Sunday, December 30, 2007

Osama Bin Ladin is Dead: confirmed in a November 2007 interview with Benazir Bhutto

According to the late Benazir Bhutto, Osama Bin Ladin is dead by murder/assassination.

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOT COVERING THIS??

The probability that the US government is somehow involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto cannot be overlooked.

Here is a page of links to the interview itself.

WHAT is going on???

Click here for more

Is THIS why Benazir was assassinated??

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

The Saddest Thing is...

...when a person (a parent in this case) uses religion as a shield against having relationships (in this case, with a child).

Two important details for context:
Religion is an interesting concept BUT no logical, thinking person should put stock, beyond interest, in any philosophy that is so fundamentally flawed and provably amalgamated from so many other, MUCH older philosophies.

As a sub detail specific to christianity, one cannot have any kind of "personal" relationship with a dead person. In the christian tradition, when people die, they go to 'heaven' and have no further contact with living humans. To say otherwise is to dabble in the occult and that freaks the christians out totally. Don't think so? Refer to any number of religious fanatics trying to ban the Harry Potter series because of it's so-called occult overtones.

Additionally, the probability that the person with whom christians are having the 'personal' relationship ever existed is questionable AT BEST! To believe otherwise is to simply be deluded in order to be part of a larger group of delusionals. Other than the christian bible, which is a strung-together collection of bad poetry, social control and politicial PR, there is no other historical, archival or archaeological evidence that the person in question ever existed. NONE. One cannot attempt to prove the truth of any philosophy by using the philosophy as the research document. That's called circular reasoning.

In the christian religion, the main character is certainly made up, as nearly identical characters appear in any number of other philosophies, many predating christianity by thousands of years. Same goes for Islam, which has as a central character, a person who may or may not have existed but who, if he did, was certainly afflicted with some disease, likely epilepsy.

In the case of 'virgin' birth, this is, first of all, a biological impossibility. Secondly, and this is where christians try to have it both ways, if one's 'father' is 'god', then one cannot have human ancestors on their male line. Therefore, "descended of the House of David," indicates that either this is a made up story (probably) or that 'virgin' in this case refers to 'first.' If Mary and Joseph trucked off to Bethlehem to pay taxes in the city of their ancestors (his ancestors, actually) then who's the ancestor? Pretty much sure 'god' isn't on the hook for taxes....

Second important point for context: as much as religion is mass idiocy and voluntary delusion, I defend absolutely the rights of people to have, or to have not, said delusion . You are welcome to your beliefs, views, philosophies, as am I to mine. I am not interested in bringing you over to my views and am staunchly opposed to anyone attempting to force their philosophy on me.

To the point of this post, entering into conditional relationships - unless I believe what you believe, we cannot be friends - proves two things:
  • the 'believer' is essentially insecure about their beliefs;
  • the 'believer' disrespects totally the rights of others.
In our case, a family member has come up against an immense, seemingly impassable wall of religion that is firmly between them and their parent. Despite almost two years of conversation between the two, the parent consciously refuses to countenance the damage being done to the relationship, nor do they allow themselves to see the ever-widening chasm into which the relationship presently teeters . This parent's "personal relationship" with a certainly dead and probably non-existent character is firmly and solidly in the way of a REAL personal relationship with a child.

To make matters worse, there is also a new spouse in the picture. Said spouse is also fanatically tied to a religion in addition to being, from all accounts, insecure and untrusting in the relationship. All this makes for a soon-to-explode keg of super volatile dependence on made up crap and fabricated 'togetherness' and 'sharing' in place of real, intimate and connected relationships.

The key element here - that somehow religion is supposed to make life nice and lovely - turns out to be far from the case; why are religious people still struggling, sad, 'sinning' (whatever that means) and incapable of acknowledging their pasts, let alone dealing with those pasts in a healthy and permanent way if religion is not their cure-all?

Seriously folks, if your deity is such a great and powerful 'guy,' what the heck is he/she/waiting for? Hmmm? It strikes me as really masochistic that this 'deity' needs such constant, world-wide adulation and that the penalty for failing (and the rules about what makes for failure being so unclear) is an eternity burning in some pit? That's just weird.

Religion was a great form of social control that worked really well way back in the day when science was in its infancy and almost nobody was able to read and when the 'religiopoliticals' were developing ways of controlling populations - necessary for economic development and profit - and we're back to the religiopoliticals and their gold-lined pockets. Modern equivalent is the modern 'church.'

In our time, however, belief in such fantasies is anachronistic.

On the micro level specific to this post, I truly cannot fathom how a parent's faith in falsehoods can so overwhelmingly blind them to reality that their flesh and blood relationships are in danger of ending.

The bottom line is this: a person has a right to believe whatever they wish; but with that right comes the responsibility to respect other's rights to believe or not; and the responsibility to UNCONDITIONALLY CHERISH real, flesh and blood human relationships above all else.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

In Honour of the Writers Strike

In honour of the ongoing writers strike and in respect of reruns, I'm posting links to my favourite blogs - mine; those I wrote - from recently and from ages ago.
Oldest to newest

What's Up With Women and Shopping
? Hang that up!

Untruths in Fundraising: a note about this; about 6 weeks ago, MacLean's Magazine ran a great article about breast cancer and where it is most prevalent in the world. No surprise, but in the 'civilised world' (read: Canada, US (ok, I'm including them out of pity), UK and Europe), the rates of breast cancer are astoundingly high when compared to disadvantaged countries. Interestingly, people in those 'disadvantaged' countries have limited access to processed foods and are not subject to Big Pharma, which medicalises anything that might for one second ail a person. It isn't difficult to see the link between processed everything and high rates of cancer. But hey, let's fundraise. At least we'll feel less guilty....

Bike Paths: NOT for dogs...

A Short, True Story: Ok. This story is true, but it isn't short. It's never ending I hope. It's here for Maria, who is dying for me to tell her what happened next....

Why Don't People Read: why exactly are people bothered by who sleeps with whom. And why exactly are you so bloody interested in what other people are doing in their own bedrooms? Shouldn't you be busy in your own???

Why Women's Libidos Decrease: well, they don't. But if your partner is a man who is a crappy lover and doesn't care to do anything about that, or if your partner uses your head as a means to stabilise his thrusting, then yeah, it'll reduce your y'know, involvement. Replace said idiot with a gorgeous, sexual, loves-it-all hunk? yeah. No problems. Screw Big Parma. Get a cabana boy.

Things One Remembers Whilst Brushing Teeth: 'kay, well this one's a downer but I needed to get it off my chest when I wrote it. If ever I were to meet up with this person again, I'm sure she'd do the same thing and I'm sure I'd still keep my mouth shut - but for different reasons now: she wouldn't be worth my bother. I can't fix her past.

The Falacy of Race: Just read it.

Damned Christmas Holidays

What's the New Pope Up To? I love it when an institution that pretty much makes things up and hates everyone ends up with one of its most hated at its helm. Pretty funny. Come out, come out, wherever you are.....

Fatties and How They Get That Way: Yes, I have a bias, but I think I might be on to something here....

Lies, Video Tape and Yes, Sex

Flying: Oh man, if I had the opportunity to educate the flying public.... Oh wait! This is it! Pass this on to anyone you know who flies or thinks about flying, especially if there's any possibility they're going to be on MY flight.... better they hear it from you than me. I'm sure you'll be much nicer about it.

