There is no spoon

I wish I had the vocabulary to explain exactly what happened to me tonight.

I broke a soup spoon.

Okay, more accurately, I wish I could explain what that meant.

I broke a spoon.

It was a Chinese ceramic soup spoon, generously donated by the Chinese restaurant at which we were celebrating my SiFu's birthday.

Now, normally you wouldn't think of the breaking of a ceramic soup spoon as a life-changing experience, but I'll be honest with you, the moment that spoon broke I felt something which very nearly borders on religious (and this is coming from a guy who not so long ago told off a pair of religious fanatics at his doorstep).

Maybe I should start from the beginning.

I try not to generalize if I can avoid it, but Kung Fu practicioners, as a general rule, like to break things; chopsticks, beer bottles, beer cans, rocks, soup spoons, you name it.

We like to break 'em with our bare hands, and it's not a matter of showing off, either. These often seem like parlor tricks (the beer-bottle break, in particular is something of a hoot at drinking parties, 'cause it looks really cool), but there's some genuine value to these breaks. Each one cultivates a certain type of movement, and requires a certain manipulation of ging.

So, after a couple of glasses of cognac (my SiFu likes cognac), the members of the school who were there started breaking things.

We started with the chopstick breaks, which are, believe it or not, a lot harder than they sound. The secret is to break the chopstick(s) without actually hitting anything. You hold them in your hand, and throw a punch with the hand holding the chopsticks into empty space, and the force of your punch breaks the chopsticks.

Like I said: a lot harder than it sounds.

So, after a bit, one of the elder students hands me a pair of chopsticks, and tells me in no uncertain terms: "SiFu says 'break.'"

"I've never broken two before," I told him, "on a good day, I can do one."

"You're thinking too hard," he tells me, "just do it."

Next thing I know, I'm holding two broken chopsticks in my hand.

This was to be the first of four tasks I would complete that night that I had never done before.

So we moved on a bit. Same senior student hands me a beer can. I didn't even know what to do with a beer can, much less how to do it.

He saw my confusion and said, "twist the can in half without letting go of the can."

"I have no clue how to do this."

"You don't have to. Just do it."

Two minutes later, I'm holding two halves of a beer can in my hands, and I'm wondering how the hell I managed to do that. And notwithstanding the small cuts I had in my fingertips from the sharp edges of the can, I was relatively unscathed.

Task number two.

About twenty minutes later, same senior student hands me a beer bottle. "SiFu says 'break,'" he tells me again.

This one, I'd seen people do, but I'd never even thought of doing it before that moment. It's a focused strike at the mouth of a beer bottle which, if done properly, causes the bottom of the bottle (and only the bottom) to break.

If done improperly, you end up with a handful of broken glass.

Here, I'm getting a little apprehensive, since I'm actually doing something where there's a small element of risk involved.

But, two minutes later, I'm looking through the mouth of a beer bottle whose bottom has been almost surgically excised. And I say that with no vanity involved. More shock, really.

Three down.

So, finally (after another glass of cognac), the senior student hands me a spoon.

So, just to recap, my list of casualties thus far is; two chopsticks, a beer can, two beer bottles (I did it again, just to convince myself that the first time wasn't a fluke), and now, they're handing me a spoon.

I'd never broken a spoon before. When I pointed this out to the senior student, he (quite rightly) observed that in the last couple of hours, I'd done no fewer than three things that I'd never done before.

I had to admit that he had a point.

So I hold the spoon in my left hand, and prepare to strike it with the edge of my right.

The senior student stopped me and shook his head. "One finger. Doing it with the whole hand is too easy."

I chose this moment to (respectfully) inform him that he had to be f*cking kidding.

Then he said something that I didn't quite understand the meaning of until last night: "if you don't hit it hard enough to break it, you're going to hurt yourself. If you don't know with every fiber of your being that that spoon is going to break, it won't, and all you'll have to show for it is a bruised finger."

So, I hit the spoon with the index finger of my right hand, I hear a loud snap and in my left hand, I'm suddenly holding a much shorter, significantly less useful spoon.

So, the next day, I'm looking at the ex spoon sitting on my desk, and asking myself how, exactly, I did all this stuff.

My first thought: it's a fluke, obviously. I got lucky.

So, I gather together a few beer bottles, I go to Chinatown and buy myself a few spoons (I didn't have the heart to tell the guy running the store what was going to happen to these spoons as he very carefully wrapped them in newspaper so that they wouldn't break) and some chopsticks, and I set about reproducing each event.

Two chopsticks, two beer bottles, and a soup spoon later, I'm about to stretch the number of broken soup spoons from two to three.

And I pulled back just a fraction. On a break I'd done twice before, I hesitated just a tiny bit.

And it hurt like a sonuvabitch.

Suffice it to say that the spoon, rather arrogantly, refused to break.

The point, which I admit that I was rather verbose getting to, is that the bruise now adorning my right index finger is not the result of the two spoons which I hit hard enough to break, it's the result of the one spoon I hit too softly. The one spoon I didn't put everything I had into hurt me more than the two I hit as hard as I could.

Now, I think there's a life lesson here. Not just about the breaking of ceramic spoons (which, while that would also be a life lesson, I think is probably one of the most useless life lessons in the history of mankind), but about life in general.

Approach life with everything that you've got, or what's the point?

Fun with Fanaticism

So, I'm at home after work, and I'm tired. I'm just about to start making dinner, when there's a knock at my door. I open it.

On the opposite side of said door stands a young woman in her mid-to-late 30's, blonde hair, wearing a long, dark trenchcoat; along with a young man in roughtly the same age bracket. He was wearing a toque, so I don't know what colour his hair was. They were both standing there looking awfully self-righteous, and I immediately thought: "aw, crap. Not again."

"Excuse me, sir, we were wondering if we could borrow a few minutes of your time."

"That depends; how are you planning on giving them back?"

"Pardon?"

"Never mind. What can I do for you?" I replied, deciding on the spot that these people had had their senses of humor amputated.

Which meant that I could have a lot of fun with them.

"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dover Pennsylvania School Board has made Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum as an alternative evolutionary theory."

I wasn't actually aware of it, but I chose not to interrupt him.

"We were wondering," he continued, "if you would support a motion to make similar changes to Calgary's public school curriculum."

"Well, public schools do not generally have religion classes," I pointed out.

"No, we would like to include it in the science curriculum."

"Really?"

"Absolutely, sir. Evolution is a theory (and you could actually hear him stress the word) whose time has passed. It is time to consider alternatives." The man told me.

I glanced down at my watch. I decided that I could spare a few minutes, so I said: "I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with that theory. Could you please explain the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"

"Intelligent Design suggests that as opposed to a Big Bang..."

"Wait a minute," I held up my hand, "back up a bit. I thought you were talking about Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. Why are you discussing the Big Bang?"

"Well, Evolutionary theory (and yes, he stressed it again) states that the universe began with the Big Bang and..."

"No it doesn't."

"Excuse me?"

"Evolution is a biological concept; the idea that we developed and became more complex organisms over a process of mutation and propagation of beneficial genes. The Big Bang is a cosmological concept; the idea that all energy of the universe once occupied a single point in space. Two very different concepts. So, are you suggesting that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Evolution, or an alternative to the Big Bang?"

"Both."

"I don't understand. You just said that you wanted to teach it in the science curriculum as an alternative to Evolution. Since I have never read any textbook on evolution which claims to have all the steps between the Big Bang and an Otter, I think it's somewhat silly to be talking about the Big Bang in terms of Evolution."

"But sir, don't you think that students should..."

"Tell you what, how about we start in an area where Evolution actually does make some claims: say, the first appearance of life on earth."

He seemed a little flustered now, and I couldn't help but note that the blonde hadn't spoken since she asked if she could borrow a few minutes of my time, she was just standing there looking pious. "Well, Intelligent Design theory suggests that a supreme being (for some reason, throughout this conversation, he avoided actually mentioning God) created all life on earth approximately 6000 years ago and that life has been unchanged since that time."

"Okay, explain the scientific approach you used to develop this theory," I told him, "start with your falsifiable hypothesis, and move on from there."

"Well, we merely suggested an alternative explanation to the existing data..."

"Oh, so what predictions does Intelligent Design make about future observations?"

