

ME: It does not become you to be disingenuous. MOST religions vilify all but the most proscribed sex. In particular, the Alliance churches (which stem from Southern Baptist); in Canada, CBM; Mormonism, certainly Catholicism and definitely Islam.

If you're suggesting your own church, which may be more liberal, is representative of all other churches, then I say, my friend, that you are obviously retired and living in a cave. Muhammed, is that you?

FYI: This link is not directly related to this feed; however, it illustrates fundamentalist attitudes towards sex the point being that all religions (ok, christianity, judaism and islam, all having the same origin) are based on.

http://nolongerquivering.com/what-is-quiverfull/

(irrelevant post removed)

PM: It is true that most relgions (SIC) offer ('offer' nothing! I have attended several different churches of different denominations and there's no 'offer' or 'suggestion' about it; there is an expectation on all adherents as to how they will behave sexually) the view that sex should be enjoyed in a monogamous fashion.

None that I am aware of currently suggest it should not be enjoyed. Yes, there have and are "puritan" traditions that have been widely misinterpreted, particularly by those unfamiliar with the theological complexities of these discussions but the fundamental view is not at all consistent with your perception. There are various cultural interpretations but they are more cultural than religous (SIC). Better to just leave religion out of it (what a stellar idea, although an interesting suggestion from a writer who not five paragraphs previously misquotes me to blame religion).

Following up on Julie's note I checked an Alliance website and this is what it has to say about sex: "God invented sex, and it is one of his masterpieces of creation. It is something good to be enjoyed. However, sex was designed for a specific purpose - for the exclusive, lifelong union between a man and a woman, which we call marriage (this is entirely NOT biblical, for the record). Sex creates a special bond between two people, and God intended this to strengthen marriages and fulfill the God-given sexual desire of the husband and wife. It is not wrong for someone to enjoy sex. That is a lie." (just a note here: the writer has misplaced the quotation marks, I'm sure, as I am also sure the Alliance literature does not include "That is a lie."

ME: ... as soon as you or any religious person can prove - or even offer decent evidence of - the existence of this invisible man who manages to create sex but cannot figure out that light and dark (day 2) comes from sun and the movement of sun around the earth (day 4) I might conform to such edicts.

Secondly, I am VERY surprised by the comment "none that I'm aware" from someone who is a journalist... you are, I'm sure, familiar with the practice of female 'circumcision?' It's purpose is grounded in religion, which presumes to make women seducers (as does Christianity). Such mutilation is performed on girls aged 2 years and up in order to remove their desire, their ability to enjoy sex and hence to prevent them from seducing men.

Religions place full 'blame' for seduction on women, which brings this discussion right back to prostitution: men are remarkably not required to be responsible for themselves - they get to blame all 'untoward' sexual desire on women. This leads to all manner of horrific acts including the stoning of a women who was observed swimming in her own pool in her private courtyard by a man on the balcony of his apartment in another building - She was killed for having excited him. Islam, by the way.

As for only husbands and wives enjoying sex together, that is not the simple case, never has been and never will be, which, by the way, is another indictment against this very fallible invisible man, who creates humans in his image, sexual desires (outside of marriage) proclivities and all....

Also to note - and with a nod to the excellent writing of Andrew Nikiforuk (and his book, The Fourth Horseman. Also HERE for the biblical description - which is a story probably from a dream had by someone who was stoned on Kat ) - until modern times - and I mean very modern; perhaps the last 150 years or fewer - lifelong probably meant 10 years at best. Before modern hygiene, one could reasonably expect to marry a few times and to have a couple spouses die or to die oneself and leave one's spouse free to marry again. As such, the modern expectation of people marrying at 22 or 25 or 30 and then staying with the same person forever more - another what? 50 to 60 years? is ridiculous in the extreme, as it flies in the face of biology and the biological imperative. (Yes, life-long marriages happen but far more rarely than marriage breakup - and that has nothing to do with anything moral and much to do with the biological imperative).

Sex does create a bond between two people. But you ignore the fact of sexual abuse, sexual assault (including within marriage) and rape. These are all sex acts and all cause a bond, as dreadful as it might be.

The fallible invisible man you claim invented sex has no place in the story because it/he/she is also usually the very thing blamed (when a woman is accused of seducing) or entreated-to by those who do what humans do and screw around (and are caught out: see Ted Haggad, Jimmy whashisname, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, etc, etc. Too bad Jerry Falwell was so well-protected by his entourage because he's definitely on the list of users/abusers).

PM: OK. I'll let it go and just go back to my first point. I just wanted to praise Catherine for her rhetorical triumphs and just wanted to present an alternative point of view on some of your statements of fact (As I noted above, misquoting people and putting words in their 'mouths' does not amount to praising anyone, particularly when the person misquoting is a journalist).

The differences between culture, core beliefs etc are not easily given to this forum. I'n sure you are a good person. I haven't been a journalist for a long time but I still like balancing viewpoints whether I share them or not. Peace. (This writer says they like balancing viewpoints but, when the question of 'god' arises, the writer does NOT).

The wages of female anger...

2011-06-20T09:31:00.003-06:00

Image courtesy www.simtropolis.com

Since I wrote the previous post, I have been speaking with a friend, a fellow writer, whose experience of his own mother (step mother actually) is in a word, horrific. As a result of what was a damaging and life-altering experience with her, he has engaged in substantial research into women and violence and the statistical occurrence of violence by women toward spouses and offspring. And, by the sounds of it, he has also spent most of his adult lifetime trying to recover from really appalling mental abuse.

He admits readily to having a deep-seated distrust of women, which I absolutely understand, as I have struggled my entire life with the same mistrust. Only in the last five years (I am nearly 50) have I had female friends who I trust and they are very, very few even now.

For many reasons, we labour under the misguided belief that women are compassionate and gentle and that they always love their children and seek to help and nurture. That is the mythology. The reality is that some 51% of women and acted out against their loved ones - spouses and very often children. This must not be confused with discipline, where it relates to children, or as normal disagreements, where it relates to spouses.

As he put it (and I do not want in any way to diminish the experience of women who are battered, a man may slap a woman out of anger; she, however (says my friend) may react by stabbing him with a hidden paring knife. She may, under the guise of correcting and disciplining her children, engage in pounding them, hitting them with objects, verbally abusing them, ignoring them, abandoning them, or killing them.

His experience and mine of our respective mothers have some disturbing similarities - many, similarities - all boiling down to two angry women who are neither aware of or attached to their anger but who inflicted it on their children - and in my case, on a spouse. The myth is that such women are rare. The reality is that possibly 50% of mothers are angry and abusive.

Men may at times be brutal and there is no excuse for brutality towards spouses and children, but women have a far more insidious means of abusing that combines the physical (because spanking never hurt anyone, right?) and the psychological (.... words will never hurt me....) that leaves deep, deep scars.

Some brief research here

The wages of manipulation is you end up with no real friends....

2011-06-18T21:29:00.001-06:00

Image from Wordprss Burbflies

It never ceases to amazing me how stupidly mean people can be but more than that, how they make a life-long habit out of meanness and a perpetual game of finding ridiculous ways to 'punish' people but have no idea at all what it costs them.

I found out this week that a family friend - a woman who lived a few doors away from us - had been very ill and was hospitalized and since died. ...Two weeks ago.

I happened to find this out through a family member who had also found out after both facts. It should be noted that the non-informative person was my mother and the woman someone my mother claims was her friend for I think about 30 years.

I rarely see my mother, a point that despite being a reality is still raw almost five years on. I did have reason to see her early this week, face to face. She made no mention of the passing of this friend.

The next day, however, I got an email with the detailed story of another friend's daughter having been kicked by a horse and having had her leg broken in three places. Pretty nasty break to be sure and as interesting as that all is, beyond having met her perhaps five times in my life - when I was about nine years old - I don't know the person in question.

I replied to my mother's email with 'thanks for the information,' and added that I was confused why she would related the trials of a near stranger but neglect entirely to tell me of the illness and death of our friend.

She replied with another confusing email about a magazine that is soliciting photographs from amateurs and that I had some nice pictures I should submit (I am a working professional photographer and don't submit work for free).

Below the four lines about the solicitation, she added that she doesn't engage in what she called email wars and that if I had a problem with not being informed about our family friend's demise, I should bring it up with my sister, with whom I speak, every two days or so - according to my mother. I am always amazed but never surprised when my mother neglects to even acknowledge a glaring oversight and manages to blame someone else entirely.

My mother fascinates me in much the same way as serial killers fascinate me. She exhibits the same utter detachment from her actions and the same propensity for blaming anything or anyone else.

It fascinates me too that she pursues opportunities to punish people - in this case by not informing her children of the departure of our family friend - but does not comprehend that the distance and disconnection she has with two of her three natural children and the complete separation from both of her step-children is of her own making. She does not understand, "If I were kind, I would have all the love I seek and more."

Yesterday I had a conversation with another friend who also grew up with an angry, punishing and distant mother; a woman of my mother's age. There are many similarities in our stories including that our mothers both attacked us with knives: he suffered a four-inch gash; the knife did not make contact in my case but having my mother break a door in and hold me at bay in our second-floor bathroom was scary and left its own brand of scar. His mother, weirdly, ran him over with her car when he frantically tried to get into it so that she could not abandon him at a train station - at the age of six.

WHAT happened to the women of our mothers' generation? What happened to make so many of a generation of women so angry and hateful and punishing - there are so many, many women in their 70s and early 80s who seem to survive on fountains of anger and who are alienated from their children.

Of the many unanswerable questions that plague my need-to-know mind, why and how my mother comes to have such a profound pathology is near the top of the pile.

The possibility that such anger and resentment will be hallmarks of my later years is utterly terrifying so I counter it with probably a too-ready "sorry" and by always (I hope always) acknowledging when I react and am mean and by telling those to whom I am occasionally mean (because I am, as are all humans, fallible) that they are in no way to blame for my mood or what is going on with me at a given moment.

I don't believe my mother has ever apologized to anyone with any grain of truth or humility. She has made stabs at apologies on occasion sometimes because she was caught out and in those cases apologized but with obvious resentment; she has apologized but with a subtext of "I am apologizing in order to humiliate you," because she very mistakenly believes doing so in front of people she believes to be her friends will bring them or keep them on her side.

Sadly, she has few friends and is largely surrounded by people who see through her but let it slide because it affects them not and they know they can change nothing about her or how she relates to her family - what's left of it.

I write this simply for catharsis, as I understand those who might read it cannot help her nor can they answer the question "How and why is she like that."

If I leave nothing at all behind for my children except the absolute, cemented-in knowledge that I love them and admire them and respect them, I will have left everything important. I know this because this knowledge I do not have for myself.

May 21st: According to Family Radio, this is the end of the world...

2011-05-19T10:17:00.000-06:00

I can hardly wait for the howls of ridicule to begin. May 22nd will be a day of reckoning all right - the day all those who emptied their bank accounts and gave money to support a charlatan's fantasy understand the extent of their stupidity.

Rumor has it said charlatan has already attempted to leave the US and make for the Canadian border. However, in the absence of the correct papers, he was not allowed to cross.

Why is he making for Canada?

One wonders.

Here's the charlatan's website. www.familyradio.com.

No answers but lots of hate - from the loving christians...

2011-05-02T18:10:00.001-06:00

This is a reprint of a conversation that happened on FaceBook several weeks back. I am highly annoyed by the faithful who will not provide any proof for what they think the believe. Highly.

I didn't make up these myths, so I don't have to provide proof for them; the religious, however, who do make up these myths, CAN'T provide any proof of or for them and so they resort to mud-slinging and platitudes instead of providing links to resources of any kind.

Some of my resources are these:

www.richarddawkins.net

www.evilbible.com

www.exchristian.net

www.dailyhitchens.com

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/
www.zeitgeistmovie.com (the first 30 minutes deals specifically with christianity)

I encourage you to go find your own - there are hundreds and hundreds.

The key feature of the religious' arguments is their unbending unwillingness to challenge their paradigm. In the words of one idiot, who is employed as a pastor (he's not actually an idiot; I'm just really annoyed by him), I know it is all true because of my life experiences. Seriously?

Anyway, here you go.... it's long. Really, Really long. My comments, added later, are in bold/italics.

LS And I, being Catholic, was entirely educated in the public system, for the simple reason that that was where the bus took me ;)

09 March at 08:49 ·

ME Nothing makes an atheist faster than a good read of the bible....

09 March at 09:12 ·

WOLF Julie, most Atheists will disagree with you.

09 March at 09:16 ·

(My point, which this person missed but which is a commonly-held opinion, is that a thorough reading of the bible will make an atheist out of the reader because the bible readily disproves itself)

ME Really Joshua? Most atheists disagree that a full reading of the bible is the best way to become a non-believer? Seriously, back your statement up. The bible is an utterly human, fallible, terroristic work of social control that advocates for rape, blood sacrifice, infanticide, slavery and war.

09 March at 09:18

ME Religious schools have no place in a secular society first of all and, more importantly, adults have NO right to brainwash children with fear-based, coercive stories.

09 March at 09:19

WOLF Most atheists rely fully on the laws of science and nature and established their beliefs based upon that (Partially true: atheists do rely on the laws of science and nature; however, "belief" doesn't apply here because "belief" exists in the absence of facts, as is quite fully proven by the following discourse) . You're suggesting that the bible creates atheism. You probably find nobility in Islamic literature though, am I right?

09 March at 09:20 ·

You make several assumptions here, which is deadly to argument; these comments also indicate you have done little research into your argument prior to making it.

Why would you make the presumption I would find nobility in Islamic literature...?

09 March at 09:21 · (The writer did not reply to this)

WOLF Come on Julie, be a good atheist and pick on all religions, not just the ones who won't bomb your house.

09 March at 09:21 ·

WOLF Julie, you are correct. I'm not shuffling through wikipedia to find justification in what I'm saying to you. I'm making assumptions (assumptions are not observations, nor are they researched) based on my countless hours of observing an elementary level of atheistic rage (whatever this means is unclear) that manifests in its selective application of scrutiny.

09 March at 09:23 ·

‎@Wolfgang: please point out in my comments here where I was picking on a specific religion; and, because it seems unclear to you, I am wholly opposed to any religion and particularly opposed to brainwashing children with fear-based stories that have political and social control as a basis for their existence.

You used the word "assumptions." What do you mean by "selective level of scrutiny?"

Might I also point out that you are also an atheist: I take it you believe in one god, but you DON'T believe in hundreds of others, for which, in many cases, there is much 'historical' and other 'documentation.' Until you understand why you do not believe in all those other gods, you cannot understand why we believe in none at all.

09 March at 09:36 ·

LW I wouldn't personally attack you, Julie--would love to chat sometime.

09 March at 09:40 · Like (This person never returned to the conversation)

WOLF YOU ASSUME I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD. I ASSUME YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AS YOUR GOD (Not sure why this person resorted to digital yelling and very interested in the sly insult);

THE BRINGER OF LIGHT AND KNOWLEDGE. I AM POINTING OUT YOUR HYPOCRISY. What say you of that, feral heathen? (Behold, the source of my new T-shirt slogan. Also not at all sure where this person pointed out my hypocracy. Science, which is observable, replicateable and most importantly falsifiable cannot be confused with 'god' for which there is no evidence, proof, replicateable anything or means of disproof. In fact, believers go to astounding lengths to remove any means of disproof, usually with the trite "god is unknowable.")

09 March at 09:41 ·

And, because it seems this is the direction you're attempting to lead me in, I am not an apologist for any religion; I do, however, have a very good knowledge of christianity for several reasons: 10 generations of my family have ministers -

If you wish to challenge me on ANY point, I suggest you quickly arm yourself with research rather than opinion and assumptions because I guarantee you I will poke holes in anything you postulate in terms of religion being anything other than the most destructive force on the planet followed by only millimetres by love-of-money and pursuit-of-power - although those are both significant characteristics of religions....