AuntiAuntie: Yeah, and there's also a HUGE difference between a contract and a commitment. Some people get both, but usually, it's one or the other. Frankly, I can't imagine why people - women in particular - still take part in a ceremony that effectively transferred a chattle from one owner to another. Yes, that's right; until the early part of the 20th century, a woman was, by law, a chattle of her father until the marriage contract was signed, whence she became the chattle of her spouse. Go for commitment. Forget about the contract.

Sins and Sinning: Yah, this is for anyone who actually believes they know what perfection is....

Things That Get Top Billing as Stupid: Someone made a really great point the other day about the subject of this blog - hijab and adults imposing their stupid religion on kids. Muslim girls - but also girls affiliated with other religions where the women are required to follow a very distinct dress style, are being used as the poster girls for such religions. The reasons this pisses me off are myriad, but here's one of them: this week, a dad strangled his 16 year old daughter because she would not adhere to the dress trappings of HIS religion. This type of crap happens all the time - and before anyone says "Oh those Muslims," just don't: all religions have instances - many instances - of men presuming on women. Religion is a scourge. Especially for women, who are, at best, cast as dirty, shameful, manipulative and responsible for leading men astray.

The day religion recognises women as the goddesses they are and the day that religion tells men that they are fully and solely responsible for their thoughts and actions, I might consider returning. Probably not though. There's that suspension of reality thing that's tough to swallow.

Can You Become Ex-Gay? In a word, no. Read on.

Ok. That's enough self adulation for now. More in the archives.

Friday, November 30, 2007

The Pope Says (completely simplifying reality for the consumption of the sheep-like masses)

The pope says that atheism has caused the worst atrocities and crises in history... Yeah....

I remember all those history lessons we had in school on the great atheist wars....um, yeah... NOT.

Specifically, what wars, conflicts or upheaval have atheists been responsible for, assuming one is logical enough not to confuse atheism with political regimes like communism and does not confuse healthy leaders with psychopathic megalomaniacs.....

Every war happening NOW is due to people fighting over interpretations of religion - especially when religion is allowed to mix with politics - and every war ever fought has a religious base in some sense. See G. W. Bush for current reference.

As a modern society, we MUST stop believing in, running our lives through, and basing our politics on fantasy. There is no old white guy running the planet from a seat on a cloud somewhere in the sky. Such beliefs are demonstrably ridiculous and are little different in substance from belief in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny - except we usually divest our children of those beliefs before the children are scarred for life.

Healthy, logical, intelligent people spend their time learning. They do not rely on old fashioned writings done by people who had little practical understanding of the physical world and specific political agendas to attend to. Nor do they bow down to anyone, regardless of title, without a thorough prior examination of said person's credentials. The pope is case in point. Check this out by the way... if you're concered about hypocracy, you might be interested in the possible back story here....

Now. A great post from ABC New Forums. Many people are commenting today on the pope's 'insights.' The following was contributed by Louis R. Phx and includes a couple of excellent quotes from Robert Heinlein, a popular and controversial author of 'hard' science fiction.

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. "

"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain - then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so...".


"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives."

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. "

Robert Heinlein

In my opinion, the Pope has become quite full of himself. A claim to be able to speak for any deity, automatically puts [his] words under suspicion.... How exactly is he different from the Mullahs that say, 'if you are not with us you are against us'? How long before this Pope begins to preach, 'join us or be destroyed'?
Louis R. Phx

For the record, the pope is on record with such comments, which he made not three months ago.
Put "'No Salvation' Outside Catholic 'Church" into a Google search and man, will you get a does of how self-serving and egotistical the Catholic church is. Astounding!

Anyway, the pope said (and I paraphrase a lot), that anyone/any church that is outside the Roman Catholic fold does not belong to 'true Christianity.' Catholic organisations are expert ot reinterpreting those old scrambled-together writings that constitute the 'word of god' to support their postulation that they're it. They hav it all figured out and they're they only group with the 'keys' to heaven - wherever that is....

There's a reason there are so many people and organisations that fit the 'outside' description; perhaps the majority has seen the light, so to speak, and realises that religion is not only fantasy, it is destructive, false and without any provable merit.

More on this subject:
Anything by Richard Dawkins
"God is not Great," by Christopher Hitchens.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Sanity or something like it....

The most incredibly frustrating thing in the world is to stand by and watch a perfectly normal, intelligent, educated person do the same thing over and over, getting the same results again and again, all the while absolutely ignoring the obvious: If you do A and B happens and B really, really sucks, do not repeat A. Contantly repeating A will not get you better B results because B is determined by A.

There is only one worse thing than B, but B will eventually lead to that worse thing. It isn't a matter of maybe. It is a matter of WHEN.

I personally know three people who were the victims of people who believed they were so FUCKING SMART that they could engage in A and beat the odds.

They didn't beat the odds. They KILLED people.

My cousin's boyfriend, who was killed in a head on crash, with my cousin sitting right beside him, caused by an IDIOT who engaged in A, got B a LOT of times and finally killed someone.

Another person who engaged in A and then killed their own spouse because B lead to them hitting the back of a parked car - while doing 80 on a city street.

My daughter's great friend Connor, who was killed by a person who engaged in A as often as possible, getting increasingly bad B results, being prosecuted SEVEN TIMES, finally ending up, killing Connor.

Oh yeah... said FUCKING A engager also permanently maimed my daughter's other friend - including permanently preventing this friend from laughing or crying ever again.

It is the definition of INSANITY to do the same stupid, avoidable thing over and over and expect different results. If A = a shitty, life altering B result, then just STOP.

  • I hearby have no sympathy

  • I hearby lay to rest my respect

  • I hearby lay out a broken heart and a damaged spirit

  • I hearby decree that trust is fragile, easily damaged and irreparable when sacrificed

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Of all the CRAP that passes for news!

OK. I am SERIOUSLY amazed that the sexual orientation of a CHARACTER in CHILDREN'S book has passed for anything even remotely resembling news but more so because this fluffy, stupid filler has had airplay for more than one second.

The US is on the verge of invading Iran and Syria and we're listening to now FIVE DAYS of 'reporting' on the sexual orientation of a made up character in a kids' book?

WE ARE FUCKED.

THIS is how the U.S. manages to lie to it's own population so badly that they believe a CONTROLLED demolition of a national icon was a terrorist attack.

THIS is how the U.S. manages to totally ruin and discredit a man who was actually a pretty darn good politician (Tony Blair).

THIS is how a barely literate, stumbling drunkard manages to 'run' a country.

Because YOU, Joe Public, suck up when ridiculous, absolutely unimportant NON news into the little, squishy brains you are obviously not using.

This madness must stop!

Friday, October 19, 2007

The lie that is Race

Some months ago, I posted two pieces on "race" as a social construct and how that construct has been very useful in the hands of those who wish to cause dissent, weaken the social fabric, cause wars and generally divide and conquer.

Yesterday, a very brilliant an educated man made a valid comment, which those who wish to maintain social control via the stupid and false definition of "race", have taken well out of context. They have, for the time being, muzzled this man.

The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson has been suspended by his research institution in the US.

Both the London Science Museum and the Bristol Festival of Ideas have cancelled lectures by this brilliant man based on their complete misunderstanding of his comments. They demonstrate our
ridiculous societal fear of skin colour and the propensity to instantly scream racism when there's no such thing!