"Excuse me?"

"Well, the whole point of a scientific theory is to make reasonable and evidence-supported predictions about what we will observe in the future. That's what makes science a continuous process. Each question we answer raises more questions. So what unanswered questions does Intelligent Design leave?"

"None. It's a complete system which explains everything."

"Then it's not a scientific theory."

"What?"

"The whole point of a scientific theory is that it doesn't have all the answers; it's a jumping off point for people to add to or modify that theory. As such, the theory of evolution has been tested quite possibly more than any theory in scientific history."

"Well the Intelligent Design theory (and notably, he didn't stress the word this time) doesn't have that problem."

I shrugged, "it's not a problem. This is how science is done. We make observations about the world around us, we provide an hypothesis which explains those observations, then we perform experiments to determine if our hypothesis is supported by further data. So, by your own admission, you don't have a scientific theory here; the absolute best that you can claim is that you have a hypothesis, and considering that it requires the action of a Supreme Being, it may well not be falsifiable; and even if it *were* falsifiable, you wouldn't allow it to be falsified. So, I'll tell you what, when you have a falsifiable hypothesis, and you have performed some kind of experimentation which supports that hypothesis, then I'll most definitely support a motion to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science class. Until then, I'm sorry, but no. If you want to have it taught in some kind of comparative religion class, on the other hand, that's a different matter."

"But sir," he held up a hand before I closed the door, "do you really want our children to be taught as fact that we descended from monkeys?"

"Apes."

"Pardon?"

"Apes. We descended from apes, not monkeys; and if you're going to lecture people on biology, you should at the very least know that distinction." (just for the record, yes, I am aware that the claim not that we descend from Apes, but rather from an Ape-like common ancestor, but I figured, judging by the level of scientific knowledge they'd demonstrated, that distinction would likely be lost on them)

"But my point stands, sir. Do you want our children to learn that we descended from apes?"

"You prefer the idea that we descended from dirt?" I shrugged.

"Excuse me?"

"So in addition to an ignorance of the scientific process, biology, and the theory of Evolution, you also lack an understanding of the book of Genesis; the very documentation you're proposing as an alternative?"

"But sir..."

"Thank you for your time. I'm hungry and I need to make dinner." I closed the door.
I stood there for a few minutes to see if they would knock again. They didn't.
I don't know if this was an actual serious motion on their part, or if they were just sending out feelers to see what public opinion was; but I tell you, I was in the absolute best mood for the rest of the evening.

Hoppin' around in a lion suit.

We're learning Lion Dancing right now.

And when I tell people about it, you'd be surprised how many people confuse it with "Line Dancing." The looks on their faces are really quite classic. It's as if they expect me to suddenly sprout giant shitkickers and a belt buckle the size of a dinner plate.

But I digress.

Actually, all told, I'm quite happy with the way things have gone so far. I'm learning more than I ever thought possible in Kung Fu. I'm becoming a half-decent dancer. Quite impressive, considering that I currently buy my shoes in left pairs.

And, of course, having to stare at a young woman's butt for the duration of the dance is not exactly something that I find problematic.

All in all, I'm quite happy with the way things are turning out.

I'm really wracking my brain to see if I can remember the last time that my life was this good, and to be honest, I can't. Everything seems pretty much perfect for me right now. My career is starting to take off, my life is in some kind of order, I'm happy, I'm healthy...

April and I will be hiking the West Coast trail in August; just after we hit the two-year mark. My dad says that may make or break the relationship. Frankly, I don't think that it's something we really need to worry about. Seven days, 75 km. We've hiked trails that had roughly the same "miles per day" factor, and were much more strenuous. A friend of ours said that "if you can hike Three Isle Lake, then the West Coast Trail should be no problem." Three Isle was the first trail April and I ever hiked.

Suffice it to say that it's going to be something of an adventure; and I, for one, am really looking forward to it.

We're going to do a lot of weekender hikes this coming summer, once all the snow melts and we can get our butts out of town. I want to hit Three Isle again, just so that we can both see how much easier that trail is now than it was for us when we were just starting. I'd also like to hit Turbine Canyon. That's a little more grueling, but I think that we can manage that one pretty easily.

And April's a good hiking partner to have. I tell ya, that girl is tough with a capital "T." With all the things that went wrong on our first jaunt, I was shocked to find out that she wanted to go out and do it again, but go out we did, and we slowly escalated the level of difficulty until we were hiking Yoho at the end of the summer. Next summer's climax, methinks, is going to be the West Coast Trail.

The only problem is: what the hell are we going to do to top that!?

Rant: What the hell is happening to my country!?

I'm was born straddling the border. My mother is an American, my father is Canadian. That makes me a man with two countries, and I'm proud of both of them.

Or more accurately, I'm proud of what they're supposed to represent. America is a country based on the principle that one's freedoms should extend to the limits of encroaching upon the freedoms of others.

Now we have a president who came into office with the appearance of a (admittedly, bible-thumping) moderate conservative; and in the last year, proposed an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage. Had it passed, it would have been the second amendment to the American Constitution in history designed specifically to limit the freedoms of its citizens (the first one was prohibition, which doesn't exactly set the best precedent). Over the last four years, his politics have shifted so far to the right that the country I love dearly is in serious danger of becoming a theocracy.

And now, he's just won re-election.

Think about that for a second: a man who has done more damage to the United States of America's economy, its international relations, and frankly, the way the country is viewed by the rest of the world, has just been re-elected.

And now, the American public has seen it fit to put him in a position where he can rewrite the bill of rights.

Make no mistake people, the Supreme court was on the ballot in this election. As many as three supreme court justices may step down from their positions in the next four years; in which case it falls to Bush to replace them. That's three justices out of nine; and two of the existing supreme court justices are already deep into the right end of the political spectrum: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and they're not the ones who are expected to die. Bush has stated that these two are his personal favorite justices, and so far the appointments he has made to lower courts support this assertion. To describe them as conservative is severely understating the matter. They have both, on repeated occasions, cast aside the very principles on which this country is supposed to be founded; separation of Church and State, the rights of the individual, constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and personal liberties; to make a ruling in accordance with their own ideals.

If it were up to them, the rights of minorities, homosexuals and the poor will be considerably hindered. They dissented when Texas' Anti-Gay laws were struck down in a case last year and they sided with the Police who had arrested a man for "homosexual activity" in his own home. They argued that a state courthouse was not required to act in accordance with the disabilites act and provide a wheelchair-accessible courtroom. They have argued that the separation of church and state need not apply to the individual states. They argued that the severe beating of a Louisiana inmate did not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." They have argued, repeatedly, for the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

And these, ladies and gentlemen, are Bush's favorite Supreme Court Justices.

Now imagine that instead of a mere two supreme court justices with such extreme conservative views (which, while annoying, is not of serious concern as long as we have the other seven balancing them out), we now have five. Enough to tip the majority of the supreme court towards the far right end of the political spectrum. Imagine, for a moment that the extreme views of Thomas and Scalia became the norm; that the ultraconservative views they held became the measure of law in America. Abortion would become illegal overnight. Homosexuals, or for that matter, unmarried heterosexuals could be arrested for having sex in their homes. Separation of Church and State would become a thing of the past. Prison guards could brutalize their inmates.

I was watching an interview the other day, clearly at one of the lineups to a polling station, where they asked a young woman standing in line who she was going to vote for. She said that she was going to vote for Bush. Fine, that's her perogative. Then they asked her why. Her answer, "because I believe that the Lord wants him to be president."

You believe that the Lord wants him to be president? Well, fine, let the Lord vote for him. America is a country founded on the principle that faith and government are separate entities. Religion should have no place in the running of government, and vice versa. America is a lot of things, but the one thing it is not is a theocracy, and even that may well not apply for long.

This may be seen as a somewhat paranoid rambling, but consider this: eleven states voted to ban gay marriage in this election. Eleven states managed to put it on their respective ballots in a country where the measure of law is supposed to be the separation of Church and State. Let's face it; there is no secular reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. If you don't want your church to marry homosexuals, fine, talk to your Church, not the lawmakers, 'cause for America to be America, they shouldn't be listening.

We're now facing an America where the laws will no longer be made by the courts, or the lawmakers. We're facing an America where the laws are being made by the Church; which is exactly what America is not supposed to represent.

