BEST bread EVER

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

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...

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 extensively. 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....

... 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 mitts 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 clientele. 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....

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....

READ MORE HERE

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Just go read it all. I have nothing to add that I haven't already said.

The US is a huge, fraudulent corporation that assists other huge, fraudulent organisations to function. Democracy is an absolute myth.

They may be trying everything they can do to discredit Julian Assange at the moment but none of it will stick; none can stick. The reason is that as long as information is free and easily tranferable, by email, or fax or MSN messenger or Iphone or whatever instant communications method one choses, every bit of information will eventually come to light.

It isn't like the old days when stuff was only on paper and paper was behind locked doors.

I hope in my lifetime - no; in the next 10 years - to finally have the truth of Pearl Harbour and Vietnam released and that the bloody plots that were teh Oklahoma bombing, everything to do with 9/11 and those staged attacks in London and Madrid - will all be exposed as the false-flag events they surely are.

Fine, call me a conspiricist. Fine. Just don't go "geeze, wow" down the road when you finally wake up and realise that all plane crashes leave huge debris fields (except at the Pentagon and in US fields, apparently) and there's no way three buildings fall straight down into their own footprints, all on the same day, despite, in two cases, being designed specifically to withstand ANY type of crash/attack.

Bloody hell people are so gullible!

Canadian Government aims to curb consumer indebtedness....

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...

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....

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

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...