"
Dr Watson was a joint winner in 1962 of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, the molecule that lies at the heart of heredity in living organisms.

When, some 40 years later, scientists were finally able to read all of the DNA in our cells they were able to show that there was no scientific basis for the concept of race.

People from different racial groups can be more genetically similar than individuals within the same group. Genetic studies show that there is more variability in the gene pool in Africa, than outside."

The discovery of DNA and subsequent research into human DNA coding and genetics has utterly proved there is no genetic support for the concept of "race." "Dr Watson was a joint winner in 1962 of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, the molecule that lies at the heart of heredity in living organisms.

Dr. Watson's comments, have been purposely misunderstood.

Most people will acknowledge that certain groups of people have propensities toward certain skills and abilities. On can argue that India is a country full of engineers and China is a country of arithmeticians and musicians. This does not mean that all those who come from India will ultimately become engineers nor that those who come from Spain will never become engineers. The observation only notes an inclination. More importantly, those observations have nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with society, education, environment, genetics and heredity.

Dr. Watson's comments were to do with human intelligence and how it expresses itself, varies vastly and is dependent on hundreds of details: environment, food, social structure, education (or lack thereof), family structure, war, religion, etc. However, intelligence has NOTHING to do with skin colour. Despite how the media and the uneducated, fearful people who've censored Dr. Watson want to spin it, that is neither what Dr. Watson said nor meant.

It has been shown over and over that standard IQ tests are only valid to a very small point and only within the society/culture where they were created: a person coming from Spain would not necessarily be familiar with or exposed to common social mores and structures found in Russian society, so would likely do very poorly on a Russian IQ test (yes, given in Spanish for those of you who will argue the language point), regardless of that person's true intelligence.

This is part of what Dr. Watson was getting at with his comments.

In comments published in The Independent newspaper on Friday, Dr Watson tries to clarify his position.

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough.

This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

To eliminate the false and nefarious concept of "race" from the arsenal of divisive practises used by the power elite is to greatly diminish their power to coral humans as if we are stupid cattle.

As such, those who seek to control humans globally have jumped at the opportunity to silence a voice that over the last 40 years had told the true, scientific story: the colour of an external organ has nothing to do with humanity or intelligence.

Dr. Watson's comments are sound and based in endless science. We must stand against censorship of Dr. Watson and people like him.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Words by my Brilliant Friend, Batman

Subject: "The whole world's wild at heart and weird on top..." Lula Fortune in "Wild at Heart"

I hate the nuts on BOTH sides. I’m a firm skeptic when it comes to Conspiracists with an agenda who are as intractable in their self-righteous clinging to an imagined truth as any Republican (I wanna vomit when I encounter people who think they know it ALL). But I’m also a firm believer in the EVIL of the military industrial complex—and the fat old white men “behind the curtain”. Did u see Lynn Cheney with Jon Stewart last night? Man, she is one scary woman. I guess proximity to evil does that. She actually thinks her husband is charming and funny and chock full of honesty and integrity. That’s the worst part. She BELIEVES they’re righteous and good... “One may smile, and smile, and be a villain”. There is NO end to human ignorance.

Not to mention the vast, sluglike, dim-witted, UN-consciousness of the masses—who indeed have ceded control of their minds, bodies and spirits over to the Master Controllers and the slobbering, mindless, selfish greed of their own primitive desires. They keep me in business. Oops. Would that be all of US? Uh oh.

“Zeitgeist” is dead-on in recognizing that WE’RE the ones demanding this shit. Because we’re the ones who’ve let ourselves become placated, medicated, mediated, manipulated, mesmerized and brain-dead. And it would be a kinda cool idea to re-frame our reality—and get with the power we have in nature and our own dark selves... Otherwise, we can continue to live as Baudrillard, one of the modern French philosophers believes, in the artificial existence that our modern, media-saturated lives have become. He called it “Simulacra and Simulation”... and postulated that human experience has been degraded (by all the symbols and signals that tell us how to think, what to feel, and what to do) to a simulation of reality instead of reality itself.

Maybe because I got into manipulating this artificial reality at an early age I’ve always seen it for what it is—while still living in it as we all do. I always felt Rene Magritte brilliantly prognosticated the power of art and media to devalue our connection to reality when he painted “The Treachery Of Images (La trahison des images), which shows a pipe that looks as though it is a model for a tobacco store advertisement. Magritte painted below the pipe, This is not a pipe (Ceci n'est pas une pipe), which seems a contradiction, but is actually true: the painting is not a pipe, it is an image of a pipe!. (In his book, This Is Not a Pipe, French critic Michel Foucault discusses the painting and its paradox.)” In fact, the Surrealists were always my favourite artists in art school. Hmmmm... I wonder what they would have thought about “911”?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

British High Court says "An Inconvenient Truth" contains Nine Inconvnenient UN-truths!

As you know, I'm entirely, unmovably sceptical of Mr. Gore and his marketing machine. His film is very interesting but only as a study on moral suasion and manipulation of the uneducated public's very unrefined sentiments. It has little value in terms of it's goal because it is flawed, skewed and agenda-ridden.

The BBC today reports that "An Inconvenient Truth" contains nine significant errors (I'd say that's a typically British softening of the word "lies.") and that the film cannot be shown to British schoolchildren without being presented with an alternate, balancing view.

Here is a series of articles related to the man and his machine.
BBC News
Democratic Underground
Live Earth Flop
...and here are the NUMEROUS other articles that have appeared today

Enjoy and THINK! Just 'cause a big, fat, famous white guy says something is so does not make it so!

On another point - and thanks Dr. M. for pointing this out - do you know that the bible does not make any references, statements or rules about the number of spouses a person can have; nor does it state anything to do with extra marital sex. That stuff was all made up later by some other old fat why guy (or guys, likely) who had political agendas and land holdings they wanted passed on to the sons they had with the women they'd married to increase their land holdings.

Did you know, in the Book of Lists, there is a list of popes who died in the arms of their lovers - male and female?

Monday, September 24, 2007

Stuff that's dumb

Kay, this is just a thought: why, if a person can love their children - assuming they have more than one and considering that every one of their children has their own personalities, is it impossible for that same person to perhaps love more than one other adult?

It strikes me as untrue that a person meets their spouse or partner and their ability love - or even to be attracted to anyone else - ends.

It doesn't. That's dumb.

Some years ago, I read a really interesting book, The Fourth Horseman, by Andrew Nikiforuk, which, among other things, speaks about why divorce is a modern phenomenon that has more to do with health than morals or ethics. In short, when there was little way to protect oneself from disease and death, one's marriages were often very short. The possibility of a 40 year long marriage was nearly unheard of until early in the 20th century.

It strikes me as a lot of spin, the religious circles' postulation that society is ever more corrupt, whatever that means, and immoral due to the reality that most people are quite sick of their spouse after 15 years.

Regardless, even for those of use who can't imagine NOT being with our spouse/partner, even after 11 years, as in my case, the reality is that a solid marriage/partnership does not preclude or inoculate one against falling quite fully, headlong into love with someone else along the way.

I think we in so-called modern society get a lot of trouble from believing that if we're in love with someone else, then we necessarily aren't in love with our current spouse/partner and so we must disolve the current situaiton in order to pursue the new one. However, that scenario belittles the intimacy of a long relationship.