09 March at 09:41 ·

PM A) It's a 20-minute bus ride for those folks to the nearest secular school, about the same distance they currently are from the Catholic School.

B) Julie, the Supreme Court ruled quite convincinngly (sic) some years ago that religion is a part of a secular society because a secular society is by definition inclusive of all segments of society. That is, unless you are promoting a secular society that excludes people on the basis of their most deeply-held beliefs. (This is a very interesting point and it is also a convolution of the truth: The Canadian Constitution protects people from discrimination on the basis of what they believe and that INCLUDES those of us who have no beliefs; secondly, the Canadian Constitution firmly establishes a separation between church and state. Finally, at no point does the Canadian constitution protect religious organisations from being questioned. This writer seems unaware that, in this country, we do not live in a theocracy.)

C) the writing of the Bible is of course human and fallible but as for advocating for slavery, rape, etc.: you are just making that up. (Ah, no, I am decidedly not. This person has not read their bible or they would know that the old testament absolutely does advocate for slavery, rape, child murder, infanticide and human sacrifice and the new testament - the figure of christ in particular - confirms that the old law remain in place and shall not be altered one iota -in Matthew).

09 March at 09:43 ·

WOLF

The existence of ministers in your family tree doesn't build your ethos with me. I know more atheists that came out of religious households than didn't (thereby confirming my statement that religion fosters atheism).. They attributed their beliefs to the science and its irrefutable evidence. Not one of them claimed that they were driven to it by the bible. (perhaps not but the obviously didn't find the answers to their logical questions in the bible so sought elsewhere).

You're not pointing anything out to anyone here that isn't already well known. I'm sorry, but again, your rudimentary grasp of atheist logic (insults will get you nowhere...) isn't in question here, it's how all of you seem to play it safe by picking on people who won't blow your house up.

You can lie to me all you want, but we both know you and your colleagues (my colleagues???) do so often :)

09 March at 09:45 ·

WOLF Nothing angers a devout atheist more than when you respond to their wall of text within seconds. (not sure what 'devout' has to do with atheism: devotion generally applies to things spiritual, which atheists have nothing to do with. I'm not sure one can have a devout belief in nothing....)

09 March at 09:47 ·

‎@Peter: I am absolutely NOT making that up. Please have a very good read of this site: www.evilbible.com. This is just one of many and I hope, Peter, as a good newspaperman, you will do appropriate research. I do take offence to your "making that up" comment in light of my family culture and my six or so years of specific study....

I do appreciate the constitutional structure of this country....See more

09 March at 09:48 ·

WOLF BUT YOU DIDN'T SEE MY CRITICAL THINKING!!!

09 March at 09:48 ·

WOLF ‎..and then they use a credible and objectionable source called "evilbible". (on cannot object to sources based on their name; that is essentially judging the book by its cover. That said, there are hundreds of print and on line resources around for anyone who wishes to do some study).

09 March at 09:48 ·

WOLF Hey, now that morals and behavioural standards have been well rooted and established, we don't need to give credit where it's due.

09 March at 09:49 ·

‎@Wolfgang; What is your goal here and please take advantage of my requests that you back up your arguments here. Also, please define "devout atheist."

Until you back up your statements with research and until you are able to define your terms - and you stop making personal attacks, you are flailing, not arguing.

09 March at 09:49 ·

PM You are cherry picking the way all fundamentalists do.

09 March at 09:50 · · ...

ME Peter, who are you directing that comment at?

09 March at 09:51 ·

WOLF

You spent six years studying what exactly? The best you can come up with is a link to a website called evilbible? I made my argument, and you came back at me without addressing any of the points I made. This is textbook juvenile debate. It ...might sound mean, but you're presenting nothing that is worth of analysis here. I can find everything you're saying on an internet forum.

Again, where did you study, and what did you study?

09 March at 09:52 ·

WOLF ‎*worthy

09 March at 09:52 ·

WOLF

Point backed up #1: Most atheists rely fully on the laws of science and nature and established their beliefs (not beliefs; understanding) based upon that. You're suggesting that the bible creates atheism. (I fail to see how this point backs up anything).

Point backed up #2: They attributed their beliefs to the science... and its irrefutable evidence. Not one of them claimed that they were driven to it by the bible. (ok, so this guy has read absolutely nothing but suggest he knows all atheists. Cool.)

So... like a toddler, I'll keep providing you with sound and logical rebuttals, and you'll keep telling me I'm not backing my point up. You sound like a bit of an dunce, truthfully (and he's back to attacking me personally)

09 March at 09:55 ·

LW Wolfgang--I'm with you, but you can't lead an athiest (sic) to evidence and make them think. Best site for athiests (sic) to view is www.creationontheweb.com (this site, for the record, is insanely debunkable).

09 March at 10:00 ·

WOLF Thanks Lyndon, I should add, no one sees some of the illogical human elements of religious scripture more than me. I'm just not a fan of bandwagonry (sic).

09 March at 10:01 ·

JG Julie, do you sincerely believe that the evilbible website is a reliable and impartial site on which to base objective opinion? Just asking. ( At NO point did I say, suggest, intimate that www.evilbible.com is the one and only reliable source; however, most believers will wage a to-the-death war that the bible is the one and only reliable source).

09 March at 10:04 ·

Fred Causer And so contless (sic) young men and women are lying slained (sic) on the battlefields of religion. Who cares what one man thinks over another as to how life came about on this planet and who has the highest accendancy (sic) it is far more likely that we are an Alien hybred (sic) and our "Gods" are actually from another World. Wars are fought on the grounds of religion why cant we all just respect each other and live in peace? (why indeed. Probably has something to do with appalling spelling/grammar)

09 March at 10:09

JG Sounds good, Fred

09 March at 10:12 ·

MH I'm with Fred. I'm an atheist who has no interest in arguing with believers. Let's just agree to disagree on that subject and concentrate on those things we do agree on.

09 March at 10:16 ·

Sid Helischauer No town needs two school boards

09 March at 10:26 ·

RD I think between Government and Religion, it has and will forever be a war on mans concepts for lost Soul seeking to find their way.

09 March at 10:41 ·

‎@John, do you seriously believe that a book based on war, torture, rape, infanticide, subjugation and slavery and an invisible man is impartial and bears enough proof on which to base an objective opinion?

Please quote my comment that states I think that site (www.evilbible.com) is unbiased and reliable.....

Have you read anything on that or any other site?

Have you read all of Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation; Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker, the Selfish Gene, the God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens: God is Not Great?

Do you subscribe to www.exchristian.net or ANY other blog of similar goal?

Do you come from ten generations of church-building, fire-breathing evangelicals?

Have you spend literally six years reading everything you can get your hands on related to your religious tradition?

Do you participate in any forums, conversations, groups on a daily basis?

Do you appreciate that a book that people defend as the infallible word of 'god' has more than 400 contradictions (http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf) - and if you do appreciate that, please explain why this omniscient being makes so many mistakes.

Also please explain to me why this all powerful, loving 'god' allows millions to starve and please explain to me why, if this being will grant any prayer why he/she/it will NOT answer the prayers of amputees, who surely pray for their limbs to grow back; or the prayers of parents of sick children - parents who will pray and let their children die rather than access medical help; or why thousands are .... oh fuck.. useless.

If you wish to engage me, please come armed. I support this country's constitution and its protection of religious freedoms - which by the way also protect freedom FROM religion; however, those of you who put a biblical story up as reality - and particularly those of you who are journalists - must subject your story to the basic principles of good journalism: eye witnesses, corroboration, replication, proof. In my most basic journalism classes, THREE real, live I-was-there sources are required. If not, your story has no more truth and weight as anything written by Jayson Blair (I hope you know who this is) or any other journalist of like standards.

If you won't apply basic journalistic standards to what is the most significant story relating to humans - all humans and all life on this planet - it throws into question to what extent you apply those principles on much lesser stories.

Those of you who call atheists "fundamentalists" and allege atheists have beliefs will please support that allegation with FACTS and EVIDENCE of those beliefs. Give me my so-called 'code of conduct.'

And please do not ask me to provide proof for the MYTH you hold up. If you say it is true then give me the FACTS and the EVIDENCE and the EYE-WITNESSES to corroborate that which YOU say is true. Otherwise, my allegation that there are pink unicorns running the world is equally viable because I have an equal amount of verifiable, replicate-able proof and FAR less proof to the contrary. See more

09 March at 10:41 ·

RD This is a logical thinking format searching for answers without ever finding a solution to actually fix anything. The sheep shall follow---who in the hell is the leader?

09 March at 10:44 ·

This is not the best format for a discussion requiring depth. I think we can agree that any Holy Book, whether it is the Bible or Dawkins (Dawkins holds two honours PhDs in biology and I think philosophy and seeks constantly to better his understanding of the world - quite different from the religious standpoint of "don't dispel my mythology), is available to be interpreted in fashions that affirm the subjectivity that we bring to it. (another journalist rule broken; use plain language)

The slavery accusation is popular but utter nonsense. If such was the case, how could that same Bible have been the very vehicle used for the emancipation movement, led by evangelical William Wilberforce, who began a tradition that continued to inspire Martin Luther King? (I could write an essay here on both of these men. This writer seems not to realise that the southern states absolutely used the slavery verses in the bible to support the continuation of that abominable time).

And, yes, many crimes and wars have taken place "in the name of" religion. More no doubt will follow. But many wars and crimes have also been committed in the name of other things - economics, trade, property, power and other ideological offsprings (sic).

Even love (Helen of Troy) has inspired war. But that does not make trade, or economics, or love inherently evil (many would dispute this idea; but again, all these are verifiable things, replicatable and having witnesses to them. The bible, not so) any more than it makes religion evil.

Our behaviours and ideas, even our beliefs, can be used for good and they can be used for evil. (pretty sure there are no atheists killing people for no belief). They are in some sense merely tools and, yes, the OT has some pretty grim stuff in it. But the OT is only the historical foundation of Christianity; it is the NT that carries the over-riding message of love, mercy, forgiveness, and the imperative to love one another. (yes, and the NT ALSO has many references to the OT - that NONE OF THE old laws shall be altered in any way until the return - assuming you believe the christ person existed at all - of the messiah).

That can be said of humanism, theistic and atheistic, but few if any other non-faith based philosophies. Moderation, tolerance and the ability to empathize and not demonize, are the keys to a healthy and truly rich secular society and all of those find their foundations in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (That is bullshit. Humans are innately moral and that has been tested and tested and tested. Religion is inversely related to morality. Case in point: In the US, where states report the level of religiosity, the higher the number of religious, the higher the crime. Yes, I have several sites to reference for this) And that's all I have to say about that. 09 March at 12:20 · · ...

Peter, would you accept unsubstantiated, non-verified speculation for print?

If not, please apply the same journalistic standards to information that people claim affects the entire human race. I will consider ANY proof of the veracity or '...holiness' of these text that you wish to provide. Until then, however, it is mythology that deserves no more or less respect that the stories written about Thor, Zeus or Harry Potter.

09 March at 13:06 ·

Also, please confirm that you are indeed saying

1.The old testament has no relevance
2. You believe the OT does not carry over into the NT.

...If you confirm this, I am going to instantly prove you wrong.

09 March at 13:08 ·

ME May I also point out here that not one of you has risen to any of my entreaties to support your arguments, substantiate your claims, tell me what my 'beliefs' are to put teeth in any statement you've made.

09 March at 13:10 ·

PM Julie. That is not at all what I said. I very clearly referred to the OT as a foundation (see above). And I offered (also above) some support for my arguments. (actually, the writer offered opinions, which, considering the writer is a known journalist, totally chaps me. Also said journalist did not respond to my question at 09 March at 13:08) As also noted, this sort of forum is not well-suited to this type of debate and there are no end of points upon which rational people may in good faith (pardon the pun) disagree. I have my beliefs, you have yours. (I do not have beliefs, as I've said several times here)

I have no wish to deny you yours. If you wish to deny mine to me, you are free to do so and I shall just turn the other cheek. Slap away.

09 March at 13:45 ·

Re your suggestion (erroneous) that the OT is merely a foundation, please refer to Matthew 5:18-19 RSV, where the Christian central character makes a very firm remark on what passed previously and its application presently.

If one says the ...bible is divinely inspired word of god and therefore infallible, one must than accept the point of Matthew 5:18-19 RSV.

Therefore the instructions on slavery are still in place. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
(I use this site as it is succinct - but there are MANY other references to this material)

As to your suggestion that I am denying anyone's beliefs, that is not at all the case. Two points: as I have said and will say again, I absolutely support this country's constitutional right to religion (or no religion, as the case may be); secondly, since when does giving the religious every opportunity to provide support for their statements constitute "denying?" I am not denying anyone's believe. I am asking for a good, solid, verifiable reason - with corroboration - to believe.

Explain to me what you mean when you suggest I have a religion/beliefs that you have no wish to deny, and what you think those beliefs are. Atheism, for the record, is an absence of belief.

Finally, please show me where and how I wish to deny you your religion and why you suggest that this conversation is in any way related to slapping.

In this conversation, I have been accused of
Having atheistic rage (with no reference or quote to back this up or any suggestion as to what atheistic rage is)
Of believing in science as god (with no clarification as to what that could possibly mean)
Of being a hypocrite
Of having a belief system (which the writer refuses to define)
Of having a rudimentary grasp of atheism
Of lying
Of playing it safe (?!)
Of being angry
Of having dubious moral and behavioural standards
Of denying people their religion (by asking them to support their postulations).

I think I have turned cheek several times here.

09 March at 14:47 ·

Relax. Of course slavery is referenced in the Bible. (to note, this writer previously said I was making this up)

So is being turned into a pillar of salt (how can an adult belief such a ridiculous story!?) and, like I said, all kinds of other nasty stuff. It is a book of its time. It is a book of stories of its time speaking to people in the language... (thanks to the writer for this one moment of honesty: the bible is just that; a book of stories of its time, speaking to people in the language of their time - 2000+ years ago) and the culture of its time and, honestly, how realistic was it for a dozen guys from Palestine to take on the entire cultural and political order and still get their message - one which they believed transcending the cruelties of this earth - across?

Anyway, the writing of Wilberforce and King and the emancipation movement are better qualified to expand on the expansive meaning of the Word rather than phrases cherry picked to support a particular worldview. Chill.

09 March at 14:57 ·

ME OK. Chilled. Still explain to me how any of it applies now.

09 March at 15:20 ·

ME The thing is Peter, that large groups and organisations STILL cherry pick - and in the current sphere I note the ridiculous Tea Party and its cherry-picking of all sorts of juicy bits to support their racist-ness and homophobic-ness. But they're christians all right....

09 March at 15:22 ·

PM Agreed. Cherry picking is bad in all its forms. And homo- or atheo- or christo- or islamo- phobias are bad too. We are all human beings and are all, by nature, flawed or broken. We all find redemption in our own way. Peace.

09 March at 15:36 ·

Charley VanderGriendt ‎'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do'/say

10 March at 09:42 ·

MH Wow, this discussion is still on going...I'm with Peter. As the kids say these days, Peace Out. (I've always wanted to do that...my children will be sooooo grossed out).

10 March at 09:48 ·

I suppose this video might light this all up again but it makes a great point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ

To the -phobias, I will stick to my guns here and ask again why ANY mythology that has no basis in fact, cannot be proven, bears on stories that are not verifiable and have no eye-witnesses, should be given respect, let alone tax breaks.

SOMEONE please tell me why they don't believe in Thor or Zeus. EVERYONE is an atheist. Many of us just take that one logical step further.

Signed, Feral Heathen (with thanks to the false-named WJ...)

10 March at 20:14 ·

MH It occurs to me that this is how wars start....