What may trounce Bush this election.

My father brought up a point that I han't really considered until last night.

The polls, which show the two candidates in a dead heat at the moment, may not only be slightly incorrect, they may be downright wrong.

There are a few major factors that nobody seems to have considered: 1) polls are notorious for ignoring people aged 18-30. 2) Record numbers of 18-20-year olds are registering to vote in this election. 3) If Bush gets elected, we're going to face the very real possibility of having a draft by the time the year's out. 4) All men between the ages of 18-30 are those who face the possibility of being drafted. 5) Very few men between the ages of 18-30 want to get drafted.

In short, for the first time ever, the youth of America may have a decisive voice in this election.

Of course, you gotta feel sorry for Kerry. Even if he gets elected (which is seeming more and more plausible by the minute), his entire first term is going to be spent un-screwing up the country.

Another factor: a sizeable portion of the young population of the US watches John Stewart.

And they vote.

One hurdle down

I've survived the written. I turned it in this morning, for better or worse. So that's done. Now, I'm going to take 48 hours to recover from the written, then start hittin' the books for the oral.

Ten more days...... ten more days......

Whoever came up with the idea of a candidacy exam deserves to be thrown into the street and shot. I mean, I understand why they do it, but God, it's a pain in the ass.

All this so that I can get a few new letters after my name.

The things we do for academia.....

Neat stuff.

The universe has just become something of an interesting place over the last few days.

I'm now completing my candidacy exam; the written part anyway. I'm really, really, really looking forward to having that done; in part because I've seen practically nothing of April for the last month. I've seen more of my profs than I have of her. Doesn't that suck? At any rate, this'll all be over soon. I hope. I really, just want this to end right now. I want it over with, I want to have this chapter behind me, so I can progress straight to PhD.

Bak Fu Pai is going really well. Amazingly well, actually. My SiFu has arranged for his best and brightest (and me) to train with a grandmaster who lives here in Calgary. It means we need to start learning a whole new style of Kung Fu, but quite apart from the fact that it's similar to the style we're learning now, just training with this man is quite an honour. Suffice it to say, when my SiFu speaks of someone with tha t level of reverence in his voice, it's time to stand up and take notice.

Anyhow, must get back to the salt mines. See y'all later.

Back, and still breathing

So, April and I hiked our way out of the back country on Monday night, none the worse for wear. We were a little wetter, a little stronger, and a lot closer. I guess that's what happens when you go hiking/camping with someone. You either wind up hating each other, or getting closer.

Actually, it was sorta sad, 'cause April and I both realized that this is likely to be one of our last jaunts out into the middle of nowhere for some time. I'm gonna miss these trips. However, next summer, we have a number of trips planned; culminating in a hike along the West Coast trail. That'll be really amazing. 75 km along the Island. I'm getting super-keen on this one.

Of course, I'll need to actually buy a backpack first. I've been using my big brother's, and I think he's starting to get annoyed with it, so I'm gonna use some of the money I put aside to buy one. Mountain Equipment CO-OP, here I come...

Back unto the wilderness.

So, April and I are again heading into the wild of beyond. We're going out to Yoho national park for a few days of hiking. That'll be much fun. We're going to hike past two rather spectacular waterfalls, not to mention a major glacier. We also may have substantial swim time; as Emerald lake is only a short jaunt from our campsite on the last day.

At any rate, I'm predicting that this will be much, much fun. April's looking forward to it, too.

I'm going steadily through my little checklist as I'm packing.

Map: check
tent: check
food: check
stove: check
cookware: check
clothes: check
GPS tracker: check
camera: check
First aid supplies: check
Bug spray: check
bowl to eat out of: check
cutlery: check
Hiking boots: check
swim trunks: check
Water bottle: check
Water filter: check
Sodium hypochlorite solution (yeah, I know, I'm getting a little paranoid about keeping the water I drink safe): check
spare batteries for GPS tracker: check

Fun stuff.

Entering the digital age

So I finally bit the bullet and bought myself a digital camera.

I've been resisting the switch to digital for as long as I felt I could. There's just something about dropping the paper into the solutions and watching an image magically float up from nothing. You lose that with digital.

But, sadly, I fear the days of polycarbonate film and enlargers are nearing an end, and are being replaced with high-resolution CCDs and high-quality printers. I guess that this is what they call "progress."

Sigh.

At the end of the day, it was my mom, who has been resisting the change to digital even longer than I have, who convinced me that I would be stupid not to go digital. It's simpler, its cheaper, you can get high-quality prints with far less effort than with old-fashioned film. A lot less painting with light, and a lot more fiddling with pixels.

And if this whole PhD. thing doesn't pan out, my little bother says I'm all ready to start a career in amateur porn.

Boiling a frog

We've all heard the metaphor of the boiled frog. You throw a frog into boiling water and it jumps right out, but if you put a frog into cool water, then slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there until it boils to death.

Okay, so I bring this up because it's coming to my attention that the US is in serious danger of turning into a theocracy. Granted, this won't affect me that much, because I don't actually live in the US. But I am an American. I'm proud to be American. I'm proud of my country and what it stands for, and I am, frankly, afraid of where this could go.

One of America's founding principles is the separation of church and state. The country exists on the principle that no person should be forced into a specific set of religious beliefs, and that the government should act free of any religious bias.

The fact is that this is less the case than it was five years ago.

There's been an increasing movement in the states to rewrite national policy based upon Religious docterine. It is one thing to have strong religious beliefs. I have nothing against people with religious beliefs. It's quite another to use those beliefs to dictate law and policy. This, I do take issue with.

Take our not-too-bright president, for example. When one is unseating a dictator in a primarily Islamic country (and for the moment, I don't really want to get into whether or not it was right or wrong to invade Iraq), and fighting a war on terrorism against a group of Islamic Fundamentalists who follow an extreme interpretation of the Koran, about the dumbest thing you can do is to claim that your actions are taken in the name of God. Thousands of Christians are killed every year by Islamic extremists, simply for being Christian. 9/11, the Holocaust, the Crusades... All justified, to some extent or another, as being in the name of a given deity. None of them turned out terribly well. To claim that your actions are "in the name of God" makes you no better than the people who perpetuated those atrocities.

Now, one of the issues that I personally feel very strongly about is gay marriage (which confuses some people who have very strong fundamentalist beliefs, since I'm not gay); I'm completely in favor of it.... at least until someone can give me a non-religiously grounded reason why I should be against it. Nobody has yet; and I can think of no reason, either philosophically, scientifically, or legally why the right to marry should be denied to homosexual couples. Even the Religious arguments against it are based upon very questionable translations and interpretations of the Bible. Yet, in a country where the Church and State are supposed to be completely separate entities, a motion was successfully proposed (and, thank God, struck down) to define marriage according to biblical statutes. However, I don't think it's going to end that easily. I think that we're likely to hear a lot more about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It should be noted that the last person attempting to protect the sanctity of marriage by constitutional amendment was Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. I'm not going to give any links here, I'm just going to leave it to you to look him up. Suffice it to say that anti-gay-marriage activists seem convinced that this time, it's somehow different.

There have also been quite a few cases in the courts in the past years (some of which have made it as far as the US Supreme Court) to force science classes in public schools to teach what has been (rather unscrupulously) called "creation science," and to present the arguments against evolution (none of these motions suggest presenting the arguments against creation "science;" apparently that would be too even-handed). All of these motions have been struck down, so far, on the grounds that "creation science" has no scientific basis whatsoever. The proponents of creation "science" have made a big deal about the fact that the scientists themselves say that Evolution is just a theory. While true, this ignores two other facts: 1) Gravity is also a theory, but nobody's gluing their feet to the floor and 2) creation "science" doesn't even have a scientific theory; for that matter, it doesn't even have a falsifiable hypothesis; all it has is the assumption that the Bible is literally true. I'm reminded of a scientist by the name of Gallileo who came up with the outlandish suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the universe...

Ladies and gentlemen, the water's boiling. I just hope that we, the frogs, have the wisdom to move it off the stove.

My own Private Hell.