It would be far better for people to recognize there is a fundamental difference between "I'm in love with you," and "I love you."

One of those is a delicious, heady feeling that is jealous of the primary relationship; the other is a deep, fulfilling commitment that allows the other, knowing the other is significant but probably not enduring.

It would also be better in all ways for people to realise that, if they're able to fully love each of their unique children, they must also be able to love each unique adult they might attach to during a lifetime.

Marriage or similar commitment does not cause us to shut off various emotions - or it shouldn't -- because shutting off the ability to love others also shuts off the ability and necessity of loving a spouse/partner. Better that people understand that despite being in a committed relationship, they will love often during their lives and that they should simply allow it with no expectations,


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Utterly Ridiculous.

Ok.

This is a test for all Christians (or any religious folk) who say that the bible (insert your 'holy book' here) is the true, unedited word of god and that good Christians (or whichever) must adhere to it in every way (girls, why are you cutting your hair and not covering your head then???).

I KNOW you people edit what you follow because if you didn't, you'd be killing people right left and centre because you SAY follow the bible to the T and the bible says you must slay those who blaspheme, cut their hair, eat pig, bla, bla, bla.....

I'm getting hot just reading my own stuff here...illogic in this area just totally sends me over the freaking edge.

If you're one of those who says that the bible is the undeniable, must follow it to the T, word of god, then here, click the link below. And then, I expect all you hardliners to step up and put some teeth in the "word of god" statement. I wanna see you people following EVERY 'word of god,' not cherry picking the stuff you like and ignoring the stuff that doesn't.

IF THIS INFORMATION is wrong, is it possible that a LOT of what's in that old mashup of info is also wrong? Hmm?

http://www.godhatesglobes.com/faq.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsvhPvK405Q

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Monday, September 17, 2007

Global Warming as Per KIng Gore: A Crock If Ever There Was One

Ok people, here's yet more information that throws the Gore juggernaut's perspective into MAJOR question.

The BBC Chanel 4 recently aired The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I've watched this - part of it several times - and among all the points that stick out for me is this one: rises in Co2 levels ALWAYS follow - by HUNDREDS of years - rises in earth temperatures.

FOLLOW. By anywhere from 300 - 800 years.

The last period of VERY warm on the planet was during the medieval era when all the great cathedrals were built. This was also known as a period of great prosperity and wealth. See, when it isn't freezing cold in the winter, people can go outside and build things and do stuff and SPEND MONEY.

The last coldish period - the Little Ice Age - was around 1690 or so, back when people could skate on the very frozen Thames in the winter. During those years, people held winter fairs ON the Thames. That means it was well and properly frozen.

Mr. Gore, when addressing interested, clued in, educated people skims over the "it's a complicated relationship" point he makes about Co2 and how it relates to temperature.

Guess how much Co2 humans account for in the atmosphere - and I mean from cars, breathing, all that....

You're probably not even close if you're above 1%.

.054% something.

The largest contributor?

The Oceans

So what are we to do about those? 'Drain them?

This film addresses all sorts of stuff - all the pet issues used by Gore and his minions.

Where there are corporations (in this case General Electric, which is heavily involved in appliances, lighting and the financial markets; General Motors, etc. etc) you can bet for SURE they don't give a damn about the environment of anything other than their bottom line and their shareholders' profits. Corporations do NOT exist to make the air clean and the soil fresh. If they did, then those corps that manufacture pesticides and such would get out of business. But they don't.

Don't be naive. See this film. Then go see Zeitgeist (previous post).

We in those parts of the world with access to the Internet - uncensored access no less - MUST avail ourselves of other views and other experts. We must NOT jump on bandwagons and buy in to issues because they're presented with gloss and star power.

We must EDUCATE ourselves. Believing everything that's said, promoted or shown on TV or covered on radio is not education. It's capitulation.

Ask questions; question authority and make them be accountable for their facts.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Zeitgeist

Oh man. WE ARE SCREWED.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

Zeitgeist.


You know that thing 'they' call reality? Yeah, 'they're' pretty good at manufacturing it.

I am in shock.

I DARE you to view this whole film, start to finish, and not be changed. If you watch nothing else, watch the last 50 or so minutes.

If you're not changed, you're dead, in which case, let me know and I'll get the poltergeist hunters out to meet you.

www.zeitgeist.com for the film in sections.

Now GO CLOSE YOUR BANK ACCOUNT!

Monday, August 20, 2007

"United North America"

About 15 or so years ago, my dad, who was a well-read, politically astute man, mentioned in passing that the time would come when there would be a north American currency shared by the US, Mexico and Canada.

I didn't agree, as I thought there was no way Canada would allow such a thing.

I really hope I'm right about that and I really hope that the opinions in the article following here are just that. But I'm a conspiracist and I think there is MUCH afoot that the average citizen doesn't know or care to know about.

I'm not from the US and I will never be, so I don't know the true ins/outs of the political machine there, other than to say there are thousands of moderately bright people in congress and a handful of nefarious manipulators in positions of power. This is not unlike all powerful nations. There's much opinion that there are fewer than 50 people who actually run the world, despite that you and I get to elect someone... for what it's worth.

This document, The Red Amendment, I understand outlines the changes to the 14th amendment in the US. I leave it for you to follow up on. Suffice to say, I wish people would inform themselves, stop believing that 'there's no way our political leaders would lie to us and there's no way they can get away with doing stuff we haven't voted for.

As for the article, here's the core of it: the writer takes from his various sources that the current, dismal economic situation in the US is designed to force a situation that will terminate the Mexican currency and really damage the Canadian to a point where an internationally shared currency will be necessary - unavoidably so.

As a Canadian, I absolutely hate that idea. If Europe is any indication, we would not only get a common (US focused) currency, we'd get an international government that would eradicate any vestiges of Canadian-ness - and Mexican-ness, for that matter.

You think it will never happen? Well, if you're reading this blog, I suspect that you might protest like crazy (assuming you're Canadian). But most people aren't' reading this blog and most people in north America are so badly uninformed and worse, don't give a damn at all, that there is absolutely no impediment to the US taking over all of North America, installing a currency and finally a government.

The only thing they really have to do is be patient, which they have been, given the 100 or so year old "Manifest Destiny" thing that was a focal point back in around 1886, when Canadians were opening up the Canadian west to avoid US invasion.

Unless people wake the hell up, which they won't, there's little to stop this.

All I can hope for is that our links to Great Britain and the example of that country having NOT adopted the Euro will prevail in Canada.

Here's the article and the links to the information:


FOR MONTHS WE'VE ALL HEARD STORIES ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE UNITED STATES, CANADA AND MEXICO WOULD BE "MERGED" INTO A NEW SOVEREIGN ENTITY CALLED THE "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" . . . . .

GOVERNMENTS DENIED IT PUBLICLY AND OTHERS CALLED US "CONSPIRACY NUTS."

WE FINALLY HAVE PROOF: THEY ARE COINING MONEY IN THE NAME OF THIS NEW ENTITY!!!!
"The Hal Turner Show" has received images of the new unit of currency they are planning. It is called "the Amero" which will replace the "Dollar" and the "peso" in all three countries once they are merged out of existence!



They are even coining "Ameros" in Collectable precious metals like Silver as the "Proof" coin shown below!!