10 March at 20:45 ·

FC Exactly Markham unfortunatley (sic) most of them dont (sic) stand shoulder to shoulder with us soldiers on the fields of battle. Remember too no matter what or even if their religion is there are no atheists on a battle field when lying in a fox hole being shelled.

11 March at 07:38 ·

Fred, I personally know many soldiers who are absolutely atheist and who have, to a man, seen at least two tours in Afghanistan. I also know personally many veterans, people I see at least weekly, who have seen battle - several times in many cases and one who was POW for four years - who are also atheists.

Your "no atheists in fox-holes" is an oft-repeated but colloquial (meaning unverified) statement.

11 March at 08:59 ·

Hey, I'm talking peace and I'm not the atheist in the conversation. Look, if there was scientific "proof," people wouldn't call if faith. (exactly!)

I can't prove God exists anymore than Julie can prove God doesn't exist.(also exactly, except I am not claiming such a thing exists; therefore the burden of proof is not on me!)

I'm not trying to save anyone's soul here or even change anyone's mind, just bringing some reason to some of the things that are said. The reason religions such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity and others still survive is that unlike Julie's "mythical figures" the central characters were real people who walked, talked, ate, lived, loved and died. (proveitproveitproveitproveit!!)

King David, Solomon, Moses, Jesus of Nazarath (sic), Pilate, all of the apostles, Mohammad, etc. are all people who walked this earth and who are part of its history. (THAT IS AN ASTOUNDING STATEMENT! there is NO proof of any of those people.)

To suggest, as Julie does, that no basis in fact exists is not only absurd, it is irrational. You can debate the sufficiency of the facts, their sanity; you can debate their divinty (sic) but you can't debate that Mohammad changed his world or that 11 previously unimportant guys from Palestine and Paul, a later convert, travelled the world as they knew it and passionately spread the message of their leader. (these are unsubstantiated stories and to say they are categorically true is a stretch. There is LITTLE proof for the existence of any of these people, Mohammed incuded - and if he lived, he was a crazy hermit living in a cave.)

They were imprisoned, executed and in some cases tortured to death. There is no documentation (nope, you're right there) from their oppressors indicating any one of them broke. We are all entitiled (sic) to our own opinions and are free to debate the meaning of facts. But some facts, inconvenient as they are, are facts. Peace.

11 March at 14:30 ·

There is every reason to question the existence of Mohammed and Jesus. Particularly in the case of Jesus, who's life story is nearly identical to Horus and for who there is NO first century corroboration, (from any of the 35 or so historians of the time) one cannot say with any certainty such a person existed. There is much, much research to say he did not.

Also importantly, the four biblical gospels, upon which christianity is based were ALL written at least 60 years after the central figure had died (if he lived at all), so the writers themselves had no first-hand or even near knowledge of the person they were promoting. Even the origins of said gospels is unknown. As such, the existence of this character is NOT a fact. Presumed to be a fact is not a viable detail.

In the case of Mohamed, if he did exist, he was certainly mentally ill, similarly to Joseph Smith. I find it difficult to swallow that educated people believe that a man who spent seven years as cave-dwelling hermit rode to 'heaven' on a flying horse and then came back. Seriously Peter, that sounds rational to you?

It is no more rational to believe a man who is his own father was tortured to death but then revived whilst being ensconced for three days in a cave and that this abused person recovered at all but recovered enough to push away a stone the size of which is indicated in the bible. It defies reason. Especially the part where said person then simply rises up into the sky and disappears. That is as ridiculous as a talking snake or a man-eating fish - or a flying horse.

To your comment about peace, Peter, all religions are based on death: the key element of christianty is death and then life after, all based on a set of constantly shifting, immensely interpret-able 'rules' and threats. "You're fine just how you are" is NOT a feature of christianity or any other religion, frankly, as any behaviour that can be unappreciated is quickly termed a sin, including with christians, the fact of being born - christianity makes babies sinners because they are the result of a purely natural, biological act. That, my friend, is not peace.

11 March at 14:56 ·

Like I said, you can question the facts as you are doing now but my point was that you can't go off saying "there's no basis in fact" for any of these things. The depth of your faith (MY emphasis; not one offer of "please explain my 'faith'" was accepted) is such that I can't imagine there is anything that could... be put in front of you that could possibly change your mind.

There was, is and ever shall be enormous debate within and without the church. Suffice to say the NT, given the references to Herod and the census, put Jesus birth somewhere between 4 and 6 A.D. Pilate ruled between 26 and 36 AD and Paul's letters to the Corinthians are dated at, say 55 AD, give or take. (Why are there NO references to 'christ' by ANY first-century historian/scholar? UNANSWERED by this writer)

The Gospels are certainly dated later and many scholars argue whether most of them were cribbed from John (the youngest of the bunch). Has the story been altered or perverted over the years? Absolutely. Does it have "no basis in fact?" No. (Writer, notably does not provide links to any such 'facts').

You can believe if you wish that he didn't exist, but that's an article of faith. (Exactly. Faith, not proof/evidence: but I'm not alleging he did exist, so it is not my 'burden' to prove).

What's the alternative? That a bunch of guys sat around drinking too much wine and decided "hey, I know how we can really piss off the Romans! Why don't we make up this story that won't make us rich or powerful but will keep us poor and persecuted and will end with us all getting (sic) tortured and executed. You guys in?"

Seriously, while certain facts are certainly in dispute, it seems to me it takes a lot more "faith" to believe the whole thing is a running scam that has run for 2,000 years than it does to go to church. (well, yes, but then indoctrination in our time and fear of being burnt at the stake, or killed by any number of methods for heresy in other times does help with the coercive part of religion. Y'know and the irrational fear of burning for ever).

As I said, you are firm in your faith. (the religious love to tell us faithless people - what they call us most of the time - that we have faith... but in nothing...). The reason I and most of the other people at my church seem to show up is that Christianity is primarily about Love (sic) and how each of us is equal in the eyes of God, (really? well, women aren't equal, or are slaves)... how the meek will inherit in the earth and how the peacemakers are blessed. (of for shite's sake... )

We are taught that no matter the state of our lives, no matter how lonely we are or how much we hurt sometimes we are always loved. If it was otherwise (and there is no doubt that it has been taught otherwise by some) it would never have succeeded.

You obviously have a different experience and, yes, there have been times when human beings have terribly distorted these things and done awful things. On your last note, the church I go to which I expect you would assume is a haven of insanity teaches young people that sex is a great part of life. Peace.

11 March at 15:40 ·

ME Peter, you assume too much about me.

I am ever curious about this 'faith' you say I have. PLEASE define it for me.

11 March at 18:20 · (I have asked this question several times but have had no answer ever, from any participant here or elsewhere in the digital world).

PM This is not the medium for such a lengthy discussion. Lets just call it one of the mysteries of faith, agree that beauty will save the world and enjoy the weekend!

11 March at 18:31 ·

MH Are you two still at it?

11 March at 18:47 ·

ME ‎@MH, yes: I don't go in for "I don't understand it all and don't need any verification, therefore God,' whereas Peter is much less in need of proof.

11 March at 18:56 ·

Malcolm Kyle, you're my hero: Why prohibition is a bad, bad plan.

2011-04-28T21:58:00.000-06:00

Reposting this excellent comment that followed a short interview article with the always brilliant, funny Bill Mahar.

By Malcolm Kyle

April 20, 1:42 PM ETBased on the unalterable proviso that drug use, among all echelons of society, is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.

By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus the allure of this reliable and lucrative industry, with it's enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.

There is therefore an irrefutable connection between drug prohibition and the crime, corruption, disease and death it causes. Anybody 'halfway bright', and who's not psychologically challenged, should be capable of understanding that it is not simply the demand for drugs that creates the mayhem, it is our refusal to allow legal businesses to meet that demand. If you are not capable of understanding this connection then maybe you're using something far stronger than the rest of us. So put away your pipe, lock yourself away in a small room with some tinned soup and water, and try to crawl back into reality A.S.A.P.

Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again. Only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

If you support the Kool-Aid mass suicide cult of prohibition, and erroneously believe that you can win a war without logic and practical solutions, then prepare yourself for even more death, tortured corpses, corruption, terrorism, sickness, imprisonment, economic tribulation, unemployment and the complete loss of the rule of law.

The only thing prohibition successfully does is prohibit regulation & taxation while turning even our schools and prisons into black markets for drugs. Regulation would mean the opposite!

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.

BEST bread EVER

2011-03-21T14:44:00.001-06:00

Sometimes, even with years and years and loaves and loaves of experience, a baker has an 'on' day. Yesterday was mine.

No, I don't have a photo: seriously, this was delicious bread. All gone....

Here's the recipe I used:

2cups hot tap water
1/2 tbsp dry yeast
1/4 cup 10% cream
1/2 tbsp salt
1/2 cup BROWN sugar
2 eggs
4 cups of unbleached flour to start
You can also add ground flax - 1/2 to 3/4 cups.

Beat all this with electric beaters for 3 - 4 minutes. The dough will climb up your beaters but don't worry; it won't get you....

Add in 2 - 3 cups more flour. When the dough is too stiff to be stirred with a fork, dump it out onto a floured surface and kneed it, adding in flour until the dough becomes smooth and elastic and is still very slightly sticky.

Return dough to the bowl. Let rise until double - about an hour - covered with a tea towel.

Punch dough down and turn out onto a floured surface. Kneed 2 - 3 minutes to extract as many air bubbles as possible.

Divide into two equal-sized parts; kneed each into a loaf-shaped log and put each into a lightly-greased loaf pan. Let rise until double - 45 - 55 minutes.

Pre-heat oven to 350F. Bake loaves 23-25 minutes until golden brown. Loaves are done when they are a beautiful colour and when they sound hollow when tapped with the handle of a wooden spoon. Do not over-cook.

Remove from oven and let sit five minutes to cool down. GENTLY turn the loaves out onto a clean tea-towel. If you won't eat them within 24 hours freeze in large freezer bags to maintain that just-baked freshness.

NOTE: Safeway in my community sold me 1 lb dry yeast - the stuff they use in their bakery - for about $1.50. I don't know whether the bakery staff was supposed to sell me yeast like that, given there's tons of it on their shelves, pre-packaged and four times the cost - but they did. Never hurts to ask.

How to instantly alienate your entire mailing list

2011-02-11T13:43:00.010-07:00

Apparently common sense is not something all humans have - or have a grasp of. I got this message the other day from a professional I have done business with:

" I have noticed that many of you who email me, have forgotten the "art" of capitalization.(Too much "texting" on your phone perhaps?) Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse. I hope I've made myself clear.‬"

I agree in spirit with the writer but - and maybe it's just me - I find this email (which went to a lot of people because, as a redemptive point, the writer used the BCC option) pretty blunt. I'll also note the incorrect use of quotation marks and the misplaced full stops, which, considering the message, say something about the writer's own grammatical abilities....

I am ALL for having opinions and expressing them; ALL for that, as you'll know if you've been here before but one must take care when putting forth such strong opinion by email because, unlike a blog, which people choose to come to, an email is right in your face.

For the record, I probably screw up regularly, and it is entirely possible that I've been "blogged" (this is the correct use of quotations, as "blogged" is not necessarily a word) for said unknown screw-ups.... I dunno but perhaps chastising people directly isn't the best way to boost and attract business?

So, words of (unsolicited, I know) advice; I agree that poor grammar, spelling and syntax are distracting in any kind of communication - written in particular, where it comes to business - but there are times when the direct attack is probably the greater sin, whot?

Yes come eat at my table but...

2011-01-02T11:32:00.000-07:00


Thanks to http://bit.ly/i2YDbE for this graphic

Yesterday evening, one of my family members asked me if we could leave off with the 'religion slamming" (I'm not quoting; I don't remember the exact words). I didn't really understand why until a guest pulled a gold cross out of their shirt... To be clear, this guest has been here many times; they're not a stranger by any means and said guest happens to be sleeping with one of my family members, despite what their religion says about that (crack...).

I am atheist, full on and unapologetically so. I come from a very religious family - a family that is socially, culturally, educationally and by employment, religious. Nine - and soon to be ten - generations of the men on the paternal side of my family are ministers. In short, I was immersed - literally drowned - in religion from forever. My dad and my step dad turned the sod for the church I attended. That church also housed my (secular) kindergarten class; as such, I literally spent every day in the church, including Saturdays, because my dad and my step dad were deacons and my mother a Sunday-school teacher and they prepared for Sunday services on Saturdays.

I have read the bible - several versions of it - and for many years had no reason to question (or really understand) anything I read in there; I, like pretty much everyone I knew, just took it on faith.

In my early adulthood, I travelled abroad for some months. That sojourn resulted in a greatly enlarged world view and in a daughter. The pregnancy, which was without the benefit of marriage or partner, horrified many people in my church. I was shocked but not surprised by their reactions - and shocked at mine; I almost instantly lost respect for a huge number of people who had preached love and acceptance and now were very loudly and publicly denouncing me. Hm... Voila the first chink and the first glimmers of light into the vacuum that is religion.

Shortly thereafter, my mother, in a rare moment of honesty, revealed that several of those who were most despising of me had their own pasts: two affairs and a babe conceived out of wedlock - a son who was my age. I also became aware that our minister and his wife despised each other and spent little time together.

Two years later, my then brother-in-law (I had married) who was dogmatic in the extreme, revealed he was engaged in an affair with the Sunday-school teacher, who herself was not only married but still living with and sharing a bed with her spouse.This is the same brother-in-law who was red-in-the-face furious that I and my finance, whom I would marry in fewer than six months, were enjoying the physical benefits of marriage before we had the official go-ahead.... His excuse for his affair was that 'god' wanted them to be together... The idea that if god wanted it, he/she/it would have made it happen prior to the woman's marriage and two children seemed to escape my dumb but dogmatic relative.

My spouse and I shortly shifted to a different church, where we attended for two or three years, until one fateful morning, when the minister there gave a sermon on corporal punishment of children. Yet again totally misinterpreting the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' verses, he suggested to a congregation of more than 350 people that children between NINE and 18 months are the most needing of physical punishment because they are the most rebellious.

Nine MONTHS??? That was the last day I attended church. Statistically, 10% of the children in that congregation were being subjected to abuse, many on a daily basis. He also totally missed the point that 'rod,' is a misinterpretation of 'standard.' The verse actually means that if you don't give your children standards to live by, you will spoil them, meaning they will be literally misguided (without your guidance). That verse absolutely does NOT incite parents to beat their children into submission despite it being interpreted that way by a child-hating church (children being the evidence of 'original sin.')

That minister's extremely wrong and misguided sermon tore open the shroud that I'd been suffocating under. I didn't quite leave the faith but I left the institution.

Over the next fifteen years, thanks to many wonderful writers and in not small part to the galaxy of information that is the internet, I set upon a path of doing exactly what the bible suggests; I asked a LOT of questions and after several years, came up with the answer "This stuff is essentially BS."

http://www.ristupulous.com/

Reading, among many, Richard Dawkins, Steven J. Gould, Sam Harris and the deliciously sarcastic Christopher Hitchens (who himself has been a very faithful catholic and Jew), I have come to the firm and frankly unshakable conclusion that there is almost no probability of 'god' and the tiny probability that remains is infinitesimal.The point is that I have read and read and researched and asked questions; I haven't decided willy-nilly to pitch my faith/religion.

All that said, I have no goals of conversion. As much as I personally find belief in baseless, illogical, unsupported fantasy a waste of intelligence, I defend people's right to believe whatever they to believe - or not believe.

Where all this relates to the events at our dinner table is this: if I am surrounded by religious people, I do not request that they not discuss their religion around me because I find it offensive as I am atheist. But that request was made of me in my house - that there be no discussion (slamming, in the terminology of the request) because one person at my table in my house was religious. In short, a request that we suspend our logical assessments and not discuss them was made because such discussions were offensive....The idea that it was offensive to ask me that in my house at my table seemed not to occur.