Paul Martin
Circle I Limbo

Creationists, PETA Members
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

Whoever invented the term "Hanging Chad"
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Physicists
Circle IV Rolling Weights

George Bush
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

The Executive Producers of "The Swan", Religious Fundamentalists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Militant Vegans
Circle VII Burning Sands

People who talk during movies, People who interrupt me when I'm talking during movies
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Nazis, The Executive Producers of "Temptation Island"
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

 
What can I say, I couldn't resist.

Whew. That was a close one.

With the recent striking down of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the US senate, I must confess that some measure of my faith in the democratic process has been restored. Had it passed, I would have officially have lost all of it.

Now, again, I'm neither gay, nor married; so I speak to some degree from ignorance here, but I had a chat today with a (married) friend of mine who had the following to say when I asked him whether he felt that allowing homosexuals to marry devalued his marriage:

Marriage is about love. People form lifelong bonds because of love. Our society's fear comes from connecting sex to that. Some people have dogs, and love them, never have sex with them, but they provide companionship for their whole lives and never get married... but how is that different than companionship? The real thought process for me was this; it is a right of people to get married if they love each other. The church says you cannot do that, thus ignoring that the basis for marriage is lifelong partnership, usually solidified by love. Now, I can see how the church wants to maintain that it is the authoritative body on marriage, and I can even respect that from a "we were here first" standpoint - that argument, believe it or not, works for me.

He went on to say:

But marriage is now both a religious (NOT spiritual) status and a legal status. Unless the church wants to run the entire legal system (god, or whatever, help us!) they have to share that marriage is also a legal, secular attribute and therefore can be given to homosexuals. Now, if our legal institutions want to deny people of that ability, we might as well tell blacks to get back in our ktichens and make us food. All in all, I don't feel threatened at all by gay marriage, I think it would be great if ANY couple could be as happy, fulfilled and comitted as I (we) am (are).

My response: Amen, Brother

Seriously, he'd basically said (far more eloquently, it pains me to admit, than I could) exactly what I'd been trying to say for a very, very long time. What seems to have been lost in this whole issue is that at the end of the day marriage is about love, period. What we (and by "we," I mean everyone) need to realize is that love comes in all shapes and sizes. Parent-child, man-woman, I-mankind, and yes, man-man and woman-woman.

Love is about being a part of something greater than one's self. I attended a sermon on a Valentine's day a while back, wherein the preacher said something that has resonated with me for a long time (and considering the fact that I'm not religious, that's saying quite a bit). She said: "Look upon those you love in wonder, for you are looking at the face of God." Regardless of whether you happen to believe in God, isn't that really what we're all looking for? Gay, straight, whatever. I think we're all looking to be a part of something greater than ourselves. If someone happens to find that in the face of someone of the same gender, what right does the government, the church, or anyone, really, have to deny it to them?

Idle musings of a skilled salt-miner.

I wrote to my boss this morning and told him I wanted to take August off. We're going to be publishing before too long, and with a little luck, we're going to have it accepted in short order. I'm not terribly worried about that.

Then I need to focus my concentration on surviving my candidacy exam.

Joy.

Post Mortem

So, now that the rush from this weekend's activities has worn off, I spent today figuring out what I needed for the next trip. For the most part, we were ready, but we were carrying a lot more weight than we really needed to, and April ran into some trouble, namely that she was wearing the wrong socks. She should have been wearing woolies. That was my fault, really. I didn't make it as clear as I probably should have that socks are really important for something like this.

So, for next time, we'll lighten the load a little.

1. I bought a water filter. On sale at MEC, it didn't cost too much. It means that we'll need to carry less water on our backs, and less fuel to boil what water we do obtain from the river. Since water alone was the single heaviest and bulkiest thing we carried, it would have been nice not to have to carry as much of it.

2. I bought a smaller flashlight. I mean, really. The flashlights we had were fricking huge. They also weighed a bloody ton. I invested a few bucks and bought a much smaller one.

Everything else was good, I have to admit. Nothing went horribly wrong, in spite of all the things that could have. We had bad weather, but we made it through it. And April right now has more confidence in herself than she has in all the time I've known her. All in all, I'd say that this qualifies nicely as a very, very successful trip, and I'm really looking forward to the next one.

I spoke to April this morning. She's in good shape, but still a bit sore. But she's rather excited about the fact that she's accomplished more in the last few days than she thought she was capable of. She's also looking forward to our next little jaunt; planned for the weekend of the 30th-1st of August. We're gonna take this one a little easier. Less hiking, more camping.

A mountain tried to kick my ass. How was your weekend?

There are many, I'm certain, who would argue that dragging one's girlfriend out into the middle of nowhere on a 13.6 km torture-test up the side of a mountain carrying roughly one third her own weight on her back is an act which is ill-conceived to strengthen the relationship. And, admittedly, there probably is some validity to that viewpoint.

April and I decided, since bear activity was at a minimum, the weather was nice, and we had a weekend free, to hit the Kananaskis lakes. The minor catch at the outset was that this wasn't just a matter of pulling the car into the campsite, dragging the tent out of the trunk, setting it up, and calling it camping. I mean, seriously, every once in a while, I see these advertisements on TV for various technological nicknacks that you can buy at Canadian Tire. One of these portrays a couple in the middle of nowhere, watching a DVD in a TV mounted in the back of their car. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if that sorta misses the whole point. If you're bringing all the luxuries of home with you when you go out, what's the point in leaving home in the first place?

But I digress. This was not that kind of camping. Nope. This was the down-and-dirty, sleep-on-the-ground, carry-what-you-can-on-your-back, true-middle-of-nowhere backcountry camping.

The campsite we (or, more accurately, I) chose was Three Isle Lake. The distance from our starting point to the campsite is approximately 13.6 km. I'd done this as one of my first-ever backpacking trips, and thought that it would be a nice, easy trail for April's first time out.

Dumb, droo. Really, really dumb.

Nine of those 13.6 kilometers were relatively uneventful, if you ignore the fact that I inexplicably (but perhaps appropriately) had the song "I'm gonna be (500 miles)" by the Proclaimers stuck in my head just about all the way up to Forks campground. We hiked along the coast of the lake (quite possibly one of the most beautiful places in Alberta), then pushed deep into the woods. We made good time; arriving at Forks campground (a distance just shy of 10 km) in just over three hours. The campsite gets its name from the fact that two major trails branch off from there. One heads north to Turbine canyon (a trip that I would like to do sometime in the future), the other heads west to Three Isle Lake, a distance of roughly 4 km.

We started west, and this is about where everything started to go wrong all at once.

First, we got lost. Well, not lost lost. We just lost the trail for a bit. We were just very suddenly surrounded on all sides by woods and we had no marked trial in sight. It was only because April played a hunch that we managed to bush-whack our way back onto the trail. On our way back down, I found the place where I took a wrong turn, and I can't say I really blame me. The route I took looked a lot more like an actual trail than the actual trail did.

We got back to the trail (which, incidentally, was a lot easier to walk along than the route we were taking) and began what we knew to be the final push to our campsite.

I mentioned earlier that the distance from the Forks to Three Isle Lake is roughly 4 km. What I'd forgotten since the last time I'd hiked this trail (or repressed, depending on which explanation you find to be more believable) was the fact that one of those kilometers is measured vertically. As luck would have it, it would be the last one. The trail winds through the woods at the bottom of the valley, then climbs straight up the face of Mt. Putnik.

And when I say "straight up" I mean it. I've seen walls which stood less vertical than this. April and I found ourselves switch-backing endlessly up this mountain; pushing for a campsite that we knew had to be just around the next bend (but never was; in fact the "next bend" almost invariably revealed three more "next bends"). It was a little unnerving, too, since the trail, in some places, is just over a foot wide, and it's an awful long way down if you fall in the wrong direction. But we kept pushing, steadily upwards, carrying about 50 lbs on our backs; which doesn't sound like much, but believe me, it's a lot.

Murphy's law stepped in at this point, and it started raining. Hard. I wasn't terribly worried about this, since the forecast had predicted between 5 and 10 mm of rain, and I figured, since we'd had practically no precipitation up to that point, that this was it.

The forecast, however, didn't say a damned thing about hail.

As it started pelting down on us, we literally ran up the trail to a point where it widened (but not much), took off our packs and hunkered down in an attempt to wait it out. We spent a good ten minutes perched (quite precariously, in fact) on the side of a mountain, as we could see ice piling up all over us, and all over the trail around us.