More details are pending. One thing is absolutely clear: The governments of the USA, Canada & Mexico are engaged in a conspiracy to merge the three countries without the knowledge or consent of "The People."

In furtherance of this conspiracy, the government of the United States is intentionally spending the nation into absolute, unrecoverable Bankruptcy with the intention that the monetary system collapses.

When the U.S. currency collapses, it will take with it, both the Canadian dollar and Mexican Peso because both countries are so heavily invested in the U.S. dollar through trade with the US.

During such a collapse, when hundreds of millions of average citizens face absolute destitution because their currencies have been wiped out, these Conspirators will turn to 'The People" of each nation and say "your only hope is to merge all three countries and make a new start."

The thinking is that the populations will rush to embrace the merger and forget all about our individual history, rights and systems. In one fell swoop, the Conspirators will clobber us into absolute despotism and we will be helpless to do anything because our money will have become worthless!

While you're gasping for air at this, did you happen to notice the DATES on these coins? 2007

Gee whiz, this plan seems awfully far along. I guess this means the collapse will be this year? Maybe that's why the housing market was allowed to "tank?" Maybe that's why the Stock Markets are dropping hundreds of points per day lately? Maybe this is why oil has increased in price. . . . because the oil nations already know they're going to take a bath on the currency change when they have to exchange "Dollars" they're already holding which will be worth only "pennies" on the "Amero?"

Are you starting to grasp why so many things are going wrong lately? Does a lot of it start to make sense when put in the context of wiping out currencies in the name of globalization?

This is betrayal folks! Betrayal by our highest elected officials! Deliberate, intentional despicable deceit!

This is EVIL treachery on a massive scale.

If you're wanting to know some of the hows and whys of what this Country is experiencing, I STRONGLY recommend checking this out: http://www.pacinlaw.org/index/red_amendment.php

Remember this statement:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States

"The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority."
Charles, Prince of Wales



Friday, August 17, 2007

CENSORSHIP!!!

Regarding the two articles written by Oswald Czolgosz, which were printed in the Calgary Herald and The National Post, both have been removed from those papers' archives!

It seems the Globull warming initiative not only does not like challenges to its crap, they cause any written challenges to be disposed of.

I hereby publicly register my EXTREME surprise and disappointment that two of our national newspapers have stooped to censoring opinion and information.

WHEN did we become the new USSR?????

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

The ONLY thing that is warming globally is the HOT AIR coming out of the Gore machine!

Recently I posted a great editorial, Drive and Edsel, Save the Planet, by Dr. Murry Henning. The core theme of this piece was that the current 'wisdom' about the planet's hot years was really wrong and unscientific.

I've also recently read and have posted here, another editorial by retired teacher, Oswald Czolgosz who has erected a billboard to the effect that we're being lied to by King Gore's new religious team.


Well Dr. Henning and Mr. Czolgosz were right. This week, thanks to Canadian mathematician, Steve McIntyre, who showed NASA the error of their ways, following which, NASA revealed that the 'stats' they'd been using were completely off; the hot years being used as the touch points for Global warming are actually among the coolest seen on the planet in the last century. There's more on this and the science of those stats at Technology Review

The real hot years are those in the 1930s - right around when people were really driving about in their new-fangled, highly polluting, non-emission controled Fords, which is exactly the point Dr. Henning made.

When I brought this subject up last night with a close friend, I was met with the same appalled reaction that I would get if I walked into a church and started spouting my opinion of religion there. People are so bought-into this global warming thing that they cannot tolerate that their buy-in might not only be premature but that possibly what they're buying into is a bill of goods.

Not buying in to the global warming hype, hook, line and sinker, without question, is the new "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" of four years ago. The whole issue is being used to support the most idiotic presumptions, like, for instance, that every bridge in the US (only the US, bizarrely enough; not anywhere else in the world) is subject to catastrophic falling down a la terrible accident last week, due to their being unable to withstand the high temps caused by global warming. C'mon. If bridges in Vegas and Egypt and other year-round hot places don't fall down, then the purported degree temperature increase planet-wise, isn't going to make that happen.

I am a sceptic when it comes to big business. Mr. Gore's business involvements include the carbon credit company from which he buys his carbon credits - those he buys to offset the daily air travel he must engage in to support his new religion and those he must but to offset the appalling cost of his lifestyle, huge homes (that's plural) and various vehicles. See more at the foot of this post.

Actually, let me be more specific: Mr. Gore OWNS the company from which he buys carbon credits. It seems too that the carbon offsets that he buys are not actually doing anything anywhere else. There's been little information on what exactly is being exchanged for what.

The key point of all this is that people MUST consider everything they read and hear with some amount of sobriety, rather than simply choosing the life of a lemming, jumping into the queue and heading over the cliff for no reason.

Yes, be careful with your garbage, your recycling, your driving habits, the type of car you buy and all that, but also take advantage of the unlimited amount of information out there and the unlimited access we in the west have to the internet, the news, opinion, science and thought.

More interesting stuff, courtesy of Mr. Czolgosz:


Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934.

Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced.

Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.

And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow named Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.com labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.

Who is this man who understands American climate data so much better than NASA? Well, he's not even American: He's Canadian. Just another immigrant doing the jobs Americans won't do, even when they're federal public servants with unlimited budgets? No. Mr. McIntyre lives in Toronto. But the data smelled wrong to him, he found the error, and NASA has now corrected its findings – albeit without the fanfare that accompanied the hottest-year-on-record hysteria of almost a decade ago.

Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but, when it comes to global warming, the experts prefer to stick the thermometer where the sun don't shine.

One is tempted to explain the error with old the computer expert's cry: That's not a bug, it's a feature. To maintain public hysteria, it's necessary for the warm-mongers to be able to demonstrate that something is happening now.

Titbits:

AL GORE IS GETTING FILTHY RICH FROM HIS FALSE PROPHECIES!

An Inconvenient Fact - Occidental Petroleum & the Gore Family go way back!

An Inconvenient Fact - Gore owns a company that sells carbon offsets to suckers who believe his lies.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore drives a Cadillac Escalade and not a Prius. Gore's daughter drives a v12 Lamborghini.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore’s 10,000 square foot estate in Tennessee with an indoor swimming pool uses more energy per month than you do in one year. His other two homes use lots of energy too!

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore flies in private jets, lecturing us to reduce our carbon footprints by flying and driving less.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore’s home in Carthage, Tennessee sits on a zinc mine receiving $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc – a company that pollutes the nearby Caney Fork River.

An Inconvenient Fact – Mars and Pluto are also warming up without any SUVs or crude oil.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore served endangered Chilean Sea Bass at his daughter’s wedding last month in Beverly Hills. He demanded a recount of the fish to learn if they really are endangered. Florida surfer Dude “Hangin’ Chad” is in charge of the recount. Then Gore bought “fish offsets” to feel less guilty from the company that sells “carbon offsets” – the one he himself owns.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore dropped out of Divinity school, Journalism school and Law school – but he is now an expert in environmental studies with no degree?

But THANKS A LOT, Al, for creating the Internet.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Harry Potter Series turning millions of Children into Witches and Wiccans; DEMONSTRATIONS in the STREETS

Harry Potter and the assault on Christianity
Charles Moore
The Daily News
Halifax NS
23/07/07
www.hfxnews.ca

Ah, here we go.. Another freaked out, terrified, religious person lambasting the Harry Potter series.