Here's the bottom line: if one's philosophy cannot stand to scrutiny and if one is offended by that scrutiny, one must have a very close look at one's philosophy: It is not the discussion of the philosophy that is a problem; it is clinging to a philosophy that cannot stand to research that is the issue.

Here is the challenge: yes, I will discuss religion with the religious BUT, in order that those discussions be on equal footing, I suggest - strongly - that the religious be prepared by reading and researching. I've read their texts extenesively. I've studied them, I can quote them and so it is only fair that the religious be as prepared as I am; they should also read what I've read in order that they can do what ever good debater does; be able to effectively argue an issue from all points of view.

It is unfortunate, however, that the religious regularly refuse to read anything that might contradict their 'beliefs.' I say such refusal comes from a very human, instinctual knowledge that they know, somewhere in their consciousness, that what they say they believe in doesn't stand up. People will usually protest - and in some cases protest violently - things they feel they must defend but which they know to be false; the second a person knows they're wrong is the second the gloves come off - not because there's any way to recover but because one wishes to save face.

In my house, everything is up for discussion but discussion is not equal to conversion; I have no intention of - or responsibility for - divesting anyone of their belief system; however, in my house, as everything is up for discussion, one either has to be prepared for that or not come round. But to come to my house and request that I not discuss their religion because they're offended? No. That is offensive to the extreme.

I remember....

2010-12-26T17:10:00.001-07:00

... clearly, where I was, where I was heading and how old I was and who was first:

In eight grade; heading down the stairs at the south east corner of my school, in the afternoon, on the way to biology or math class; I was thirteen - just hitting puberty; Shirley Hallam, who probably meant well or meant nothing.

In the context of what is currently in fashion, (at least, it is rumoured, among men of colour) my moaning about a large butt may not make sense for some people. For me, the size of my backside is no less horrific and traumatic than a red wine stain is for others - those disfiguring large red birthmarks that cover some people's facial skin.

Shirley, who was my best buddy in eight grade, certainly didn't mean to be the one to spark that awareness of my body, an awareness that, from the moment on the stairs, has left me highly conscious and embarrassed of my backside. She just noticed - out loud - that it was larger than the average butt. I suppose, at age 13, I might have weighed 105 pounds or may be 110 but I wasn't a big kid.

Later in my life, after I'd had my first child, I lost a LOT of weight and weight. was small. I wore a size 4. 117 pounds; that's what I weighed at my first wedding. I'm 5'4" so I wasn't model skinny but being a bit muscular naturally, I was pretty slight. But people still mentioned the size of my butt.

After I'd had all my kids - I think my youngest was possibly eight - I still weighed 117, (thanks to a serious and for a while un-diagnosed bought of 'beaver fever,'- more colloquially known as dysentery - and which one does still occasionally contract, usually from the taps in public washrooms, thanks to people who take a poo, wipe but don't wash: news flash; rinsing your dirty mits under cold water does leave your fecal matter on the taps. Thanks a lot.)

Despite being very small at many times of my life, including the three years I was a gym rat and was very fit and very muscular, I've always had a larger butt than apparently the general public thinks is appropriate. And the general public - total strangers - is as apt to comment on it as are my family members, although the comments from my family members are by far more insulting and cutting and regular than those of strangers.

I remember Shirley's comments and how suddenly, as I descended those stairs, I became very, uncomfortably aware that I was not like other girls and that my 'unlike' was not desirable. I got an immediate and distinct impression my butt was something I should do something about.

The reality of my body's shape has haunted me - and I mean with every ounce of the fear and discomfort and misery - for more than 30 years. I dream about my body shape - not nice dreams: dreams of being disgusted by myself. I dream about taking a knife to my body and I think about that when I'm awake too.

About 10 years ago, I took a very scary-for-me step and approached a plastic surgeon about my 'deformity.' The surgeon is well-known in my city but what I didn't know is that he caters to only a certain wealthy clientèle. His calling card is the guaranteed that whomever he takes on as a client will leave perfect.

I wasn't going to support that calling card. It was obvious from the outset he had no intention of helping me - he didn't see me in a proper examination room but in another room that was obviously a reception room for people who were waiting for friends or loved-ones who were having day surgery.

He laughed at me when I told him what I wanted done, said it would leave horrible scars but did not realize the scars that I already have and how deep those are. He said, as he felt down the length of my ribs, "There's not much too you, but yes, you have larger-than-normal buttocks. What the hell is 'normal,' anyway???

I already felt stupid and a fraud coming in to his posh, exclusive office. Those feelings were more enhanced when I left. I stopped at the desk to arrange a second appointment but the reception staff wouldn't raise their eyes to look at me. The last thing the older, very perfected woman said to me as she shuffled my file to the back of her desk, was "We'll call you if we have an opening."

I haven't had that call yet.

As I've aged - I'm approaching 50 - my body has done the expected and gained weight. I understand this is, in the female body, a means of preserving estrogen, the disappearance of which is the beginnings of obvious old age in women. In my case, thanks to my unique body shape, I gain weight in the butt. I wear a size 10 jacket and a size 14 pant, the waistbands of which ALWAYS gape with easily five inches to spare.

I'm not sure what people expect me to do every time they remind me that my backside is big. I KNOW it. I realize they're uncomfortable. I realize that I'm not a tiny women back there. But what exactly does their reminding me serve to accomplish beyond hammering home over and over and over again that I am, in terms of what is considered beauty in 2010, essentially deformed?

I am edging again towards surgery, which is, I know, a painful and very expensive option. I do realize that much of my discomfort comes - came originally - from outside myself. I have, despite knowing better, internalized my pain over my appearance to the point that I'm now nearly too embarrassed to go to the gym, which I pay every month for regardless of whether I go or not.

I know that going to the gym won't change the fact of my body shape. I know that even if I were to lose 30 pounds and become a 110 pound bone rack, I will STILL have a too-large backside, according to whatever the supposed standards of 'ok with everyone' are. I also know that I wish I had the willpower and control of people who have anorexia (which is not a disease as much as the extreme limit of 'control freak.') but even then, I KNOW that I would STILL have a big butt for my size, even if I weighed 90 lbs.

I guess it must make people feel better or allow them to shift focus from their own flaws to point out mine. Where it comes to my family, I really, really don't get it. They know my body shape is a constant source of embarrassment for me; they know I am conscious of it all the time, waking and sleeping, yet they bring it up, often weekly. Why? What purpose could this possibly have for them?

I just want them to shut up. SHUT UP!

Not PC before the holiday? The HOLIDAY is not PC....

2010-12-20T21:36:00.001-07:00

I do realise that loads of you won't think this is nice or funny or in good taste. But I ask you, how is it nice or right or honest to repackage a bunch of really old myths and regurgitate them to a modern public and THEN to be all pissed off when people - like me - ask for verification of the source of the myth?

"Christmas" trees are PAGAN symbols, which we now decorate with crap produced by soul-less corporations.

"Christmas" is a repackaging of the celebration (by people who were scared of it and couldn't explain what was happening) of winter solstice.

"Christ" -which is not a name but a title, and a common one too - is a character based on another character - also not real - called Horus and on various other characters with similar pedigrees (godly dad, virgin mom). In short, been there, done that, still fake.

This is not to say that people ought not to be nice to each other or that they shouldn't have traditions that celebrate family and giving and peace and all that, but can't we just have those things rather than having to package them in the context of a myth that comes with a 'behave or beware' edict delivered by a man whose brutal torture and murder is replayed - for children - in every christian church? Seriously, isn't it weird?

Anyway, this: Thanks to @biblealsosays on Twitter for this link.

Dear US of A; Julian Assange is only a tiny bit of your problem. The fraudulent Federal Researve? Yeah. That's a biggie....

2010-12-16T12:56:00.000-07:00

Canadian Government aims to curb consumer indebtedness....

2010-12-15T10:14:00.000-07:00

Who is the real bogey-man?

Yeah, it's a really nice idea and all but in reality, it can't happen because the government, which runs the Bank of Canada, meaning oversees B of C policies, makes sure that Canadians have credit and use their credit.

You see, in order to get a home, for example, a person must have established credit. According to most lenders' policies, a mortgage borrower must have at least two credit cards, which must have a spending limit of at least $2000 and which must have been in place for at least 2 years.

See the problem?

Here's the rest of it. If a borrower has great credit management skills and, for instance pays a decent sum on their cards - or pays them off monthly (AS THEY SHOULD), the credit card companies UP the borrower's spending limit, often without letting the borrower know until after the fact.

I know what I'm talking about, in case any one's asking: I've worked in finance - specifically lending - for almost 10 years. I personally have been a 'victim' of this practice. I had a credit card with a $2500 limit. After not many years - three I think, I happened to check the spending limit and what did I find? $25,000. Yes. Did they ask me? No. When I discovered my limit had been so vastly increased, I called them to cancel the card. They didn't want to lose my business, despite that I always pay my balances monthly so they agreed to terminate the annual fee and to reduce my limit back to $2500 (I had, at that point, never spent more than $250 on that card...).

Those looking for mortgages MUST have a credit history. There are lenders out there who will deal with people who only use cash but those lenders are few and their rates are higher - usually about 2% higher - so excellent money managers are penalized for using cash - which all good credit counsellors will tell you is the best way to manage personal finances.

The truth is that people who have three credit cards, which they do NOT pay off monthly, will have a far easier time of acquiring a mortgage than someone who has no credit and no debt. That is the fact.

If the Canadian government means to do anything more than talk about consumer indebtedness, it will have to deal with the card companies first, but also with lenders' policies for adjudicating mortgage files - and car loan/lease files and all other big-ticket item files.

Possession of credit is an absolute necessity in this country if one is going to buy a house or a car. It's a double-edge sword to be sure.

Meanwhile, in the offices of the most corrupt government in the world...

2010-12-15T09:59:00.000-07:00

The truth will out.....

IF it is a reality, global warming can't flood the US fast enough - too bad the seat of what that country calls a government is too far inland to be drowned but maybe all the truck-traffic across the boarder between Canada and the US has created a ditch (trucks sitting waiting long hours having caused the ground to collapse a bit) so that when Mr. Gore's sea levels actually rise, there'll be a WIDE waterway between us and them.... because they so seriously suck.

If you weren't sure how terrified the US is of any of its disgusting, corrupt, subversive, coercive classified information getting out, please see their treatment of Julian Assange for reference. Also note that Assange, who has, granted, leaked embarrassing stuff, is not the only leaker and hasn't leaked the most embarrassing stuff - Blackwater, etc., etc., and now this....

No matter that leaking information is a time-honoured journalistic tradition, it's only ok until one managed to acquire information that is too close to the rotted bone.

I hope that Assange, who is weird and who is a megalomaniac and who does alienate people, hasn't alienated everyone around him to the point that whatever else he's sitting on - and whatever it is that the US is so terrified will become public - doesn't become public.

I wish and hope and cross my fingers behind my back that Wikileaks and/or OpenLeaks will come across the information about 9/11 and what actually happened that day - whatever it is that happened - and about what happened in London on July 7th (the following year or so?).

The attached link (click the post's title to go there) is only one of the items that winds up on Wikileaks. Of COURSE the US government does not want the public to know its soldiers are raping boys - even if such rape is an accepted tradition!

Humans totally, totally suck.

Oh goodie....

2010-12-13T18:50:00.000-07:00

The in-ghost-believing, tribal-standards-following Salvation Army is refusing to hand out any Harry Potter books or Twilight-related toys citing 'occult associations' as the reason.

Fer shit's sake....

The Salvation Army bases its entire philosophy on worship of an invisible man who can be stopped by iron chariots, who orders the rape and murder of innocent children; who is responsible for thousands upon thousands of murders; who requires people to own slaves and who absolves those people of any wrong doing if they accidentally kill those slaves by beating them to death. If one actually believes the drivel that is the bible they are in MUCH worse shape than those who read the likes of Harry Potter, which they know is ALSO a fantasy - one that is far less damaging to people - children especially - because JK Rowling is nothing at all like the pope and his legions of baby-raping priests.

I hope you will all reconsider what you're doing when you're handing money over to these dinosaurs.... they haven't stopped once in all their history to consider exactly what it is they presume to espouse. They haven't a clue what they believe in and they don't know 2% of what's in their so-called 'holy' books - if they did, they'd stop with the ban on what EVERYONE knows is fantasy and burn the bloody bible!

And on that note, I'd like to reprint a great article by Calgary writer, Jeremy Klausus, who is a grad of my university and who has recently become a delicious shade of edgy in his writing;

Here you go:

A blog by Calgary freelance writer Jeremy Klaszus.

Calgarians and the Palin/Graham cause

(click to go to the original, which is way prettier in it's natural state)

Posted by Jeremy Klaszus in Klaszus Corner

Um, Calgary?
I know you're busy, but you know that shoebox program? The one intended to convert poor kids to Christianity? The one that benefits from tons of glowing local news coverage each year? The one you can't publicly question without being labelled a Scrooge? The one that you — yes, you — help support with your tax dollars — you knew that, didn't you? — thanks to the involvement of local emergency services (ambulances and helicopters!) that back the cause each year?
Yes, that's the one. Operation Christmas Child. Run by Franklin Graham and Samaritan's Purse.
Well, you might be interested in knowing that Samaritan's Purse trotted out none other than Sarah Palin to help give out shoeboxes in Haiti on the weekend. From CNN:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin arrived in Haiti on Saturday as part of a humanitarian delegation led by evangelist Franklin Graham and his relief organization Samaritan's Purse.

"I am pleased that Gov. Palin will accompany us on a brief trip to Haiti this weekend, and I appreciate her willingness to visit Haiti during such troubled times," Graham said in a statement on the organization's website.

"I believe Gov. Palin will be a great encouragement to the people of Haiti and to the organizations, both government and private, working so hard to provide desperately needed relief."

Palin — along with husband Todd and daughter Bristol — "distributed Christmas shoe-box gifts to children, held the feet of baby cholera victims and offered solace to homeless quake survivors," according to AFP.
But don't worry, Calgary. None of this was political. Nasty reporters tried to talk politics with Palin, but she wouldn't have it. "The reason why I won't be answering questions is because we don't need to be getting political here today, okay folks," she said.
That's a relief, isn't it? Imagine if it had been political. That would mean that in addition to supporting Samaritan's Purse's missionary work, Calgary taxpayers would, in a roundabout way, be helping Palin in her endless quest for more, more, more publicity before the 2012 U.S. election.
And that would be kind of embarrassing, no?

I learned something new today.... More hilarity and falsification from the Catholic Church

2010-12-02T11:05:00.002-07:00

I am never surprised by the extent of the Catholic Church's obsession with sex except for the occasional moment, where I say, out loud in my office, in the middle of my empty house, "Really??? REALLY?"

Such was the case today when I came across this hilarious, satirical letter written by a fun-loving, rib-tickling, thigh-slapping atheist. The issue in question was changes to marriage legislation in Illinois, where an "all-but-marriage" domestic unions bill was passed to the great chagrin of the baby-raping catholic church....

In his email to the (verifiably gay) pontiff, our friend, who calls himself Gen. JC Christian, patriot and assures said pontiff that he, Gen. JC Christian is indeed heterosexual and suggests that the pontiff's representatives in Illinois haul out the 'big guns,' being one foreskin.

Yes, folks, the big guns amount to a bit of dried skin alleged to be the foreskin of Jesus Christ whose own existence is utterly without proof.

The holy, dried up, alleged foreskin of christ.

This certainly lovely bit of "holy meat" does not have travelling papers beyond its discovery - in a shoebox at the back of a Calcutta-based priest's wardrobe. The holy dried jerky was subsequently stolen, alleges said priest (why are the discoverers of such important relics - foreskins and tablets and stuff - always so bloody random and unknown?) and stolen by none other than the vatican - no surprise of course; they love their penises there, judging from how often they store them in the bodies of innocent children... but I digress....