For future reference, granite gets really fricking slippery when it's wet, and I've already mentioned how narrow the trail was.

At this point, I feel I should digress for a moment to make a brief comment on my hiking partner on this particular expedition. Now, granted, I can't be considered impartial on this matter, and therefore anything I say here has to be taken with a substantial grain of salt. But consider the fact that April had never done anything like this before. Here, we were in about as unpleasent a situation as I'd ever been in during the summer, and never once in all the time we were out there, did I hear her even suggest that we turn back. Which was good because, frankly, turning back was not an option. As tough as it was climbing up on wet, slippery granite, it would have been ten times as hard trying to climb back down on it. She managed to push herself along a really tough trail; a trail that I had trouble with (and I've got a lot more experience with this kind of thing than she does) and she never once suggested that we stop or turn back. That, people, is no small accomplishment.

The total distance traveled on saturday was 13.6 km. The first 12.6, we covered in just over four hours. The last one took us five. But we made it; and I've gotta say, that was a pretty incredible feeling.

The tent was set up without any trouble whatsoever. In five minutes, we went from having about a hundred square feet of real-estate to having a house built on it. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it was rather nice to see this home away from home take form.

Cooking in the middle of nowhere is actually a lot easier than it sounds. Largely because after hiking for the vast majority of the day, you could very likely serve up a steaming plate of cow manure and be left with very clean plates by the end of the meal. Dinner consisted of a nice Chicken-noodle soup, served with an apple and a cup of coffee. Okay, it's not exactly gourmet dining, I admit, but it disappeared awfully fast. Obnoxiously fast, I'd say; considering that I made enough soup to serve four, and we polished it off between the two of us. The coffee was, in a word, horrible, so I don't think that's something we'll be attempting to serve on future trips.

While I was busy cooking, April took it upon herself to cosy up the tent. By the time the food was done cooking, the sleeping bags were rolled out, and the packs had been tucked nicely to the side. Dinner was served and vanished, and the two of us crawled into our sleeping bags for what I hoped would be a pleasent, uneventful night's sleep.

Didn't quite pan out that way.

April shook me awake sometime during the night. She heard something moving around outside and it sounded pretty big. I'm not sure what, exactly, it was, but we'd seen a couple of fricking huge porcupines just before we'd turned in for the night and I think it may have been one of them. I think (s)he had allergies, too. (S)He kept sneezing. April thought she heard something growling, too; but it turns out that that was just someone in one of the nearby tents snoring.

Around midnight, the skies opened up. Again. No hail this time; or at least I don't think so. As hard as it was coming down, I wasn't exactly keen on stepping outside to find out. We stayed pretty dry huddled in our little tent, but we found that it was nearly impossible to sleep with rain pounding against it, so we stayed up talking until the rain died down to a faint sprinkle (that took the better part of two hours). Then we rolled over and went back to sleep.

Breakfast the next morning consisted of hot oatmeal. After the culinary disaster that had been the coffee from the previous night, we decided (sensibly, in my opinion) to forgo it that morning. I, again, did the cooking while April packed up the sleeping bags. There were some nice, low clouds hanging around the mountains that looked really pretty, actually, but as much as we would have liked to dwell for a while, it was time for us to go.

Our trip down the mountain was a lot less stressful than the trip up. No hail, to begin with. The trail was still a little wet, but it wasn't too bad; and we had an absolutely beautiful view of the valley as we descended into it. Whenever I do something like this, there's always a point when I'm asking myself why the hell I put myself through all this; voluntarily, no less. I end up tired, sore, cranky, my feet hurt my shoulders and back ache for days afterwards, my legs feel like Jello(tm).... So, inevitably, I end up asking myself what's the point. Then you come around a corner and see a view like we saw that morning and the one thought that goes through my mind is: "oh yeah, that's why." It's my belief that if you want proof of the existence of God (regardless of whether or not you personally happen to believe in him or her), that's where you look.

The trip down was a lot shorter, too. We spent five hours climbing up this mountain to reach the lake, it took us less than an hour to descend. From there, the trip back to the car was, both literally and figuratively, a walk in the park.

Right now, I'm still exhausted (in spite of the fact that I slept really well last night), I'm finding it hard to find any body parts that don't hurt like a sonuvabitch. Just about every muscle I have is aching right now. But in a weird, sado-massochistic sort of way, I haven't felt this good in a long, long time.

And yes, before anybody asks, April is still talking to me, and plans are already in the works for our next crazy excursion into the backcountry. Hopefully with a little less hail next time.

Simple solutions

My dad and I got into a bit of a discussion on the whole "Sanctity of Marriage" issue. Since we both think generally in the same way, it can't really be described as a debate, but it was a discussion on the subject matter.

My dad actually came up with a remarkably simple solution which, I think, would basically sweep away any arguments that would come up.

The solution is twofold:

1) make Marriage an institution which is specifically religious. And give them the power to marry whoever they feel they should, and to restrict it as they see fit.

2) begin another institution which has a different name (it doesn't really matter what you call it, as long as you call it something other than "marriage"), and which will be the legal and social equivalent of marriage. This institution will apply to all "marriages" not performed by a religious institution whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex unions, and will be unrestricted on those terms. Religious institutions will have no power over this type of union.

When you think about it, this solution makes a lot of sense:

1) it makes the people who are ranting about the "sanctity of marriage" happy because any homosexuals who "marry" won't have something which is called a marriage. It'll be the exact equivalent of a marriage, and will likely be referred to as a marriage in casual conversation, but it'll technically be something different.

2) it makes any homosexuals who wish to marry happy because they will have the exact same legal rights as a heterosexual who wishes to enter into a non-religiously based union.

3) it makes the churches happy because they have the power to refuse to marry two people on whatever grounds they see fit. If they say they're only going to allow opposite-sex marriages; fine. If they say that they'll also allow same-sex marriages; also fine. If they decide that they're not going to marry people with blond hair, so be it. It's up to them; but they only have this power over unions that are performed within their church.

The only downside to this plan arises if a same-sex couple absolutely wants a religious union. The majority of churches will likely refuse to perform such unions, at least for now. But that's likely to change, eventually, as the various faiths begin to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.

Hmmm. Maybe I should write this up and send it off to the PM...

Short-lived weaning

I have been attempting, for the last month, to cut back on my caffeine intake.

I did that whole thing where you buy a bag of normal coffee and a bag of decaf and bit by bit, you replace some of the coffee grounds in your coffee maker with decaf. I guess the idea is that your body doesn't know the difference between coffee and decaf at 6:00 in the morning.

It was working, too. I was down to about 1/4 normal coffee and 3/4 decaf.

Then I made the mistake of staying up working untl 3:00 this morning.

At last count, I'd had four cups of coffee, and it's not even 8:30 yet.

So much for weaning off.

More things I don't get.

I did my weekly cleaning of my spam folder today and I found I had two messages from the same crazy fundamentalist Christian group. One of which was screaming about the evil of Homosexuality, the other which was screaming about the evil of abortion.

Then it occurred to me: is there another class of people on earth who has fewer abortions than Homosexuals?

Seriously, we have an entire class of people who are practically guaranteed never to have an abortion. You'd think that the two would make natural allies.

Before I go on here, I want to make absolutely clear that I have no issues whatsoever with the Christian faith, or any faith for that matter. However, I feel that an importand divisoin must exist between Religion and Government. There are, admittely, people in Canada who disagree with this assessment. I don't think that a book written thousands of years ago, which has been translated and retranslated countless times, and often with contradictory meanings, can necessarily tell us much about how to run a country today.

But narrowing it down significantly, it's my experience that the people who are truly fundamentalist, who can quote the bible with vehemence to condemn some heinous sin, and who insist that every passage in the bible must be interpreted literally, show a remarkable ignorance of what the bible actually says.

For example, it's a commonplace occurrence for people to demonstrate at various Gay Pride rallies about how much "God hates fags." When was the last time you saw people demonstrating in front of a Red Lobster proclaiming that God Hates Shrimp?