First of all, the title of this article: ".... Assault on Christianity," implying very incorrectly that JK Rowling had it in her mind from the outset to use a series of children's books to bring down a world religion. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what she was thinking as she sat in that little cafe with her baby at her feet, scribbling away the first book.

Charles Moore, the writer of this article (that must have got by a dead editor) says, "Potter advocates, disingenuously, pooh-pooh any linkage of Harry-mania to increasing popularity of Wicca and other forms of paganism."

First of all, what is a "Potter Advocate?" In the last 10 years in all the reading, travelling, surfing I've done, and that of my three children and my spouse and all my friends, none of us has ever seen or heard of any "advocates," of Potter in the negative sense that Moore implies.

Yes there are millions and millions of avid readers who devour the series and yes, there are millions of book clubs that discuss the book and yes, there are probably millions of little impromptu groups that talk about the series, but "advocates?" Come on! Nobody is out there building 'churches' to Potter or establishing anything that could remotely be associated with advocacy (the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal). Mr. Moore does what every new journalist is cautioned repeatedly to NEVER do: write garbage, forget to provide any sources, references or proof of any kind, yet call made up assertions fact.

Charles Moore presents no proof, no references no statistics; nothing at all to substantiate his claims that the Potter series is seriously screwing up children. The article is seriously laughable, unsupported scaremongering.

Where are Moore's stats to show that the ranks of Wiccans are growing? What other forms of paganism does he refer to? Does Moore understand the fundamentals of his own religion enough to know just how much of it is pulled from those "pagan" foundations? Doesn't seem so.

Not including the recent release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, over 325 MILLION copies of books in the series had been sold in 65 languages. "Deathly Hallows" is set to have a 12 million copy initial release (Wikipedia has an extensive article on all aspects of the Potter series).

IF, as Moore postulates with no substantiation, the Potter series were as coercive and damaging as all that, wouldn't one be seeing some cultural shifts towards what Moore deems negative? Wouldn't we be seeing millions of little goths eating guts and gutting cats in cemeteries?

IF it were at all true that the Potter series entices or encourages children into the so-called black arts, then, given the astronomical sales of the books in this series, there would be very noticeable, international shifts in the numbers of said children coming to these alternate, OLD faith/belief structures.

As for the black arts, how is it that turning water into wine or turning two fish and 5 loaves of bread into food for 2000 or rising from death after three days doesn't qualify as magic?

Why? Because none of these things happened as reported. See? Made up stories have been around for ages! More likely, the party thrower was encouraged to bring out the wine casks and the sermon attendees decided that they actually did have a bit in their pockets to share -a la "Stone Soup" and, if the last thing actually happened, the guy was in a short term coma. And, is it not black arts (or simple story-telling) to get rid of a redundant character by making that character rise into the clouds, never to be seen again (Mary) or to have your main player come back as a ghost to reinforce his directives?

The thing about kids, and what this writer absolutely lacks, is kids have an ability to recognize a STORY, which is why children have to be indoctrinated over a long time, via force, lies, coercion and fear, to believe and accept that stories (read:religious crap of their parents) are anything more than just made up. Children recognize made up stuff pretty easily, whereas adults throughout history have used make believe as a means to control, subjugate, pervert and undermine populations.

There is not one shred of evidence that JK Rowling's Potter series has done much beyond provide an excellent reading experience for millions upon millions of people. This ridiculous fear that the Potter series might cause a huge, predatory cultural shift does come with a precedent, however; the judeo-christian bible is a prime example of writers with agendas cobbling together bits of fact and pieces of possibly (not probably) historical information and putting it forward as truth in order to impose social control.

With the Potter series, however, there is no intention to do that. I'm pretty much positive that JK Rowling does not have it as a goal to take over the world. I think she's busy with her family and a few interviews.

I almost guarantee Charles Moore has not read any of these books and also that he has never heard or read an interview with Rowling. Had he, he would know that a strong subtext of the Potter series is the sheep-like quality of most humans (especially those who are 'religious') to follow the masses, never question and live wretched lives. Wikipedia has great information on the subtexts of the Potter stories and not one of them has a thing to do with indoctrinating children into Wicca.

Moore's article simply highlights the "believers'" propensity to go running off at the mouth, spouting un-researched, unsubstantiated and instantly disprovable garbage. I will also guarantee that nearly any Potter fan old enough to read Moore's article would have as their first comment, "bollocks."

As to whether articles like Moore's should see the light of day, absolutely. Such drivel is exactly the ticket for revealing the truth about religion in all it's silliness. Moore states, "The Harry Potter phenomenon is, whether deliberately or obliviously, part of a broad cultural assault on Christianity, not at all unique in today's contemporary literature and the entertainment media, which are increasingly anti-Christian."

This is crap, full stop. Moore hasn't provided any support for this statement at all. In truth and verifiability so, among the most devastating forces on religions (their so-called 'leaders' included) is writers and articles like these that reveal how utterly ridiculous, false, contrived and pointless religion is. "...The books' heroes' defy adults , break rules, and exemplify bold courage in the face of oppressive authority. Their "subversive" attitudes refute rigid right wing dogma.... This is the right wing's worst nightmare, because right wingers see the world – especially morality – in stark, simplistic black and white."[37]" This is what is terrifying to the religious class; that people - particularly children - think and question and challenge.

If christianity is THE TRUTH and THE WAY and THE LIGHT, how is it so very vulnerable to all these outside forces? It strikes me that adherents know the truth is not even close to what is presented and so must make every effort to challenge and fight anything that might shed light on the muddy, bloody trap that is religion.

Yes, thanks to Web 2.0, people are far more likely and able to broaden their understanding of religion and how it was established and why, how it is perpetuated and how all religions are so utterly perverted by their proponents. Intelligent people who've done their research (and only minimal research is necessary to reveal that religion is a scam) dismiss religion as negative, divisive and anachronistic. That is not attack or assault, Mr. Moore; it is reality.

Mr. Moore, go get yourself a comfortable chaise lounge, a nice tall drink and get yourself down to the beach, Harry Potter in hand. Spend the day in the sun reading this well-put-together series and then go on home. End of story. No agenda, no advocates, no black arts, subversion or chaos. Just a story. Period. Exactly what every kid who reads Potter knows.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

BAD Grammar and Death of Democracy, All in One!


This is wrong. The following sentence is wrong on so many levels. Let deal with the grammar first. The error is one of accord - meaning a plural is accorded where a singular should have been.

"According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law...."

If you say "the greatest concern...." you must realise that a concern is ONE THING. Therefore you cannot follow that clause with "...are the underlying provisions..." because you're referring to the concern, NOT to the provisions. You must use the singular reference here to have the correct accord with "the greatest concern," a single thing.

The sentence should read "...the greatest concern to the American people IS the underlying provisions...."

Actually, however, the greatest concern to the American public is that they have friggin' (OK, I edited that word) idiot psychopath for a vice president and a puppet for a president.

Here's why people in the US - and the world in general - should be concerned:

Bush Outlaws All War Protest In US

The short form is that it is now ILLEGAL to protest the Iraq 'war' (the US term for invasion).

From Digg

Nice. July 17th 2007. The death of democracy in the US. mark your calendars.

About the photo above: it is a compilation - a mosaic - made up of photos of ass holes. Appropriate.