The holy 'bit of bob' is now safely stored in a gilt-edged, glass tube and brought out at various high feasts and occasions now. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to bring such sausage casing out at a meal, given it's a bit off-putting and unappetising... . Read more on this story here, at Slate.

I should note here that the catholic church, which rule book is RIFE with idols and relics still clings to version three or four of the ten commandments (there's not just one set, you see; there is a bunch of revisions; even 'god' wasn't sure of him/her/itself with the first few drafts). - the part about not having idols and relics, seems, however, to not apply to the tubular leftovers.

I'm never sure how they get around their own rules but get around they do.... They do deserve some congratulations, however, for being inclusive; seems the catholic church, by engaging in penis worship (ok dried up bits of penis in their case) is channelling their inner Hindu - penis worship being a big deal (yes, pun intended) if you're a fan of Shiva.

Seems the catholic church not only stole the holy meat, they also stole the context by which they can worship said detached DNA...

I wait with great anticipation for the DNA testing...

James Barlow! Real AND Helpful!

2010-11-23T11:08:00.001-07:00


http://www.mittas.co.uk/problems.html

This is a follow up to my post the other day about the appalling, appalling customer service at Bell Mobility. Things go worse before they improve, but improve they do.

James Barlow is not only a real person, he's a rare breed at Bell. He calls back; he actually knows what he's talking about; he replies with details - as opposed to the usual call-back asking for the client to repeat their problems; he tells the truth about what's going on.

The specifics are these: Two years ago, MRU established an association account for its alumni. Almost immediately, the person handling the association accounts abandoned their job; there isn't an account manager assigned to MRU either, so between the lack of anyone handling associations anyway and no AC for Mount Royal, the alums fell into the abyss... Bell has LOADS of those.

Barlow has called me by phone and has replied twice within 12 hours to my emails, all with answers to my questions AND value-added information in addition. He is also going to follow up with the appropriate people at MRU.

He has also provided the missing link, being the NODE number by which people can now actually GET a 'deal with Bell. Sadly, that's where things kinda fall apart. No fault of James's at all but what Bell calls a deal is not the same as what I and most consumers would call their offerings.

But, James did come back with a great deal from SOLO, so I'm going to have a look at that. I'm also looking at WIND, because $18 for unlimited talk and text AND call ID and message centre sounds pretty good to me!

Thanks James.

Dear Bell Mobility. Mr. Barlow knows all about customer service. He should be your president.

Um, dear christians, doesn't your hate mail kinda fall outside the parameters?

2010-11-22T13:19:00.004-07:00

As always, I am more than happy to poke fun at people who believe in floaty invisible men - especially the floaty, waring, hateful, baby-killing, child-rape-promoting, slavery-expecting, stupidity-inducing kind of invisible man of the judeo-christian bible and that other guy - the one it is though might have had a serious case of schizophrenia - of the islamic 'holy' book.

THIS guy, is the extremely well-educated, two honours degree-holding professor, Richard Dawkins, who writes all sorts of excellent SCIENCE books that the above noted fantasy-believing types can't understand but about which they seem quite content to rant - and to send forward hate mail, takes it all in stride, as he should, while exposing these 'christians' for what they are: uneducated.

Ahhhh christians. Always doing yourself so proud.

Click here for more hilarious, uneducated and astoundingly stupid

Fundie quotes:

Cell phone companies suck, generally, but some bring suckage to a much higher level...

2010-11-22T12:29:00.005-07:00

Mount Royal University has been my educational home for more than 25 years. I'm proud to have been a student for all those years and proud now to be an alum. MRU has, from my experience, always gone out of its way to provide not only a great education but great ancillary services to its students and alum.

One of the partnerships MRU has is with Bell Mobility. I already have a bias, having been with Bell since 2004 and having found that company's customer service shockingly, unbelievably poor. This is not only my experience, I understand; the gentle soul I spoke to at MRU today indicated that their dealing with Bell had been 'interesting' with the full text "utterly hellish" being quietly inserted between the lines. Given my experience and my well-developed bias, today’s events, while frustrating, were no surprise.

There is usually reason to give companies a second chance (or 20th...), as staff and policies change; one can always hope a company will see the light and actually put some teeth in their supposed commitment to customer service. Or that they will hire employees whose vocabularies extend beyond “Whaaah? You’re from Calgary? Where’s that?”

Last week, I clicked MRU's link to Bell’s site. It leads to this PDF: http://www.mtroyal.ca/wcm/groups/public/documents/pdf/bellmobility.pdf

It is pretty simple to follow, if not very detailed. However, the appropriate phone number and website are both there.... This is where I'll warn you that if you're not good at frustration, those communication points are going to give you a heart attack.

To the PDF; the number included - the option 4 - has a full message box; you can't leave a message and there are no reps answering (there may not actually be any reps) but the system generously offers to transfer you. However, in Bell Land, 'transfer' means 'cut you off.'

Ok, try option six, for 'any other accounts.' There, I spoke to a rep who became more and more confused as the call progressed. He did not understand that Bell's PDF was missing the information he was asking from me. "How am I supposed to know that information if it's not on your marketing?" I asked him, to which he replied "I don't know." His answer to "If you were me and you'd found this PDF and done what it said, and you got you, would you be frustrated?" was met with a change of subject....

Ok. Try customer service. Nope. They can't find any record, internally or externally for Mount Royal and, even though the website is clearly marked on this ever-less useful PDF, Mount Royal of any flavour does not appear in any search. Oh, and 'Please hold," for customer service also means "Goodbye" so prepare to call back if you haven't yet bashed your head in on your desk.

The PDF is, I found out, missing a key piece of information - something called a NODE number. This, as I understand it, is the only way to even get answers about what is on offer to Alums. If you don't have that number, they can't even tell you if they HAVE an offer for us. Apparently, even a 'yes' is protected by Bell's crazy internal privacy policies.

Speaking of privacy, the named account manger for the MRU account, one James Barlow, has a 800 number -- which is not available in 'our' area. ... Apparently, even though the man is an account manager, everything about him, including whether he even exists as a Bell employee, is protected under FOIP... I think this is crap, actually; crap that actually means, "I don't really know where to start looking for staff members and I don't know how to transfer a call."

Anyway, I called again and used the voice-activated system by saying “agent.” This last call in got me someone who actually really did want to help. I can take it the poor guy has only been there a month or two and has not yet succumbed to Bell's corporate culture (try to make their heads blow up before you actually help them, and please, see that you do that within our 4 minute call rule, OK?) He found out that there is actually no record of any agreement with MRU. This is not to say there isn't one; just that there's no record of it, despite that BELL has provided said PDF to say there is….

My new friend (I was actually ready to marry him because he was so willing to help and must be a man among men because help is on such short supply at Bell) admitted that corporate complaints does not actually have a phone number - hardly surprising considering the company would have to second as much staff as possible to answer those phones considering the probable volume of complaints they'd otherwise get.

There is a corporate complaints fax line but who knows where the fax is; could be in the middle of some junk yard somewhere in Alabama, a la CIBC.... He also said there's no number for marketing - as in the marketing department has no contact phone numbers... also probable BS but what can you do?

But, he did give me a land line for the mythical James Barlow and that line rang AND had a voicemail box with room in it. I've left a message with the possibly-real James Barlow to let him know how much fun I've been having for a couple hours this morning... If he calls back and has anything other than "I don't know," or "What's your NODE number," to add, I shall continue this saga.

In the meantime, one of the newer entries into the Canadian cell phone marketplace, WYND, has some really, really inexpensive plans on offer - $18 per month for unlimited calling and texting. Whatever Bell has on offer, I'm reasonably sure it won't be anywhere near that good – and don’t let Bell sell you on coverage; WYND uses Bell’s network of cell towers, so if you don’t have coverage with them that is ALSO Bell’s fault.

It really is just that simple; Epicurius' recipe for a happy life

2010-11-21T08:55:00.005-07:00

I've been playing with Stumble lately and have been turning up all sorts of wonderfulness through that site. Love it. Go have a look. It could be called a time-waster but then so are a bunch of those first-year classes I paid $650 each for....

This is what turned up first for me today. It is a very simple recipe for living life based on the idea of:

Tetrapharmakos

The four-part cure (tetra - four; pharmakos - cure) is the Greek philosopher Epicurus' (341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens) remedy for leading the happiest possible life. The "tetrapharmakos" was originally a compound of four drugs (wax, tallow, pitch and resin); the word has been used metaphorically by Epicurus and his disciples to refer to the four remedies for healing the soul^[1].

The following is a description of each line as the Epicureans understood it.

Don’t fear god

As a prelude to "Don't worry about death," the concept of "god" in Epicurus' time was incompatible to Epicurus' beliefs. The worrying about whether or not the gods are concerned about the actions of human beings and the amount of observance and worship ascribed to them, was the general relationship of man's belief to the gods' purpose and temperament. But Epicurus and many other Greeks at the time conceived the gods to be a hypothetical state of bliss rather than higher bodies of judgment; they are undestructable entities that are completely invulnerable, enviable to mortals, and, most importantly, unconcerned about anything beyond the bliss and happiness they represent. They are mere role models for human beings "who emulate the happiness of the gods, within the limits imposed by human nature."

The Out Campaign for more.

Don’t worry about death

As D. S. Hutchinson wrote concerning this line, "While you are alive, you don't have to deal with being dead, but when you are dead you don't have to deal with it either, because you aren't there to deal with it." In Epicurus' own words, "Death means nothing to us...when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist," for there is no afterlife after we die. Death, says Epicurus, is the greatest anxiety of all, in length and intensity. This anxiety about death impedes the quality and happiness of one's life by the theory of afterlife: the worrying about whether or not one's deeds and actions in life will translate well into the region of the gods, the wondering whether one will be assigned to an eternity of pain or to an eternity of pleasure.^[6]

[edit]What is good is easy to get

Sustenance and shelter, these things can be acquired by anyone—by both animal and human—with minimal effort, regardless of wealth. But if one wants more than one needs (over indulgency (sic), gluttony, etc.), one is limiting the chances of satisfaction and happiness, and therefore creating a “needless anxiety” in one’s life. "What is good is easy to get" implies that the minimum amount of necessity it takes to satisfy an urge is the maximum amount of interest a person should have in satisfying that urge.^[7]

[edit]What is terrible is easy to endure

The Epicureans understood that, in nature, illness and pain is not suffered for very long, for pain and suffering is either "brief or chronic...either mild or intense, but discomfort that is both chronic and intense is very unusual; so there is no need to be concerned about the prospect of suffering." Like "What is good is easy to get," recognizing one's physical and mental limit and one's threshold of pain—understanding how much pain the body or mind can endure—and maintaining confidence that pleasure only follows pain (and the avoidance of anxiety about the length of pain), is the remedy against prolonged suffering.^[8]

Simple. Pretty much right. Who needs a whole ridiculous bible full of contradictions, death, rape and child sacrifice?

The Syncrude Ducks

2010-10-29T10:09:00.001-06:00

I am super tired of this trumped up story. It smacks of a smear campaign and either the national media is stupid or they're complicit because they have not been reporting anything that could be construed as balanced information.

So here's what I know from a total of 8 minutes on the phone with Sustainable Resource Development - the arm of the government that, among its jobs, oversees hunting, fishing and wildlife care and preservation in this province.

There are something in the range of 10 MILLION ducks in this province.
40,000 give or take 5000 are taken ANNUALLY by licensed hunters
a similar number are killed in a whole variety of ways including by being hit by cars and airplanes and by being eaten.

Of the ducks that went into the tailing ponds earlier this week, 90% were Scaup ducks - diving ducks - which were forced to land due to freezing rain and, because of their breed habits, look for water - not land - to 'land' on. Ducks are dumb. They don't know that some water isn't a good choice. That lack of reasoning ability on the part of the ducks, however, isn't Syncrude's fault.

The person I spoke to at SRD says that last year they personally killed 1000 ducks for purposes of determining the extent of bird flu.

No, the tailing ponds are not clean and no, they're not very healthy for wildlife but the TRUTH is that it is utterly ridiculous to think that drowned ducks in the numbers that have gone into those ponds is any kind of disaster. It isn't.

As you all know, I'm a conspiracist. I think that Syncrude has been tarred and feathered and that the media is complicit AND that investigative journalism is dead AND that the current slew of reporters isn't asking very good questions nor are they asking the right questions of the right people.

For all of you who live in this province and benefit from its very healthy economy - an economy that is considerably more healthy that that of the rest of Canada ( and Canada is in good shape as compared to Europe), quit yer bitchin'! Our prosperity depends very heavily on the fact that this province supplies a LOT of oil to a LOT of places - 1/3rd of the US oil supply comes from this country.

If the realities of living in an oil-based economy are that unpalatable to you that you not only don't ask your own questions, you also suck down the un-researched stuff you read in the newspaper, then this is not the country for you to live in.

As for asking questions, if you have an Internet connection and a phone, you are in possession of the exact same tools any journalist has; if you don't avail yourselves, you are complicit in any campaign of disinformation that the media chooses to host.

In case anyone is wondering where I got my info, I simply called Sustainable Resource Development and asked them about hunting licenses and what the annual take of ducks (actually all hunt-able fowl - 76,000 annually, approximately). No, there's no link here. That's because I'm bugged that people can't simply put "SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT" - in that format - into Google and find out for themselves. That goes for reporters too....

Calgary Mayoral Candidates Ignore Esteemed Colleage

2010-08-15T11:27:00.008-06:00

Yesterday’s street festival in Chinatown was a brilliant affair and except for one error, it was a well-planned, very enjoyable event.

However, that one error left MLA for Calgary Buffalo and Calgary mayoral candidate Kent Hehr stranded at ground level and unable to join his colleagues on the stage. The organisers made no effort before hand or day-of to make the stage accessible to Hehr and nobody stepped up to help during the event.

Hehr is wheelchair bound due to having been hit by a stray bullet in a drive-by shooting some 20 years ago. That bullet left Hehr paralysed but has not paralysed his career or his civic involvement.

Yesterday, with the entire slough of dignitaries and candidates on stage, Hehr was forced to stay beside the stage, on the ground and hidden from view, unrecognized by the MC and excluded from the ribbon-cutting ceremony and photos of the event.

This is a glaring oversight and a slap in the face of one of Calgary’s most significant figures.

The organisers owe Mr. Hehr a public apology certainly as do Mr. Hehr’s colleagues. It speaks VOLUMES about the other candidates and dignitaries that they did nothing at all to see that their esteemed college was not excluded.

There were PLENTY of able bodies up on that stage and had any of them had a thought beyond getting their mugshot done, they could have easily found a solution to Mr. Hehr’s forced dilemma.

It is embarrassing and a very poor reflection on such people that they so pointedly ignored the needs of a colleague; one must ask how that ignorance translates to the lesser-known who also have accessibility needs.

I want to make THIS perfectly clear: I have nothing at all against any of these people personally. I know most of them quite well and like them all very much.

I don't ascribe any malice to any of them. I do, however, question how they could so blatantly ignore the fact that Kent was right there, below them all, while they were up on stage.

He is a colleague; he has been part of civic and provincial politics for ages and he had spoken yesterday, still from the ground, so they couldn't have not known he was there. I must say, the one comment I received so far today was of the "Wasn't Me," variety.

WHY didn't anyone think to make sure he had his deserved place on stage with his colleagues?

I hope some or all of the dignitaries and candidates who were on the dais yesterday will step up, acknowledge this oversight and make public apologies to Kent.