Don't get me wrong, the bible has a number of very valuable lessons to teach, but it is not, and should not be seen as the final word on any given subject. If you're going to condemn someone based entirely on a biblical passage, then you should endorse the selling of one's daughter into slavery, or lighten punishment for rape, or condemn the eating of shrimp. There are a number of passages in the bible which are either horribly violent, blatantly racist, or borderline pornographic. Not a lot of people know about those passages of the bible, however. If you're going to condemn a group of people based upon the Bible, you should have a good understanding of what the bible actually says.

Okay, down off the soapbox...

Federal Election

Well, Canada's within a few days of a federal election. Again.

I, as a general rule, try to keep my ass out of politics. I'm a scientist, not a politician. I have some opinions on the matter, and I like to think that I can contribute meaningfully to a conversation about politics when the occasion arises, but in terms of actually playing a role in the process, I tend to butt out.

There is, however, something about the Canadian election process about which I was unaware prior to this election (in part because it wasn't really a possibility in any election in my lifetime), namely that it's possible for the party in power to remain the party in power, even if they have fewer seats in parliament than another party.

For the last ten years, the Liberal party in Canada has held a majority parliament (for the yankees out there, that means that the Liberal party has had more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons). Now, the idea of a majority parliament is something I object to on principle. I feel that it gives too much power to one specific group of people. Suffice it to say that in a minority parliament (where no one party has more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons), the parties are forced to compromise. No one group can overrule the others, so on any bill they have to find a middle ground; something that all parties and all viewpoints agree on, or at least agree on enough to pass the bill. The problem I have with the electoral process is what happens when the Canadian citizens elect a minority government.

At that point, the serving governor general gets to decide who will serve as the party in power, even if that party has fewer seats in the house than another party.

There are two things I find rather disturbing about this.

1) The party in power does not have to have the support of the majority of Canadian citizens, or even the support of more Canadian citizens than another party. They can become the party in power even if they have the support of fewer Canadian citizens than another party. This strikes me as fundamentally undemocratic.

2) This means that the system is geared to favor a majority parliament, which I've already mentioned I object to on principle.

Either way, the next few days should be interesting.

Duct Tape, wonderful stuff...

Okay, this is actually pretty cool.

A while ago, in a fit of boredom (and motivated, to some degree, because my wallet was on its last legs), I sat down with a roll of duct tape and constructed a wallet made entirely out of the amazing silver stuff. So far, it's lasted far longer, and held up far better than my old wallet. I'm gonna have to make a new one soon, not because this one isn't doing well, but because there are a few things that could be added to it, and it would actually be easier just to make a new one than to try to add to this one.

Now we've got these kids going to their high school prom in tuxes and dresses made completely out of Duct Tape. Apart from the fact that sitting down might prove a little on the difficult side, I have to admit that that is supremely cool. Makes me wish that I had a talent like that.

Signs that the world is going to hell

10. Three words: "President George Bush"

9. Three words: "Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger"

8. Clinton gets nailed (so to speak) on an issue which is really nobody's business but his own, and his presidency almost explodes around him. Canada's prime minister mismanages (to be kind) public funds, and he's still in office.

7. Mad Cow disease causes a panic in two countries.

6. Two words: "Hanging Chad."

5. Approximately 29 million people cared enough to vote in the last "American Idol" final. That's roughly the population of Canada.

4. The capture of Saddam Hussein got infinitely more press in Canada than their new Prime Minister (appointed the same day).

3. The Matrix, Part II

2. The Matrix, Part III

1. Five Words: "Donald Trump, Reality TV star."

Things I don't get.

I really don't get it.

There's been a lot of press coverage both in Canada and in the US about Gay marriage. Some support it, some oppose it, and frankly, I can't see why anybody cares. I'm straight and single, so I'm arguing, to some degree, from ignorance here, but the advantage of a Blog is that I get to put my $0.02 without anybody having a damned thing to say about it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand (I think) both sides of the argument, but I really don't get how this is necessarily a bad thing. Three separate state supreme courts have ruled that there's no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, so what's the problem?

So, I did a little googling to find out.

1) Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

Relativist fallacy: If such a law were passed, heterosexuals would also be allowed to enter into same-sex marriages, if they chose to do so, therefore the right is not "special" by any definition of the term. What you don't seem to be grasping is the fact that homosexuals have no more desire to enter into an opposite-sex union than heterosexuals have to enter into a same-sex union.

2) It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.

a)Appeal to belief fallacy: what makes this truth "self-evident?" Homosexuality is commonplace in the animal kingdom. Some of our very close evolutionary ancestors engage in homosexual and lesbian liaisons. The location of the prostate gland in males; the location of the clitoris in females; from a purely biological perspective, it could be argued that we're built for liaisons with both sexes.
b) so what?

3) Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.

Appeal to Common Practice fallacy: The only justification you give here for homosexuality being "unnatural" is that they can't make babies. I'm not sure I like where you're going with this. Are heterosexual couples who choose never to have children equally horrible in your eyes? (oh, and point of fact, taping two same-sex electrical plugs together can result in the transmission of an electrical current. I've done it, and I'm not even a licenced electrician)

4) Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.

Appeal to belief fallacy: What if a clergyman is homosexual? The Anglican church just appointed its first openly gay bishop. Is this not an acknowledgement by the church (and presumably, in the eyes of God) that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle?

5) Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.

Appeal to belief fallacy: I hear this a lot, but nobody seems to be able to answer one simple question: Why?

6) Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.

Appeal to common practice fallacy: The only "procreation" heterosexuals who, either by choice, or for medical reasons cannot bear children can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship (sometimes a third and a fourth party must be brought into the relationship: a sperm donor and a surrogate). Are they also abominations? Do you assume that a homosexual couple isn't capable of showing the same love to a child that a heterosexual couple is?

7) Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.

Straw man fallacy: You're assuming that the reason for granting a marriage licence to homosexuals is because they engage in sex. That's ridiculous. Homosexuals have been engaging in sex forever without having a marriage licence, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that this has now become the driving reason for homosexuals to seek a marriage licence. Ideally, you're granting them a marriage licence because they care for each other, support each other, and would like to spend the rest of their lives together; basically the same reasons that we're supposed to grant marriage licences to heterosexual couples.

8) Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. For example:

If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too.

If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you?

If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters.

If government grants professional licenses to just anybody, every profession and qualified professional is devalued. The government says an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery.

Appeal to Belief Fallacy: that a homosexual marriage is "less valuable" than a heterosexual marriage. Nobody seems to be able to explain why.

9) The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.

Straw man fallacy: you have not established that this is the assumption made by homosexuals who wish to marry. Certainly sex is one possible reason for marriage, but it isn't the only one, or even a decisive one. Lots of people have sex these days without getting married. Considering that homosexuals have been having sex for, well, forever, I guess, without getting married, I'd have to say that it's probably unlikely that it's the driving reason behind their desire to get married.

10) The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.

Appeal to belief fallacy: Again, why? See, it's things like this that scare me somewhat. I'm not Gay; I'm not married, either; so whether we allow homosexuals to marry has, at the end of the day, no bearing whatsoever on me. But, I would like to get married some day, and I think I would sleep a lot better next to the spouse in question knowing that the right I enjoy has been granted to everyone; not just people like me. There was a time in the United States when African-Americans were not given the right to vote, could not use public washrooms, or had to use water fountains specifically for "colored" people (the term used at the time). Regardless of your personal beliefs, do you want to go back to that America?

Back in le swing de things

So I'm back. I had to step away from, well, just about everything for a few days, like a week. Partly because I was in a panic from having to present my thesis proposal to my committee last Tuesday.

Okay, entirely because I had to present my thesis proposal to my committee last Tuesday.

That, and I tested for my Red Sash on Monday (I passed, incidentally), and the thesis proposal that I had to present to my committee last Tuesday was not written.

And as if all that wasn't enough, I managed to pick up a nasty Flu bug somewhere last weekend, so when I went in to do my Red Sash test, I was feverish, sick, sore and blind (my eyes were aching too much to put contacts in, and Kung Fu in glasses just doesn't work all that well).