Thanks to Joey Nichols. Read his blog here.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

LIARS!

Cure? My backside!

I am convinced that the cancer industry is not only uninterested in finding a cure, but actively suppresses anything even remotely smelling of a cure. The bigger the whole "pink" campaign (an all similar others) becomes, the more it smacks of makin' money.

A cure for cancer would be an international crisis in terms of the health care industry. So many people would be out of work that there would be economic devastation.

Don't think so? Count up the number of people just working in areas related to cancer - docs, nurses, technical staff, lab staff, building staff, maintenance staff, auxiliary services (food, cleaning, suppliers) at just one hospital in your city .... now multiply that by every hospital in the world.

Now add in the international cancer research community and everything that's attached to that....

Now add in hospice services and all the staff and auxiliary services attached to that industry.

Now add in the cancer fund-raising industry internationally - all the people involved in that; advertisers, product suppliers, etc, etc....

Now add in the droning, wealthy, predatory machine that is Big Pharma. They're not supporting cures for anything bigger than a hang nail, believe me. They're NOT in the business of making themselves obsolete. They like you to be fat and sick. In fact, their product mix makes sure you are fat and sick. Get the picture? A cure for cancer would very probably put the entire world into a depression. Bad news.

Speaking of Michael Moore, I watched Fahrenheit 911 last night. I found out that the Bush, Cheney and Bin Ladin families are not only all really good, close friends, but that they share in three large, international businesses that have all profited HUGE from the war.

Fahrenheit proposes that there was a terrorist attack but I don't think so. I still know it was an inside, known about, planned for job. Regardless, the Cheney family, the Bush family and the Bin Ladin families all made zillions of dollars. Oh, and the Saudis own some 7% of the US....
Just watch it.

I seems that President GW Bush is a liar, a cheat, a scammer, and an idiot. He was illegally elected and should never have had the presidency. The optics make it look like his family was so involved in manipulating that election that it is stunning people in the US stand for it. Amazing actually.
Really Amazing. How is it a country that purportedly contains the leaders of the free world allows this 'person' to be in charge? HOW IS IT? It looks very much like the US president is using the US and Afghanistan to stage a war for his and these two other families' personal gain. SICK!

Only my opinion - and possibly Michael Moore's - but that's what it looks like .

Monday, July 16, 2007

Consumerism SUCKS

Some of you who know me well will know how opposed I am to people blindly buying in to marketing campaigns without really analysing the product or its necessity to anyone's life.

Working in financial services, I am daily exposed to people who cannot say no to anything that is well-marketed - meaning marketed in such a way that these people think they 'need' such products. In 99% of cases, there's no 'need' at all. There's 'want' and 'entitlement' and 'image.'

Diamonds and the diamond trade are a case in point. The international perception that diamonds are rare is the result of a 80 year long marketing campaign by one company. The damage, death, poverty and war that has resulted from the De Beers campaign is more devastating than all recent wars combined due to the irreparable destruction of numerous cultures and countries, most of which are in Africa.

Click this story for a chronological expose of how YOU came to believe the hype about diamonds.

Now go be a rebel and start analysing every marketing campaign you're exposed to.

Oh, and go see SICKO while you're at it ... and 9/11: Fear and The Selling of the American Empire... and then apply the "art" of immoral and unethical manipulation to global warming....

Arghghg.. I feel a rant coming on.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Why?

Follow up to a previous blog.....

Why is this young man wearing 'civilian clothing?'

Because, he's accepting a diploma for his brother, Connor, who was killed by a DRUNK DRIVER.

Connor was 17, clean and sober, well loved by MANY, beloved friend of Mike Hagar and John Broadbent. Both Mike and John were injured in the same accident.

Mike has just been released from hospital, still can't stand, can barely speak and will be forever changed. John's physical damage is over but his mental anguish is forever.












Connor is gone. He begged the first person to come on the accident to please tell his parents the accident wasn't his fault, that he was being careful and that he was so sorry. Then he died in a stranger's arms.

The drunk? 25 years old; habitual offender; several previous offenses.
Alive? Yes.
Injured, No.
Likely to quit drinking and driving? No.
Likely to reoffend? Yes.
Prosecuted? No. Not for another year.
Jail? Probably.
Will any of that bring Connor back or make Mike whole or take away the awful, brutal, vivid memories John will always carry?

Nope.

This one is forever.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Whew! I feel GREAT: It's Someone Else's Job To Raise My Kids!

I have received this e-mail chain letter a few times recently. I really dislike chain mail because it is usually such bloody garbage, but this takes the cake.

READ it and then READ MY RESPONSE. It is long. You're going to be here a while so get a coffee - or a scotch: Laphroaigh Quarter Cask preferably.

Here's the chain mail:

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at ?. ..

Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96
Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97
Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97
West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97
Stamp, Arkansas 12/15/97
Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98
Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98
Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98
Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98
Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98

Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99
Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99
Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99
Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99
Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99
Santee, California 3/ 5/01
El Cajon, California 3/22/01 and

Blacksburg, VA 4/16/07 ?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student
-----------------------------------------------------
Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:
Sorry,

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God

----------------------------------------------------------

How did this get started?...

Let's see,
I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained
She didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And we said, OK.

Then, someone said you better not:
Read the Bible in school;
The Bible that says
"thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
And love your neighbors as yourself,"

And we said, OK...

Dr. Benjamin Spock said
We shouldn't spank our children
When they misbehaved
Because their little personalities
Would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said,
An expert should know what he's talking about
So we won't spank them any more..

Then someone said
Teachers and principals better not
Discipline our children when they misbehave.
And the school administrators said
No faculty member in this school
Better touch a student when they misbehave
Because we don't want any bad publicity,
And we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said,
let's let our daughters have abortions if they want,
And they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea.

Then some wise school board member said,
Since boys will be boys
And they're going to do it anyway,
let's give our sons all the condoms they want,
So they can have all the fun they desire,
And we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea...

Then some of our top elected officials said
It doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.

And we said,
It doesn't matter what anybody, including the President,
Does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good....

And someone else took that appreciation a step further
And published pictures of nude children
And then stepped further still by
Making them available on the Internet.

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech....
And the entertainment industry said,
let's make TV shows and movies that promote
Profanity, violence and illicit sex...
And let's record music that encourages
Rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...

And we said,
it's just entertainment
And it has no adverse effect
And nobody takes it seriously anyway,
So go right ahead.

Now we're asking ourselves
Why our children have no conscience,
Why they don't know right from wrong,
And why it doesn't bother them to
Kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

Undoubtedly,
If we thought about it long and hard enough,
We could figure it out.
I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW"

Why is it our children can not read a Bible in school, but can in Prison.

Points to consider:Here's what I think:

Why should religion be in schools when the family is responsible for the well-being and upbringing of children? Teachers educate – a one-dimensional, secular job; parents RAISE children; a holistic responsibility that allows for specific religious (or not) instruction.

If children are loved, cared for, appropriately directed and given whatever spiritual instruction at home, why should it ever be the responsibility of the school system or of any teacher to fill in or pinch hit for parents? Neither the teachers nor the system is responsible for the fundamentals; the family is. Teachers and schools are not babysitters or daycares, nor are they replacements for family or parents, regardless of how much some parents want that to be the case.