Also on site: Richard Gotfried

Kent Hehr

Delicious, healthy and colourful; Heather's Salsa Salad

2010-07-23T11:04:00.003-06:00

Last weekend, my friend, the brilliant and talented Cara Luft performed at a house gig in Calgary. Some of the guests brought food, including Heather, who's salsa salad was FABULOUS. So I begged the recipe.

I made it again myself last week - about 2 litres of it - and ate most of that myself, totally guilt-free because there's hardly a bad calorie in the stuff.

Here's what you need:

1 large can black beans, rinsed

1 can sweet corn or 2 cups cooked frozen corn

1 zuchinni

3 Roma tomatoes, seeded

1/2 a large red onion (softball size)

1/2 each: red, green, yellow and orange peppers

1 jalapeno pepper: WEAR GLOVES - remove the seeds and do NOT touch your face until you remove the gloves and WASH your hands. The seed oil is VERY spicy and strong.

1/2 bunch cilantro

Juice of 1 large lime

1 tsp sea or kosher salt

1 tsp white sugar (this brings out the flavour of the tomatos

1 tsp Worcestershire sauce (if you have it; not critical but a nice add)

1 tsp hot sauce

2-3 cloves garlic (to taste)

You'll need a large bowl - 2 quarts or so - that has a good lid

The hardest part of this recipe is the chopping. Your goal is to chop the vegetables into bits that are about the size of the beans and corn. The cilantro should be finely chopped.

Chop everything up, dump it all in the bowl; mix the lime juice, salt, hot sauce and garlic and dump into the bowl. Mix well; give it a taste for seasoning but DON'T add anything at this point; let the mixture sit for a couple hours in the fridge to let the flavours blend and infuse; taste again for seasoning.

If you like things quite spicy, you can chop up some of the jalapeno seeds. like 10 of 'em.

If you do this, WEAR GLOVES. The seed oil is very pervasive and it will burn your skin, especially if it goes under your fingernails. Once you're done chopping and have stirred the seeds into the mix, put the stirring utensil in the sink and wash it immediately with soap/hot water. THEN you can dispose of the gloves. If you don't do this, you will instantly know why I suggest you do....

I serve this as a side with lime nacho chips. It is also excellent as a topping for baked fish or as a filling in chicken or beef tacos or quesadillas.

Warning. HIGHLY addictive. Super yummy and awesomely healthy. You will pretty quickly understand how easy it really is to sit down with a bowl of this delicious stuff. Blissfully healthy and really, really gorgeous to look at. I'd have taken a picture but was too busy chowin' down....

The bikepaths and walking paths: Hazardous due to dummies: Update

2010-07-18T17:53:00.003-06:00

So, today, @6foot4design and I did a 60K loop around our city's south-end bike paths. Along the way, we encountered many well-mannered pathway users; a few people who were obviously new to the system; some whose parents never informed them that, in North America, we walk to the right (and some who didn't know which was their right); and a sprinkling of astounding idiots.

Yes, folks, amazing as it might be, the city's bike/walking-path users have not all read my previous blog or, if they did, they did not heed the part where they were to stay off the paths if they didn't agree with my rules.

Case in point, a chavy blond (this would mean over-done, takes-herself-for-jersey-shore type) who chastised US when we nearly crushed her tiny, unleashed, hard to see black dog that ran onto the path in front of us... Us: 20k... dog: oblivious; her? FACKING stupid.

I shall say it again, in support of the newly installed signage, complete with RED STOPLIGHT and "NEW" in bold peppering every entrance to the pathway: YOUR DOG MUST BE ON A LEASH ON THIS BIKE PATH.

Except that I love dogs, I almost wish I'd hit it, just to prove a point. But that would be mean. There's some poor man out there who, when he is finally bored by screwing that bimbo, is going to realise just what an immense chavy bimbo she is....

Dudes: If your woman won't take care of her little dog by making sure it is safe from being hit by speeding bikes on the BIKE PATHS, she's stupid. Move on; save yourself the divorce costs....

The bikepaths and walking paths: Hazardous due to dummies

2010-07-12T17:24:00.004-06:00

As it is that time of year again, I just want to revisit a couple previous rants about how people use the pathways in my city - any city probably; apparently stupidity is a prerequisite for using pathways if the number of clued-out (mostly walkers) is any indication.

My city has just posted a request for volunteers to contribute to pathway improvements - a great idea. Sad to say the city hasn't considered many of the probably thousands of recommendations they receive daily.

The comments below are expanded on those I've just posted to the comment board on the volunteer request page (this is the link to the page).

I am a regular user of the city's pathways. I bike. I have a speedometre; I wear a helmet; I have a bell and I use it; I always use my voice in conjunction with my bell (although neither is effective to signal my approach to those people who can't function without their ears stuffed with speakers and their music turned up full blast. Those idiots are reckless, safety-flaunting cads).

The reality is most pathway users are in DESPERATE need of education on HOW to use the pathways. So here are the rules and yes, if I could make these laws, I would.

Unless there is no alternative;

pathways with yellow lines are for BIKES and SKATERS;
unmarked pathways are for WALKERS.

Just like on roads built for vehicles (that would be cars, trucks and motorcycles and yes, bicycles, which are considered 'motorized' vehicles when using roadways), lines painted on the pavement mean something - like "THIS IS THE CENTRE OF THE ROAD; STAY ON YOUR SIDE."

STAY to the RIGHT! Yes, walkers, you too. Fine; your group numbers six people; they all must stay to the right. Try two-by-two.

This also applies to city sidewalks, malls, escalators, elevators, buses and the C-train (when entering and departing); if people would simply walk to the right, it would massively lessen congestion and confusion.

If you're on skates or a bike, SIGNAL your approach by using your voice or a bell. Don't just blow by people who may not hear you! "ON YOUR LEFT" or "PASSING ON YOUR LEFT" are the correct warnings. USE them.

Those of you addicted to in-ear music: if you're dumb enough to be on a pathway (or driving!) in moving traffic that you prevent yourself from hearing, you're probably going to at least be yelled at by someone who almost hits you and you're also likely to be injured when you meander across the line and you're hit by a biker or skater you couldn't hear coming.

Turn your music down and only use ONE in-ear speaker. For the record, earbuds/earphones are illegal when driving for exactly that reason; you can't hear what's coming.

When you hear a biker or skater coming MOVE RIGHT.

YOUR RIGHT.

That would be the right that moves you AWAY from the centre line and TOWARDS the edge of the pathway.

You don't have to leave the path; just move to your right to give a moving vehicle the space they need to safely pass you.

It hurts to be hit by a bike travelling at 20Kms so don't be all pissy about it, just move right.

The speed limit is 20kms MAX; not 40 because you're in training (if you really were, you'd be on the road or on a track somewhere) or you're showing off how fit (but stupid) you are; or because you think you're more awesome than other humans.

20kms max.

If you don't have a speedometre on your bike you suck because they're inexpensive and useful; they also track mileage. Not having one doesn't make you sooo cool; it proves you're an idiot.

If you stop moving, get OFF the pathway! That's right. Simply step off to allow moving traffic to continue moving. It's like using your driveway or parking at the curb; it leaves the roadway clear, prevents you from being hit and shows that you're not a complete idiot like those six people stopped in the centre of the bike path up there....

And PLEASE make sure it is safe to stop. Don't just stop short! Pathways are transportation routes - meaning you have to signal lane changes, passing and stopping. Shoulder checking is ESSENTIAL!

Stopping dead without making sure it is safe to do so (because your body isn't equipped with signals and brake lights) means you're one of THOSE people who lives like they're alone on the planet or believes that everyone is always paying attention to them, which means they need treatment for narcissism.

Dogs and children MUST be under control at all times.

For dogs that means ON LEASH; for kids, that means they're within reach or holding your hand.

If I hit your so-cute, so-well-behaved, off-leash dog that just ran into the path of my bike (because you've conveniently ignored the DOGS ON LEASH ONLY sign), I'm not going to be sorry for you but I will be very sad for your dog - that it has a neglectful owner who didn't look to the dog's safety. "He's a good dog" is NOT a safety strategy.

Same for your children; if you're walking on a BIKE path and you're not keeping your children IN SIGHT and ON THE RIGHT, they will be hurt for sure. Grow up, be an adult and observe the rules that are in place to keep you and your babes SAFE!

If there's a walking path - and there usually is one about 10 feet away from the bike path - USE IT! You wouldn't walk your children or dogs down the middle of a busy street, so why would you walk them down a busy BIKE path?

If all this advice pisses you off, stay off the pathways because you are a hazard to yourself and others.

If this advice makes sense and you understand it will keep you, your animals and your children safe, congratulations, you may use the pathways.

Thanks for the soapbox
WW

As it turns out, sunscreen is not only poison, preventing the sun is killing us.

2010-07-08T09:38:00.005-06:00

Those of you who know me - or have read this blog for any length of time - know how much I disagree with the application of chemicals to the skin and to the invasion of Big Pharma into our lives.

I found the following article about lack of sun exposure and its devastating relationship to cancer and other serious health complications on Goop, Gwyneth Paltrow's site. I agree with about 90% of it, this part in particular:

"...I recommend moderate sunbathing... Vitamin D supplements provide the same benefits as sunshine (in terms of Vitamin D needs). But, if taken in too large a dose, they can cause Vitamin D toxicity, whereas sun exposure does not."

30 years of warnings - which can be traced directly back to manufacturers of sunscreen and their corporate financial goals - have left people sick, much more prone to cancers and, not mentioned here, MUCH higher rates of MS and who knows what blood-borne damage due to application of chemicals to porous skin.

Our bodies are excellently evolved to protect us from the elements first, but secondly to USE the elements to keep us healthy. From Wikipedia, this is the function of a tan:

"As a defense against UV radiation, the amount of the brown pigment melanin in the skin increases when exposed to moderate (depending on skin type) levels of radiation; this is commonly known as a sun tan. The purpose of melanin is to absorb UV radiation and dissipate the energy as harmless heat, blocking the UV from damaging skin tissue. UVA gives a quick tan that lasts for days by oxidizing melanin that was already present and triggers the release of the melanin from melanocytes. UVB on the other hand yields a tan that takes roughly 2 days to develop because it stimulates the body to produce more melanin. The photochemical properties of melanin make it an excellent photoprotectant.

Sunscreen chemicals on the other hand cannot dissipate the energy of the excited state as efficiently as melanin and therefore the penetration of sunscreen ingredients into the lower layers of the skin increases the amount of free radicals and reactive oxygen species (seriously?? does that sound like a good idea?)"

An article in the Seattle Times points to what looks like an obvious connection between lack of sun and MS.

"A growing body of evidence suggests [lack of sun exposure] can raise your risk of cancer, increase susceptibility to heart attack, diabetes and other disorders, and at least partly account for the region's sky-high rates of multiple sclerosis."

Sunburns are certainly not good for the skin but the sun itself - and the body's ability to tan and therefore 'metabolize' sun - is absolutely necessary and critical to a body's health. Responsibly taking the sun means that the skin will activate its highly developed protective feature - tanning - while allowing the body to process vitamin D in a radically more accessible way than by taking supplements, which can easily be consumed to toxic, damaging levels.

As I've said before, if a product - vitamin D, sunscreen, drugs of many types - comes with expensive TV advertising or similar 'push' campaigns, it is suspect.

Paltrow says in her newsletter that not only was she ill enough to check in with both her western and eastern doctors, she was discovered to have the lowest amounts of vitamin D they'd ever seen. She also admits to being what I'd call phobic about staying utterly out of the sun. She is the poster-girl for who sick it can make a person to buy in to big pharma and its little buddy the sunscreen peddlers.

Go outside, get some sun and yes, get a tan. It IS good for you. READ ON.

God is Imaginary

2010-06-29T10:46:00.010-06:00

Just got this great blog via Twtter, which is now if first place for where to find out anything, with CBC following behind....

God Is Imaginary. Some people need to be convinced of this. I don't know why intelligent humans feel the need to live in fear of an invisible 'guy' and why they think that stuff written by very unscientific, untravelled tribesmen 2000 years ago is a relevant way to live a modern life, but need they do.

I will assert - with proof if necessary - however, that most religious people know very little about what they say they believe, know almost nothing about their religious texts (I'm referring mostly to the christian bible here, having little experience with the Q'ran, but that too because it is ALSO crap), and have no answers for the questions us supposedly uneducated atheists/humanists/free-thinkers put to them. Except that most of us can quote their bible at them until their empty heads spin....

This really fun blog does exactly that; it quotes directly from the christian bible and then points out exactly how the christians themselves prove their 'god' does not exist.

Have fun. If you're sensitive to having the proverbial crap kicked out of what you think you believe, get in there, read and rebutt. But please, take a comfy chair; that's a big ol' corner you're about to paint yourself into.

After you're done reading that stuff, read this so you can know how absolutely terrifying christian minds are. Shite Fundies Say

The OUT Campaign

2010-06-07T17:18:00.003-06:00

May I just say a gracious and heart-felt thanks to my immediate family, the religious and non-religious alike who, quite unwittingly, opened the door to my first questioning religion, leaving it and now standing firmly against it.

I make a point here which must not be lost: I said religion, which comes with fear, lies, and dogma, and which by its very nature is divisive and fosters me versus you: I did NOT say faith.

In my country, our constitution protects our right to - and freedom from - religion. Following on that, I believe that any time religion ventures outside its rightful place - in the home or the place of worship (and I mean to include it venturing forth in form of clothing or symbols as well) - it contravenes a fundamental part of our constitution; my freedom FROM religion and the rights my country confers on me to be from from religion and to never suffer discrimination for that freedom. Sadly, that is not reality as the religious feel it is their duty to call me names, belittle me and attack my intelligence and credibility.

That said, I am, I find, part of a growing, ever more vocal, educated, informed and supportive international group of individuals who are free from religion themselves but are at the forefront of a movement that requires religion and those to adhere to such fantasies to account for their beliefs and actions.

You can find me on Twitter at @writerwriter. You will also find Jim Gardner, @MovingToMontana, and his excellent blog, How Good is That?, and @ZachsMind. I encourage you to follow the atheists you'll find in my lists (on my Twitter profile, page right).

You will also find a huge resource of like-minded writers and individuals via Dr. R Dawkins site and through The OUT Project.

10 Point BS Detector Kit!

2010-05-24T09:28:00.000-06:00

This is for those who think the Bible should be followed litterally.

2010-05-21T08:32:00.005-06:00

I'm officially calling all those uneducated, conformist freaks who think the bible is the uncontested, incontrovertible, word of 'god.' I call bullshit but I'll let this letter to the adulterous, affair-having, racist Dr. Laura (of the naked pictures on the Internet) Schlesinger do it for me.

Now. For those of you reading this who say, "Well, the old testament isn't in effect any more," may I, heathen that I am, correct you.

See, the problem with 'believers' is that instead of actually knowing what they're talking about, they rely on marginally educated automatons who call themselves 'religious leaders' and who deliver what information won't contradict what other information they've already delivered to their SHEEP... So here's the critical piece.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 5:18-19 RSV

So, it looks like you're gonna have to buy slaves, kill your neighbours and y'know go all biblical on people's asses... it's gonna suck though because, as much as religious idiots say "this is a christian country," the laws we have here do not agree: Stoning your male neighbours or your brother because they cut their sideburns is very much frowned upon in the Canadian Criminal Code. So is selling your daughters into slavery and so is slavery itself. SO.... you're kinda snookered, I'd say... but then, if you err on the side of it all being such a load of horse shit, you're probably going to live a far less stressful, fear-filled life. THIS life. Not the supposed afterlife.

But I digress....

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an Orthodox Jew, she believes that homosexuality is an abomination (according to Leviticus 18:22) and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :)

MORE:

How to catch a Christian in the act:

When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear. They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”.

Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?” “Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22).

Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud!” Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19).

If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy. (from www.evilbible.com).