My committee meeting went remarkably well, considering that I spent the better part of it thinking to myself: I want to go home and go to bed, can't we just end this? It didn't quite happen that way, but all in all, it could have gone worse. I went home immediately after the meeting and, quite literally, slept from 2:30 pm on Tuesday afternoon to about 6:00 pm on Wednesday. Thursday, I was back in work, at least for a time. A cohort and I have started working on a rather impressive modeling project which'll be a pretty big publication, if we can get it to work. It looks as if we'll be able to, too. And we're learning a lot of really, really neat stuff.

Suffice it to say, I'm back up and running. Still not 100%, but a definite improvement over Tuesday.

Once more unto the breach

So I'm heading out of town for the weekend.

April and I decided that we'd do a little backpacking this weekend. It should be a lot of fun. Hike out, pitch a tent, stay there, cook our own meals. It should be a lot of fun.

A buddy of mine was nice enough to get a hold of some GPS maps. That'll make life significantly easier, since we won't have to guess as to where we are at any given point.

We go out, we stay in the middle of nowhere for a night, we come home. Pretty simple, I guess. With a little luck, this'll become a regular thing. I'd like to do at least four more trips after this one. April's super-keen on it right now. We'll see if she still thinks that way after we get back from the wilderness.

It would be really cool to do this on a regular basis. I haven't done any backpacking in a long time. A good long hike, getting back in touch with nature, as it were, would be really nice. I haven't done that in a long time. Actually, I'm pretty sure the last time I did any backpacking at all was well before I went to Bishop's. So that'll be almost seven years. Now, I'm in the best physical shape I've ever been in, so I think that now might be the time to do it. It'll be lots of fun. Might have to drag more of le gang out as well, if they're interested.

On a sadder note, I heard that Ray Charles died today. He was a very talented man, who will be very sorely missed by those of us left behind.

The little team that could.

Calgary's going a little nuts lately.

More than a little nuts, actually.

I'm not a big hockey fan by any stretch of the imagination, but after our team pushed its way past Detroit in the second round, I have to admit that it was hard not to get swept up in the hype. We were seen as a long shot to get past Vancouver, and the general concensus was that Detroit would walk over us in, at most, five games. Now, two series later, we're within sight of bringing Ol' Stan back to Canada. The cup hasn't been back to Canada in almost ten years, and the team that might bring it back is Calgary. Who woulda thought?

My Shi Fu is starting to drop hints of the "We're about to test you for your next sash level" variety. This'll be our red sash. Although, in our particular school, sashes aren't all that important. Nobody in our school actually wears them. Just about everybody in our school is at least tested for their yellow sash, a fair number of us are entitled to wear a higher sash, and some of us, like myself, are about to test for our second. I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, how sashes in Bak Fu Pai relate to the sashes in other Kung Fu styles. In most of the other styles I'm aware of, the red sash is much, much closer to the end. In some it's the sash you get just before you get your black sash. I'm nowhere near that good yet. But I'll get there.

To say that Kung Fu has been a positive force in my life would be a massive understatement. After a year studying this particular form of Kung fu, I can safely say that it's been the best year of my life. I'm stronger and healthier than I have been in a long time. I've got more confidence and I'm just all around a more balanced person.

We had a massive celebration when we passed our last sash level, so I think we're going to have another wild party at the end of this one. Wild raucus party, here we come.

Bill C-250

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but what is with people these days?

A huge amount of whoopdedoo is being made of Bill C-250 which passed through Canadian Parliament on February 2, 2004, and which was signed into law on the 28th of April this year.

So what?

What, exactly does bill C-250 say?

1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

2. Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

So, the obvious next question is "What do sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal code say?"

Well, as it happens, I have that, too:

Advocating Genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

So, I get an Email in my spam folder screaming that with the passing of bill C-250, it has been made illegal to criticize homosexuality, and freedom of religion has been made illegal in Canada.

Not to ask stupid questions or anything, but have these people ever learned to read!? Seriously?

Basically Bill C-250 is a very minor amendment to sections 318-319 of the criminal code. All it says is that the same type of speech which his illigal towards people of different races, origins and faiths is also now illegal towards people of different sexual orientations. For example, it has been illegal in this country for some time to say "you should all go out and kill a couple of black people," now, it's also illegal to say "you should all go out and kill a couple of homosexuals."

Frankly, I don't see this as an unacceptable limit on free speech. And, frankly, that is the limit I believe should be put upon free speech. You can say "homosexuality is wrong and is condemned by the bible" all you want, but saying something like "homosexuality is wrong and is codemned by the bible, therefore you should all go out and shoot a couple of homosexuals" is a very, very different matter.

So, let's see what some of the major objections are:

1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators? (See Appendix 1)

Well, not to point out the obvious, but heterosexuality is undeniably a sexual orientation, so these laws also protect you. More importantly, what occurs between consenting adults is a very different matter than what happens between an adult and a child. Sexual predators are already guilty of a crime, and under most circumstances will go to jail. They don't need hate speech or literature directed towards them.

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined. But the Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as connoting an emotion of intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 397. Is vilification and detestation of homosexual acts considered “hate”? Where does this leave the bible in relation to hate legislation in light of texts like Romans 1:24-27? Will the bible be banned in Canada as hate literature?

That's why we have courts of law in this country. The laws are interpreted by the judicial branch of our government, which in turn determine what constitutes hate. Laws are often nebulous specifically for that reason. There is no possible way a law can be written for every single possible circumstance, however, it is up to the courts to decide whether and how a given law applies to a certain situation. So to answer your question: yes, it's possible for the bible to be banned as hate literature, but I wouldn't count it as likely. I can't imagine any judge is willing to set that precedent.

2b) Hatred is a highly speculative judgment. What is understood as hatred to some people is considered criticism to others. Many of our opponents have labeled opposition to Bill C-250 or rational criticism of homosexuality “hatred”. (See Appendix 2)

No. Section 319(3) specifically states that making rational arguments for or against homosexuality is not subject to prosecution under 319(2), provided that the arguments are true.

3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm. Without the requirement to prove a defendant’s intent to cause harm, anyone who might genuinely care for a person with homosexual inclinations can be convicted for their criticisms of the lifestyle or even their recommendations of therapy.

The intent to cause harm, to my knowledge, has always been the measure of the law for any given offense. Even in murder cases, it needs to be established that the person intends to cause harm, in spite of the fact that it is not explicitly stated in the criminal code.

4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense. Subsection 319(2) provides an exemption from conviction by referring to a religious text. But what if a citizen appeals to Anthropology, Science, Anatomy, Natural Law or mere personal conviction without reference to a religious text? There is no provision for a defense on these bases.

Bull. The only thing the alleged perpetrator has to do is establish in a court of law that his statements are true, regardless of their content (as per section 319(2)(a)). Do you have a problem with legislation against falsehood?

5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual activity has been long acknowledged to be very unhealthy. Yet, this legislation will stifle legitimate debate and discovery in the medical community. Not only will it lead to possible criminal convictions against doctors, but their professional associations might threaten them with sanctions and dismissal if they do not abide by the law (See Appendix 3).

Bull (again). As long as they can prove their statements to be truthful, they cannot be prosecuted. Seems to me that there's a passage somewhere in the bible about bearing false witness....

6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation. Although there is an exemption from conviction under Section 2 which deals with “promotion of hatred” (no defense can be used unless a religious text is cited), there is no such defense at all under Section 1 which deals with “incitement of hatred”. Technically, therefore, there is no real protection for those who appeal to a religious text. The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.

Technically true, but a judge would still need to rule that quoting the bible is dissemination of hate. Can you imagine even one judge who's willing to create that kind of a precedent?

7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!

Careful, you're starting to sound paranoid. No society in the world exists that does not have some limitation on freedom of speech. But this argument is even more ridiculous than that. The exact same restrictions on freedom of speech have existed in this country for decades, and not one person has spoken out against them. Now they make a minor addition to these laws and people are up at arms? For example, do you agree with a statement such as "you should all go out and shoot a couple of black people?" Why would you agree any more with a statement such as "you should all go out and shoot a couple of homosexuals?"

8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest (See Appendix 4).

Now, you're really starting to sound paranoid. This bill, at the end of the day is a very minor change to sections 318-319 of the criminal code. All it says is that people of a given sexual orientation have the right not to be hated. For a bill which is a ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda (whatever that is), homosexuality isn't even mentioned in it.

Some people, I tell ya.

Weekend happenings.