In respect to children who kill, their pain is so deep, so long-term and so profound that no teacher or school or system can do anything for those children. Those children are alienated first and foremost by and within their families and specifically by their parents, who are usually so focused on themselves, their own pursuits and the so-called rules and regulations that they forget their children are thinking, feeling humans. If the parents do not realize the deep crisis their one child is in, why ever would we expect teachers to notice one child in 30 or more?

No amount of prayer in schools will ever fix the pain of an alienated, depressed, desperate child. Prayer is NOT a replacement for an aware, humble, committed, loving parent. Too often people resort to prayer when they should be making a move.

As for spanking, the church position on this legitimizes abuse of children due to an incorrect interpretation of “spare the rod.” The “rod” is not a physical object. It is correctly interpreted as “STANDARD.” When correctly interpreted, there is NO direction to hit, beat, whip or physically abuse a child. Christian scripture also says “provoke not the child to anger.” Hitting, slapping, whipping, slagging, insulting or any such abuse is not discipline. It is abuse and indicates a parent out of control. Parents in control and who are skilled at providing standards for their children NEVER need resort to angering or striking their flesh and blood.

In no case should a teacher ever strike a student. There is no excuse for anyone, especially a professional, hitting a child. They certainly have the right to have the child leave the class, but in no circumstance does a teacher have the right to hit another person, even when that person is young and small. Hitting is an abuse of power; it is not discipline. It is an expression of anger and frustration on the part of an out-of-control adult and is no less painful or damaging than verbal abuse, which is also an abuse of power.

The point about abortion is very interesting. As you know, I am highly opposed to abortion. However, I am pro-choice. Choice must include everything a woman has in her arsenal to PREVENT pregnancy – pre-conception. I have no respect for those who play Russian Roulette with their bodies then choose to kill their pre-born offspring when the trigger goes off and they lose the game. That’s not choice. That’s abdication of right/responsibility.

Having said that, and I know the statistics very well, due to substantial research and face-to-face interviews with several doctors (including my previous OB-GYN) and two nurses who work in the field: unplanned pregnancies are more common with girls from religious families than in the general population. This is because religious families are very disinclined to discuss sex and related topics, are judgmental and are inclined to use fear tactics. Girls in those environments are at greater risk because they’re terrified to ask for information and disinclined to protect themselves. I have done specific research in this area due to my four years with the Calgary Pro-Life Association and via research for several published articles I wrote in the late 90s.

The reason girls in these environments don’t tell their parents anything is that they’re terrified to do so. That terror indicates a parental flaw, not a child’s flaw. If children are terrified of their parents and/or their parents reactions, what are they to do? The stay silent and hope they’re never found out.

Pre-marital sex is not the sole property of this generation. I personally know three couples of my parent's generation who engaged and were ‘caught’ due to unplanned pregnancies. Part of the reason the church is so anti pre-marital sex and so rabid about marriage is that both those allow for social control and management of economic resources (not relevant in our time, but relevant at the time when protecting the family assets was tantamount to preventing clan/tribal wars) by managing family lineages. It doesn’t work, however.

It is sexist to say ‘boys will be boys.” Males and females are equally likely to pursue. It may be distasteful to some, but the reality is people engage and no amount of religious fear mongering or threats of hell fire has ever or will ever change that. None of the three couples noted above was able to fight the biological imperative with fear of eternal damnation. It is better, if people are going to engage, that they be protected from diseases and pregnancy than they become sick or they have abortions (which are damaging to the woman’s body and obviously terminal for the unborn).

As for privacy, neither the government nor the church has any place in the bedrooms of people in free countries – or any country. This does not make incest or abuse or paedophilia right and the government should be expanding their efforts to go after abusers and perpetrators who use electronic resources. Where it comes to sexual practice though, what one person thinks is ok another thinks is abhorrent: there will never be consensus on what thing falls in which category.

As for practice or preference, Paedophilia is neither. It is a serious, incurable illness. If it were a sexual practice or true preference, the practice or preference could be altered or eliminated. Paedophilia is not curable and is by definition a chronic mental disorder. There will never be a cure, no matter what anyone says, barring chemical or actual castration (of males. Not sure what the cure would be for female paedophiles.)

As to those who make and/or consume child porn, too often those around them who are aware, are also silent. Someone always knows about the little girl or boy who disappears into that apartment…. As long as people make jokes about it and people continue to consume products designed to sexualize children, the environment will persist. We, as a society, tacitly allow the practice to exist. Don’t think so? Have you ever bought “toy” high heels or ‘toy’ makeup for a little girl; strongman suits for little boys – dress up clothing made to render a child into a parody of an adult? We are complicit, however innocently we participate.

I am absolutely opposed to institutionalized censorship. Too much wonderful literature and art has been banned due to people’s discomfort with subject matter and use of words. HOWEVER, I am absolutely for and actively engage in PERSONAL censorship. If something is abhorrent then do not buy, rent or use that thing. It is not for me to choose for you, but I will always act on MY right to choose for ME. If everyone who was opposed to a certain book or film or product or whatever just didn’t buy it themselves, the market for that item would seriously decrease. However, humans are curious beings; they often believe they are alone in their protest and therefore powerless to change anything. They are curious in the other sense too: one may heartily dislike the subject matter of book or film but is yet compelled to know what it is we opposed to. That is the dichotomy. Sadly, too often people are so obsessed with what everyone else is/might be doing, that they fail to monitor their own consumption.

Schools are and must remain, non-religious and non-denominational. People in the west are terrified by and opposed to Madrassas overseas (Pakistan, Afganistan, etc), but they completely fail to see the parallel between Madrassa and ‘religious’ schools. Only the semantics change; the foundations are exact. As such, no bible, torah, Q’uran belongs in any school. Those things belong at home, in the family, where the family can put their own stamp on that education. It strikes me as odd that people clearly disrespect teachers and schools (the items below indicated that very clearly) yet expect teachers to mete out something as personal and specific as religion.

The last point in the items below - "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW" - is true. Whenever people – parents in particular –get real about what and how they’ve sown, and when they quit blaming the establishment, the schools, the teachers, films, music, books, the ‘devil,’ and the water, and when PARENTS take PERSONAL responsibility first for their OWN behavior, only then will they be able to provide excellent examples, a solid foundation and appropriate guidance for their children. Only then will what we reap be wonderful, productive, respectful, loving, compassionate, self-assured children. Literal, rule-bound, non-thinking people raise literal, rule-bound, non-thinking and usually confused and angry kids.

Am I gloating?? Damn right. I live by what I write here. I have raised my children in an utterly open environment, where every question was met with an appropriate, honest, often researched answer. Have I been angry with my kids, yes. Have they been angry with me, yes. The greatest gift I have been able to give my children is the simple admission “I’m wrong, and I’m sorry.” Do I think I’m right about all this and that my way of raising children works? If the comments of my children’s friends, and the parents of those friends, the comments from teachers, employers and, in some cases complete strangers are any indication, yes, I’ve done a great job by controlling myself, not my kids; by being honest rather than hiding the truth; by being vulnerable and fallible and admitting it; by managing my anger and not taking it and my disappointments out on my children; and by NEVER blaming anyone else for failing to provide that which was my responsibility where it came to providing a solid standard for my children to live by.

The items in the chain e-mail may allow the reader to feel justified and righteous, but when looked at and considered, all except the last are statements that provide escape routes for people who would rather others do the jobs they should do themselves.