In your face with the burka (Calgary Herald, 12 May 2010, Page A13)

2010-05-12T10:04:00.001-06:00

Dear Christpher Hitchens: I love your brain.

In your face with the burka
Christopher Hitchens Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and Slate Magazine, where this column originally appeared
Calgary Herald
12 May 2010

The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burka — whether the garment covers “only” the face or the entire female body — are often described as seeking to impose a “ban.” To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a...read more...

Get RID of Stephen Harper

2010-05-12T08:11:00.003-06:00

Stephen Harper is, by virtue of being 'religious,' and entertaining religious fanatics and their crazy, crazy ideals, has proven himself to be utterly unqualified to hold public office, let alone run a country.

Religion has no place ANYWHERE outside one's private residence but absolutely NOT in the political arena.

Those who believe in invisible floaty god thingies are welcome to their delusions IN PRIVATE.

Religion of any kind - has NO place on the public stage and absolutely NO place anywhere near the development of laws, or any kind of policy.

The 'religious' know so very little about what they believe, where it comes from and how extensively manipulated, reinterpreted and cashed-in-upon their 'faith' is and that refusal to know is the very detail that should disqualify them from participation in anything to do with politics.

HOW is it that people who are terrified of extremists and want to 'democratise' societies where politics is based on religion do NOT see the same thing happening here?

No matter what name it has - or what name given the invisible man - religion and religious fanatics are dangerous, false, deluded and ridiculous no matter what country they're living in.

The fact that the current Canadian PM has any truck at all with these fools should be enough to oust him. Anyone who buys in to fantasy cannot, by virtue of accepting that fantasy, be qualified to run a country.

Talking snakes, invisible men, zombies indeed. SERIOUSLY people.

By the way, this is how 'christians' are supposed to treat other people:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

20:10-17

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

And for those of you who are so uneducated and unread to say 'oh, that's old testament,' well, your 'son of god' himself said that not one word of the old laws could be changed until he returns. Unless those people who thought Michael Jackson was the messiah are right....

From Evilbible.com, Christians are Hypocrites page:

"Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 5:18-19 RSV). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. How many times have you heard some lame ass Christian say “the Old testament doesn’t matter, Jesus was the lamb and abolished it”? Don’t let them get away with this shit for even the bible says that they should still be following the Old Law."

Sarah Palin is a revisionist LIAR!!

2010-05-08T08:55:00.003-06:00

I am Canadian. Until Sarah Palin arrived on the scene, complete with NO education, despite having attended and having failed to graduate from ANY of the five institutions she attended, US politics was simply a source of hilarity.

However, as that uneducated, uninformed, floaty-god-thingie-believing nutbag is now trying to become president ....

Palin, who is the first to say how dangerous fundamentalists are - by which she means brown people who are Muslim - said the other night that US laws should be based on the bible, as per the desires of the founding fathers.

WHAT???? Is she incapable of reading or is she actively and consciously revising history in hopes of garnering the support of the spelling-and-logic impaired Teabagging idiots that are the modern incarnation of the separate southern states?

Here's the article.

PALIN WANTS BIBLE AS BASIS FOR US LAW
Newswire Services
May 08, 2010
An Atheist public policy groups today sharply criticized remarks by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who appeared on the Bill O'Reilly Factor Thursday night and called for U.S. law to be based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Palin, who was the Republican candidate for Vice President in 2008, is reportedly considering a run for the White House in 2012 or beyond.

During her interview, Palin gushed: "I think we should keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant," adding, "They´re quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments."

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists said that Palin's remarks displayed a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the evolution of law and American history. "If we didn't know better, we might conclude that Sarah Palin's 'education' was somehow carried out in Texas using textbooks that the Texas Board of Education is now trying to fabricate."

"Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are not based on the Bible; and the Founders, some of whom were religious, nevertheless advocated separation between government and religion. In fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote in an official letter as President of the need for a 'wall of separation' between church and state. Jefferson also wrote explicitly about the falsehood that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments."

Buckner noted that key documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible or to a particular religious view. As he said, "The Constitution, our basic charter, is historically noteworthy because, for the first time in human history a significant governing charter was issued that did not invoke any deities or supernatural authority at all. It is declared in the name of 'We the people,' not in the name of Jesus or Allah or Buddha. Ms. Palin, the United States has never been a theocracy--and now would be a terrible time to change that."

Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists, said that Palin's poorly-informed comments were a signal that her future campaigns "may end up playing the 'religion card' in order to win votes."

"Palin and her allies on the religious right will continue to capitalize on wedge-issues like the role of religion in American society, even if means grievously distorting our nation's history," said Silverman."

If you are a voting citizen in the USA, you MUST - and it is your civic, ethical and moral duty - contest this woman and you MUST also challenge her - and the teabaggers - conscious and planned destruction of your constitution.

Do NOT wait. Write letters, scream, yell, talk to your neighbours and teach your kids to read so they will not join the ranks of the stupid-by-choice.

The Pope is at the centre of the Catholic Sex Scandal. Which Pope???

2010-03-18T18:04:00.002-06:00

It seems that child abuse flies under the radar in the church - any church - but this one particularly. I suspect (with utterly no evidence to support the suspicion) that if there is no penetration, the catholic church does not consider sex to be sex: therefore, molesting little boys and girls doesn't count....

This is supported, however, by what I know to be the practice of 'chaste' sex among pre-married or unmarried catholic couples. Everything but penetration goes....

I'm willing to wager there is all manner of means by which these deprived and depraved priests mitigate in their minds what they're doing and the damage done to these little ones.

Sex is sex is sex; however one engages, which parts one puts into action, if the genitals are involved, it's sex, call it what you will.

Where it comes to children, however, it is sexual assault, sexual abuse and rape.

The Catholic church has, for centuries, found any loophole it can where it comes to sex and that's what makes the whole thing so stinky. One can no more tell a human body to cease breathing than one can order the human body to ignore other necessary functions.

Gloria Steinham still thinks women are too stupid to figure out how to prevent pregnacy...

2010-03-18T12:43:00.002-06:00

Lack of reproductive freedom my backside.

Gloria Steinem still thinks that a woman's ability to kill her unborn child and women's right to be irresponsible prior to sex by not accessing birth control/prevention means women don't have equality.

Bullshit.

In the US and Canada, women have unlimited access to legal, free information and FREE conception prevention via the Internet, the local family planning, their doctors, etc. etc., yet in these two countries, women are still becoming pregnant when they say they don't want.

Two issues here: if women say its their body and their right to control it, then why are they NOT acting on those rights and controlling their bodies PRIOR to becoming pregnant with children they say they don't want?

NOT acting is not being in control. Failure to take advantage of the EXTENSIVE pre-conception options available in this country and in the US is irresponsible and flies in the face of control. A woman in control only in rare occasions becomes pregnant when she doesn't desire it.

Secondly, Ms Steinem and others like her never touch on the issue of median age of those who choose abortions, nor do they talk at all about the age of those who are having their second and third and in some cases fourth abortion. It is idiocy to say these women are in control of anything.

Finally, there is a demographic that chooses to abort because doing otherwise would expose an extramarital affair. I make no comment here on the morality of extramarital sex; however, for those who choose it and for those for whom that choice results in conception, they too cannot be confused as people who are in control.

The high numbers of abortions in this country and the US must logically show that women are decidedly not taking control of their bodies but resorting to an act that is incredibly hard on the female body and terminal for the being that body contains.

And for those who say 'it isn't a baby,' or 'it isn't human,' those arguments are ridiculous. Humans cannot conceive anything other than human and yes, tiny as that being is, it is a human child with the same start in life as the body carrying it. Changing the labels or covering one's eyes to reality doesn't change the fact of the 'operation.

It is irresponsible for those who say they support women's equality and rights to continue diminishing women to the status of irresponsible children, when all of - more than - the necessary tools for fully in-control behaviour are readily available.

Women cannot expect equality when they refuse to take a credible stance on this issue.

How dumb/lazy does one have to be?

2010-03-05T12:40:00.004-07:00

Ok, seriously. How hard is it to make guacamole?

Answer? Unless you're dead (and even that might not be enough), it's dead (ahahah) easy.

I just read that a woman is suing Kraft Foods over their guacamole because she said it didn't taste 'avocadoey' enough. No surprise either: Kraft's guacamole only contains 2% avocados.

And by the way, if you think food labels tell the truth, you'd be surprised...

"Guac" is insanely easy to make.

Three large, ripe avocados
1 large, ripe tomato
1 ripe jalapeño pepper
1 -2 cloves of garlic (optional but delicious)
1 lime
salt and pepper
pinch of sugar.

Cut the avocados in half and extract the nuts; score the 'meat' by running a knife through it lengthwise and crossways (don't cut through the skin). By doing this, when you scoop the meat out, it will already be cut into small chunks.
With a soup spoon (those are the big spoons in your set, for those who don't know the names) scoop the meat out of each scored section.

SAVE one nut***

Wash the tomato and the jalapeño (with soap please; you don't know where the hands that touched it before yours have been or what they've been up to... yuck).

Cut both into small chunks. Most of the seeds will come out; save them and, if it's warm enough outside, chuck them into the garden. They will grow!

NOTE: unless you like REALLY hot guacamole, don't put the jalapeño seeds into the mix. Also, DON'T touch your eye, nose or mouth after touching that jalapeño. If you do, you'll know why I said don't.

Put all the chopped stuff into a bowl big enough that you can mash the contents without spillage.

Cut the lime in half and take out any seeds you can get at: squeeze the lime juice over the avocado/tomato (and then pick out any other seeds that fall out of the lime)

Add 1/2 tsp salt, some pepper and a pinch or two of sugar. The salt and sugar keep the avocado from going brown, as does the lime.

With a fork, mash everything together. Guacamole can be chunky or smooth, so do whatever you like.

If you're going to store this for a while, put the saved nut in the centre of the mixture and then tightly cover the bowl with either a lid or plastic wrap. The nut also retards browning.

If, however, you're not superhumanly full of willpower and you're going to get into this immediately, serve on toast, rice cakes, tortillas or pita. Guacamole is also delicious on hamburgers and with omelettes and eggs.

Now. After tasting the home-made kind, why on EARTH would you buy guacamole? C'mon....

My daughter speculates that the above-mentioned law suit may have been, in part, designed to expose a large 'food' manufacturer for what exactly is in that 'food.'

Despite what every fast-food/convenience-food ad would like you to believe, you really can make it yourself - for less money, with fewer chemicals and far less risk of ingesting a ton of "What's in that stuff?"

Next up? Pre-cooked, frozen potatoes ....

Sometimes I wonder....

2010-02-25T11:02:00.009-07:00

.... what it would have been like to be one of those kids whose parents doted on them. That kind of parent that was at every event and kissed knees better and who said "I love you," and meant it: the kind of parent who enjoys being around their children just 'cause: the kind who isn't in competition with their child and who doesn't take every thought their child has as somehow about them - against them....

I don't know Joannie Rochette. I'd never heard of her before her mom passed away the day before Joannie was to compete at the Olympics. All I know about her really is that her mom was at every performance and practice for Joannie's entire life. I can't imagine.

No, I can imagine what that would be like. The death of that person, a complete stranger to me, tears at me because I can imagine - that's all I can do: imagine - because I know what it is like to have the complete opposite: a mother who treats their child as an annoyance and a liability: a mother who wears her resentment as an impenetrable cloak: a mother who looks for ways and means to trip up their child; a father who is incapable of bending or straying off a rigid path.

I know a father who, despite wanting to love his child, was so rule-bound that small transgressions took precedence over love; doing the right thing (his right thing) was the paramount pursuit; a father who would ignore a child's small hurts because to do otherwise would make his child weak and dependent: a father who didn't know the immense power of a simple hug and a kiss on the cheek to heal that skinned knee: a father who was mostly gone by the time I was five.

Not having that sure thing -the solid foundation and absolute immovability of my parents' love - is what makes me weak and distrustful and scared all the time, even at my age: nearly half a century.

And it is the not having but seeing it all around me that reinforces the endless loneliness: the endless being on the outside all the time.

My father is dead; my mother died - the person she might have been - when she was two....

I can say nothing further to my father because he can no longer hear me. It is far worse with my mother. She is here still but defends herself from thinking or feeling or hearing by talking all the time, endlessly, about herself. Despite that she is there, that I can touch her and yes, I can scream in her face, she cannot hear me, she does not see me and she has never known or wanted to know me.

I cannot rise because I cannot find the ground to rise above. There has never been solid ground. And so I float.

For my own children, however, there is ground: absolutely solid, immovable ground. I will kiss them better no matter how small their hurt; I will encourage them, no matter how much their philosophies differ from mine; I will be proud of them, whatever they accomplish; I will tell them I love them - a million million; I will believe in them and be fascinated by them; and I will adore them simply because they are: and by this, I will care for that other child, who suffers still.

Thanks to TShane.com for the beautiful photo.

How to Kill a Tiger

2010-02-20T09:16:00.003-07:00

It is DISGUSTING how the very people who brought this young man to all this fame - those who coached him and nurtured him and encouraged the high level of competitiveness required for him to achieve what he has - have abandoned him now. None among them is willing to admit, "I too."

How many of them have similar skeletons in their own closets? How many of them were with Tiger on his escapades? How many helped procure? Do people REALLY think Tiger's caddy is a eunuch? His trainers are eunuchs? Other high-profile golfers are eunuchs? Seriously??? Do people really really believe that there isn't any other pro who's done exactly the same?

Tiger is a man. He is human. He has been made a commodity by his trainers and his fans; by the media that relies on him to bring them eyes and ears; by the golf courses that rely on his celebrity for their marketing campaigns and yes, even by his parents, who fostered his rise to fame and greatness. Yet, when he does the most human of all things, the entourage that has gained so much on Tiger's back runs and hides.

Anyone who thinks Tiger is unique in the world of sports is deluded and ridiculous. There are HUNDREDS of men at all levels of sport - and music and enterprise - who do exactly as Tiger has done but who haven't been caught or whose behaviour has been ignored - or encouraged if you're Gene Simmons or Steven Tyler or Wilf Chamberlain.

Frankly, if Tiger had been free to speak - and he most assuredly was NOT free; he was coached in this event, as he is in all others - he could - and should - have pointed fingers towards all those around him who are complicit and who are equally 'guilty' and who are, in their little minds, heaving a sigh of relief that they have escaped scrutiny themselves.

It is an incomprehensible quality of humans that we build up these people and adore them only until the point they reflect our own fallibilities. The second we see ourselves reflected, we're after them like packs of starving wolves.

The wolves howling at Tiger now are those who are desperate for the spotlight to fall as far from them as possible because, up until the 'accident,' every one of those wolves was jealous as hell.

Tiger hasn't failed in any way. He is exactly what he was trained and made to be. A highly successful, handsome, wealthy professional golfer. He is still all of those things. Except for the part where YOU, Joe Public, with all your own skeletons, have sacrificed him.

Makes me sick.

Update on the dishwasher thing...

2010-02-11T10:38:00.003-07:00

Yesterday someone from Cannabis Culture Magazine posted a link to a British game show that was parodying the US prison system. They were attempting to make a joke of it - and it is a joke - but the reality is so brutal that, although one might laugh, it is the choked laughter reserved for the truly disturbing subjects.

Apart from all the commentary I could launch into about the state of US prisons and WHY they are structured that way, I make note of the percentage of appliances produced by inmates: 36% of all appliances are manufactured by inmates... in a country where it is illegal to import anything that is produced by those incarcerated....

As this relates to me, I'm curious to know whether my non-working, noisy (when it is working) mostly plastic appliance (the poorly-named 'dishwasher') was manufactured.

If anyone reading this knows how to find out if appliances were produced inside our out, please pop me a comment.

If mine was manufactured in a prison, I can somewhat forgive its poor construction: I'd be unmotivated too... what are they going to do? Fire the guys?

If, however, it was produced in a factory that people choose to work in and are paid for that choice, then there's no excuse for production of crap.

Oh, and Mr. Harper - yah, you! The dictator who is currently masquerading as the Canadian PM... what for is Canada accepting the garbage that passes for consumer products from the states? Hm? Is it penance for shipping our poisonous asbestos off to India?

Just a warning...

2010-02-06T08:56:00.006-07:00

When we renovated our kitchen, we bought one of our new appliances from Trail Appliances in Calgary. We have a really crappy Amana furnace that has caused us all sorts of problems for over 20 years but the Trail salesman, Jason, assured us their new generation of appliances was much better and that we'd have no problems with our tall-tub Amana dishwasher....

What a scream! The dishwasher ceased washing dishes within four months. The design is such that the filter, which is meant to filter out small food particles, becomes completely blocked due to its very fine (plastic) screen and a grinder that doesn't grind finely enough for the intended filtering action to happen.

We went to Trail - went, as in went down there - asked to speak to the salesman, who passed us off to two other people (managers, he called them) who never crossed the floor to speak to us but who stood around on their phones for over an hour until we became disgusted and left.

Since then, I have fixed my own dishwasher several times but the filter now needs replacing. However, that problem is overshadowed by the fact that the door mechanism, which is where the electrical connection that allows the dishwasher to start is located, is completely broken.

Yet again, I headed to our local parts supplier for a replacement part, which I got after a three-week wait, only to discover the housing into which that part fits is also broken. The problem? Fittings that should be made of metal are plastic - fittings that are subject to pressure every time the dishwasher's door is opened.

Today, I received a link to my friend's great blog... about Trail appliances and his over $600 of spoiled food in his new fridge, purchased from Trail, which refused to help him....

So, be advised that you're totally on your own if they buy anything from Trail. They'll sell you the moon, but they will NOT help you in any way if that moon goes wrong. They do NOT honour their warranties in any useful way - they'll send you off to the product manufacturer rather than helping you - and they will literally pretend you are not there if you go in to the showroom, although someone will try to sell you something.

Scare them off by telling them you're there for a replacement. Believe me, they will scatter, warn off all other salespeople and leave you hanging for as long as it takes for you to become disgusted and leave. THAT is their customer 'service' policy. You'll get better service from a seller on www.Kijiji.com or www.craigslist.com

Caveat Emptor; buyer beware.
www.trailappliances.com AVOID.

Try Coast Wholesale instead.

Oh and buy European products instead. I'm all over the Buy American policies of the US, given that the stuff produced there is CRAP and should never, ever cross a border.

American-made appliances are representative of the poor construction and decay that characterises US society: looks ok on the outside but absolutely full of crap that will not last.

This is what I've been up to for the last 10 days...

2010-01-26T16:59:00.015-07:00

Yeah. here's what we did:
CLICK

On January 12th, Haiti was struck by a huge and devastating earthquake. In another, wealthier country, such a quake would be equally terrible, but there would be the offsetting hope for quick rebuilding.

In Haiti, this will not be the case. Thanks to a devastatingly poor and under-educated population, a dictatorship that has been the puppet of many meddling US administrations, a general lack of technology and access to news and a population that is characterized by illiteracy, Haiti does not have the same hope.

A couple days following the quake, three of my Twitter buddies, Angela MacIsaac, Camilla di Giuseppe and Alex Ruiz, all seasoned media gals, dropped a few tweets about doing 'something.' Five hours later, that something had begun to look like something huge.

Within days, Calgary's Flames Central was on board with a venue; The Calgary Flames, The Calgary Stampeders, The Calgary Hitmen and the Calgary Roughnecks had all stepped up with offers of help, merchandise and donations. A day later the donations started to roll in - at a rate of about 60 emails a day - filling my inbox to the brim.

10 days later, my guest bedroom is packed with donations of all types: art, photos, team jerseys, gift certificates that range in value from $1000 to $4000 (that, thanks to WestJet, Canada's favourite airline). Oh, and yeah, that other one: a $15,000 travel package with return flights... yeah.

If you're in Calgary, Thursday night is your night to get on board, support this event and help the people of Haiti.

We can't fix what happened in that country but we CAN make a dent in it.

YYC4Haiti. Be there.

I Discovered a New Man Whilst Laying in Bed Last Night

2010-01-17T07:59:00.009-07:00

Last night, whilst reading a lovely, metallic-sheathed copy of Wired UK, thoughtfully given to me by my man, who loves to indulge my very fleshy inner geek, I came across an article with a deck that caused my eyes to pop wide open.

"Will it one day be erroneous to view Al Gore as a saint," which was followed by, "Does history tell the truth?"

Did I just read that in PRINT? Glory BE!

This headline instantly convinced me its writer was not only brilliant but obviously supernaturally influential for having got such a deck - a subheadline - into a major publication.

Said writer is Matt Ridley, possessor of a PhD in Zoology from Oxford University and journalist since 1983.

The Ridley's piece in Wired.Uk is a bare page long, yet lays open a cavern of questions that sent me rocketing to my google search engine. In particular, Ridley's use of a gentle 'What if?' format lays open the criminal misrepresentation of the currently 'hot' climate debate as if it were a two week old cadaver subject to a giant slicing blade....

To quote, "The more I read, the more I find history full of fables."

More to the point - and this is the place where I went madly off to my search engine - was this part of the article:

"Item: As a good, green-reared conservationist, I thought acid rain killed forests in the 80s - until I read Gregg Easterbrook's account, A Moment on the Earth, of how the biomass of European forests actually increased during the 80s and 90s, while in the US, the official, ten-year, $500,000, 700-scientist, government-sponsored study did a great rash of experiments and found 'there is no evidence of a general or unusual decline of forests in the US or Canada due to acid rain.'

Ridley goes on to write, 'When asked if he had been pressured to be optimistic, one of the authors said the reverse was true;'" (I'm paraphrasing now) the Environmental Protection Agency worked to keep the researchers from providing Congress with their findings. Hm...

Sound familiar? Not six weeks ago, a massive raft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, was exposed to the public, all damning. These emails make it clear the CRU suppressed (at best), manipulated and flat out created information to support the ridiculous theory (as they state it) that humans are killing the planet via CO2....

And, to make matters critically more interesting in terms of information manipulation, CO2 - the gasses you and I and the entire rainforest and cows and your house-cat breath out - has been declared POISON. Yup. Poison. More on Human Events, HERE.

Weird, because I believe the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest was HUGE news not 10 years ago.... So, given that CO2 is now poison, will that pave the way for its destruction finally? I smell CORPORATE INTEREST and PROFIT....

Here's my theory, based on nothing other than a gut feeling: certain environmental 'catastrophes' have been floated (as false flag events) to see if any could stick. Acid Rain; El Nino/La Nina; the ozone layer: none of those could stick because none of those had aspects that could be easily controlled/manipulated. CO2? Yeah, that can easily be manipulated and made as the foundation to foster fear. The fact that CO2 has now been declared a poison should give us some clue as to how far this insanity might go. Will it become a terrorist act to breathe?

I'll continue this shortly. I've just Twittered Matt Ridley to get his permission to quote him, link him and repost the Wired.UK article. in the meantime, I encourage you to search and read anything you can find from this writer.

Oh, and as an added bonus, Mr. Ridley is an evolutionist, which I know is a very dirty word if you're some people, so I'm even happier to include him in my list of people to read. Here's a bio via Reason Magazine.

Off topic, but related to Mr. Ridley:
To a (I hope) reader, LMA: this guy should be on the TOP of your reading list, particularly for his book, The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (1997), in which Ridley showed how natural selection led to human morality. Not a SKIFF of religion in that mix. A point: perfectionism is equal to control (and indicates a terror of being out of control), not diligence; those two concepts cannot be confused and are mutually exclusive.

Back soon. Off to stir the shite a bit.

Things that are tooooo stupid to hate...

2010-01-14T19:55:00.001-07:00

Disgusted

2010-01-14T12:43:00.003-07:00

I just want to note my disgust with those who claim to religion but will not speak out, LOUDLY, in an international forum, against a radical in their own ranks.

Particularly in the US but also in this country, there are endless calls from so-called Christians that Muslim people and leaders to speak against the radical acts of their 'faithful.'

But when one of their own, in this case, the disgusting mouthpiece, the so-called "Dr." Pat Robertson, blames the people of the most disenfranchised country in the west of being the authors of their own devastation, not a word is spoken.

Pat Robertson, for millions,is their head - a significant 'leader' in their cult. Yet, when this excuse for a human again (because he did the same for those devastated and forced to live for weeks like animals in New Orleans) chastises devastated humans for somehow manipulating nature, there's not a Christian voice to be heard.

Pat Robertson and his ilk - the Ted Haggarts, Jerry Falwells, Peter Popoffs, the desperate, faithless attention seekers they ALL are - are nothing short of nuclear bombs where it comes to religion. The fact that the Christian faith is a patchwork of so much garbage, lies, fabrications, mythology, contradictions and frank lacks in any concrete proof of its own events, let alone its central players, pales in comparison to the undo-able damage these angry, oft-closeted, faithless and inhuman men - because they're always men - MUST be spoken against and their dreadful ideas must be put down.

Today, Pat Robertson shares the shit-covered stage with 'Pastor' Fred Phelps of www.godhatescanda.com ... or www.godhatesfags.com .... or www.godhatesladygaga.com....

Same shit, different filthy mouth.

IF you are one of the s0-called 'faithful' and you do not speak out against this excuse for a man, you are complicit.

If you DO wish to join the ranks of humans, go to This LINK and phone, write, email, scream, bitch and make a HUGE, HUMAN issue of this guy and his mouth.

We cannot, in a modern world, rely on this man's self-serving interpretation of misinterpreted, misunderstood, mis-translated, bronze-age tribalism.

Thanks to Marion Gordon at www.freakingnews.com for her excellent PhotoShop graphic.

Also thanks to writer, Ray Garton, for his blunt but thoughtful and pointed comments regarding Robertson's incomprehensible outburst last week. Mr. Garton has generously agreed to my republishing these:

“Robertson is an amoral douche bag, but until the Christians stand up and say otherwise, I see no reason not view him as one of their biggest representatives and spokesmen. If they don't like being thought of as hateful, ignorant, racist assholes, they should speak up and SAY Robertson and his ilk are not representative.

“Until they do, then as far as I'm concerned, he's their man and they've got absolutely no excuse to bitch and whine about being criticized, vilified and dismissed. People dismiss him and call him an idiot, but the truth is, he speaks for a frighteningly large segment of this country's population.

I listened to talk radio today & they were calling in by the droves to support and agree with that fuckwit. And yet they simply cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with them. Ugh. Sorry. Pet peeve of mine, and I tend to rant and yammer.”

Ray also generously added (and I am not adverse to a shameless plug from someone who is a more-than-legitimate writer): “I hadn't read your blog before. I LOVE YOU! I've been saying Al Gore is a fraud for years & most people are appalled. Nice to know that someone who's intelligent and outspoken agrees.”

Ray Garton: Bio

Ray Garton is the author of 60 books and dozens of short stories. His 1987 novel Live Girls was nominated for the Bram Stoker Award for Best Novel of the Year. In 2006, he was presented with the Grand Master of Horror Award by the World Horror Society, putting him in the company of fellow recipients Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Peter Straub, Anne Rice, Clive Barker, Ray Bradbury and others. His work has been called "artful" by the New York Times and Fangoria magazine says, "Razor-sharp and gut-punch brutal, Garton will scare you." Three of his works -- the novels Live Girls and Lot Lizards and his story "Graven Image" -- are in the works as movies. He lives in northern California with his wife Dawn and their many cats, and is currently at work on his next novel.

Here's a synopsis of Scissors, Garton’s latest book, just arrived in bookstores:

Stuart will never forget the horrible thing Dr. Ferguson did to him when he was a boy. The pain, the blood and the snip-snip of those glinting scissors will live in his nightmares for the rest of his life. But now Dr. Ferguson is back and not just in Stuart’s dreams. He’s very real. He’s determined to perform that same horrible procedure on Stuart’s young son. And his scissors are nice and sharp.

A list of Garton’s most recent novels from Leisure Books can be found HERE

Read Ray’s Blog HERE

Remember War of the Worlds? Yeah, so, About Al Gore...

2010-01-09T09:31:00.004-07:00

Unless this is your first time here - and if it is, welcome, - you will know that I believe, with much evidence in support, that Al Gore and machine is a huge, huge fraud.

The global 'warming' industry is just that, an industry, upon which he and many others are making a killing - and I mean killing, because people who live in failed democracies and failed countries, are suffering beyond with we in the 'developed' world can imagine, even if we have wildly good imaginations.

Canadian journalist, commentator and TV personality, Andrew Coyne's article (linked above) appeared on line and in MacLean's Magazine this week. PLEASE click the link and have a read.

The comment board following the article is huge, and rightfully so. It seems that, apart from dewy-eyed environmentalists, who too often, despite having their hearts in the right place, don't know shite about their subject, many people are questioning global warming -the Gore version.

You may have noticed that the term has morphed into 'global climate change.' This is an important change in that, when Gore's production is exposed - or more exposed than it is now - for the utter, falsified garbage it is, the players in the drama can say, "We said climate CHANGE," thus saving their dirty, lying faces. Such is revisionism.

A comment that came through my email today really caught my eye. The writer has a background in climate science - Mr. Gore has no such thing unless you consider high school science to be an appropriate background - and points out a couple glaring problems with Gore's ridiculous theory.

Here's the comment:

"I did extensive reading in world history before 1960, and I recall the Viking settlements in Greenland and the evidence of Viking settlements in North America. It was a given that the climate was warmer at that time (now known as the Medieval Warm Period, MWP) to support crops and herds in these northern climes. Then the Vikings deserted Greenland when it become colder.

So, when the hockey stick was published and the MWP was nowhere to be seen, I had a surprised reaction, “How could that be?” It was soon obvious that there was a scam in progress, and it was steadily revealed that the scam was political and economic. This is a trillion dollar fraud, and Al Gore and accomplices have somehow subverted a large number of scientists and the UN to pull off the fraud.

Still, it was no big deal to enlist the UN in the fraud. It was only seven years ago that the UN was central to the Oil-for-Food fraud, with payoffs in the billions of dollars while the Iraqi people, the supposed benefciaries of the Oil-for-Food program, were shortchanged in food, medical supplies, and health care. Many of the same players were principals in both frauds.

When someone is obviously lying, it does not require a whole lot of analysis to verify and correct the fraud."

Anyway, the bottom line is one MUST consider the players in this drama, who stands to gain and by how much before one goes madly off exchanging carbon credits (into Gore's pocket, no less, as he owns a major label in that industry.

If you really want to do something concrete for the environment, watch what you consume - and how what you purchase is packaged; plastic is costly and dirty to produce: drive one day less a week; eat meat one day less a week. That's it, that's all. It is really that easy.

On another note, about the US and it's definition of 'security' and how the current President, who looks more and more like a really handsome, well-spoken straw man - said in his INTERNATIONAL address the other day, that these new security measures are to make AMERICANS more safe....

Excuse me, mate, but if you're gonna naked scan my middle aged ass, you better be including me in that security. But then I don't think there is a terrorist under every seat.... I notice this week there are more and more people protesting the new measures as highly invasive and useless.

Click here for a whole 'nother rant,, The Idiot Empire, by Rabble.com writer, Murray Dobbin.

This is the UK, covered with Global Warming...(otherwise known as 10 inches of SNOW)

2010-01-07T15:05:00.003-07:00

.... or Global Climate Change, which is the new name designed to protect the very guilty parties from losing face, when the whole thing is revealed as a massive, greedy, corporate moneygrubber's sham.

No, I am not cynical....