I can't exactly decide whether I should find this cool or disturbing. Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of admiration for Mr. Whedon and what he's managed to do with his life so far, but a whole branch of academia dedicated to Buffy, of all things?

Yes, I'm sure that you could find a fair number of cultural statements to make with regards to the series, but at the end of the day, let's face it, the series is about a blonde bimbo running around the california suburbs poking creatures of the night with pointy wooden things.

But far be it from me to condemn an entire branch of academia on the basis that I don't get it.

Again, it should not be assumed from my statements that I don't believe that this series has a lot of deep, very important messages to communicate to its viewers. Although I was never as fanatical a viewer as, for example, my younger brother, or an ex-roommate of mine, I admit that the episodes I watched impressed me with the quality of their writing, and frankly, their willingness to step a little ways outside the box. He filmed an episode which had no dialogue, and an episode which was entirely in the form of a musical. Both events which, to the best of my knowledge, had never been done on television before, and both of which could have been complete train wrecks. In short, as far as I can tell, Whedon is one of the few people in television who's willing to take a chance that he may royally fuck up.

But on the other hand, I have to admit that I (perhaps arrogantly) find it difficult not to snicker when I picture a professor giving a lecture on "Buffy and the New American Buddhism," even if I really have no clue what that means.

April and I took my little brother out to see Van Helsing this weekend. It's been getting rather heavily slammed review-wise, and frankly I can't decide whether or not that's fair. I mean, if you're going there expecting Oscar-worthy performances, or a spectacular, wonderful, greatest-movie-ever-made type of film, then I guarantee that you're going to be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you go to the movie looking for entertainment of the check-your-brain-at-the-door variety, it's actually not that bad. Admittedly; there isn't much which could be mistaken for a plot, the accents are annoyingly fake, the dialogue somewhat canned, and there are a few, shall we say, liberal interpretations of the laws of physics. But I'm willing to overlook all that for a little bit of mindless escapism. I was in the mood for, and needed, some entertainment that didn't require my brain to be active. That was good, because I've been doing too much hard thinking lately. I've got a PhD to worry about, and I've been more than a little frantic. So doing something which didn't require me to think was actually kinda nice.

On a similar note, some buddies and I watched Shaolin Soccer the other night. Another superbly fun experience, especially if you've done a little Kung Fu, and are somewhat familiar with the philosophy behind it. For those of you unfamiliar with the movie, it's basically one part Bend it Like Beckham, one part Victory (an old 1981 move which starred Sylvester Stallone), One part Kill Bill, and two parts every Bruce Lee movie ever made. Again, mindless entertainment, but the scary thing is that I can actually picture scouts going to Kung Fu schools all over to recruit soccer players. In a weird, bizarre, somewhat warped kinda way, it actually makes some degree of sense. Even the not-so-good Kung Fu students can kick like a fricking horse. The really good ones can do some things which would boggle your mind. Hell, after having seen my Shi fu in action, I still can't figure out how he's physically capable of doing some of the things he does as a matter of routine. As an interesting side-note, back in my undergraduate years, one of the subjects I was considering writing my thesis on was entitled The Physics of Karate. There were a fair number of martial arts being instructed at Ubish at the time, and I thought it would be neat to analyze some of them from a physical perspective; to understand how they worked. I wanted to look at the mechanics behind these martial arts. I thought it would be a relatively easy project. I was really, really wrong. I've taken Kung Fu for almost a year now, and I still don't get the mechanics behind it. I have been, quite literally, thrown across a room by someone who, it seemed, barely even made contact with me. My Shi fu is somehow able to generate what can only be described as a huge amount of force, but having watched him do it quite possibly hundreds of times, I'm still clueless as to how.

I fear I've strayed somewhat from the original topic. Suffice it to say, I had a pretty good weekend.

I just got run over by a car. How's your day?

Perhaps not the best way to start my day, but I imagine if you're going to get run over by a car, just outside a hospital is probably a good place to do it.

Now, before y'all get antsy, I'm perfectly fine. All my limbs are perfectly intact, and I don't have so much as a scratch on me, although damned if I can tell you how, exactly, I pulled that off. As I run over the event in my head, I still can't figure out how I managed to walk away from the scene without (at the very least) a broken leg. And, granted, if I'd had a broken leg, I probably wouldn't have been walking away from the scene, but you get my point.

I was crossing the sidestreet alongside the parkade to go into the medical school. I crossed behind an ambulance (which, I admit, may not have been the brightest move), when a black Acura RSX (moving way too fast) came around the corner. The driver obviously didn't see me stepping out from behind a big ambulance, and ploughed right into me.

Now, what exactly happened, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain, 'cause I felt his front bumper hit my right leg, but I somehow managed to roll across the hood of his car to land in a bit of an awkward crouch next to front, passenger side wheel of his car. He was moving at a decent clip, too, 'cause by the time he stopped, I was crouched next to the rear passenger side wheel of his car. How I got from the street to the hood of his car in one piece, I still haven't worked out yet. Suffice it to say that I somehow got off the street and onto the hood of his car after he hit me, but without actually getting hurt.

Weird.

Music and Drunken Debauchery (Not Necessarily in that Order)

So I had something of a (belated) birthday celebration at Aussie Rules Saturday night. Quite possibly the most fun I've had in a long time. Every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, they do what they call Dueling Pianos. Basically, they have three guys playing on a pair of pianos. They play just about anything from AC/DC to Zamphir. Okay, maybe that's exaggerating a little bit, but they have a rather impressive repertoire, and they're quite talented guys.

That, and it's a lot of fun. You can stand up in your chairs, sing along, even dance if you feel up to it. They take requests (and assign them priority depending on the size of the tip associated with said request). And, like I said, it's an awful lot of fun.

For the record, however, I didn't have as much to drink as it looked like I had. Yeah, I let my hair down just a little bit. I admit that. And I went a little more overboard than I normally do. Of course with Mike & Rose there, it's kinda easy to go a little wild. They're possibly two of my best friends in the whole universe and they're really easy people to go a little nuts around. They're just fun people. What can I say?

All in all, I think that just about everybody had a great time. Singing, dancing, making fools of ourselves and generally having a great time. I don't think it can get much better than that.

Girl Guides are Evil

Girl Guides are Evil. There's simply no other way of putting it. They're the sneakiest, most insideous organization in the known universe.

I'm sitting at home last night, frantically putting together a presentation for my PhD committee and there's a knock at the door. I figured it was the Jehova's witnesses again. They've been harassing me ever since I made the mistake of not slamming the door in their faces. Considering that the one time I didn't slam the door in their faces, I got into a heated debate about Evolution with them which I spent telling them (in my subtle, inimitable way) that they were idiots, I don't understand why they keep knocking on my door. I guess they think I can be saved.

But I digress. Suffice it to say, I wasn't lucky enough to have Jehova's Witnesses at my door. In fact, I rather wish I did have Jehova's witnesses at my door. At least I know how to handle them.

I open the door and there stand three girls who looked about twelve. All in their uniforms, all had trouble speaking clearly because they all wore braces, and all of them looked insufferably cute.

Nearby was (I assumed) their mother who looked really, really pissed off.

At any rate, they wanted me to buy some Girl Guide cookies.

First off, I'm sure that somewhere in the preparation of said cookies that they mix in a substantial quantity of Hashish. Girl Guide cookies are quite possibly the most addictive substance in the known universe. Ever notice that you really, really get the munchies after eating a few?

But I digress. I must get back to the original point. Namely that Girl Guides are EVIL.

So these three insufferably cute twelve-year olds are looking up at me, all with that look in their eyes that says "if you don't buy fifty boxes of cookies, I'm going to walk away crying my eyes out." And their mother is looking at me with a look in her eyes that says "if you don't buy fifty boxes of cookies, I'm going to come back here tonight and kill you in your sleep." Either that, or she wanted to be sure I wasn't some kind of child molester or something like that.

They wanted four dollars for a box of cookies.

Now, you can buy a much bigger box of Oreos for four dollars, so this is something of a rip-off. But you don't care about that because you have these three insufferably cute twelve-year olds looking at you with these big puppy dog eyes asking you for four dollars for a little box of cookies. Very addictive crack-laced cookies, to be sure, but a little box of cookies nonetheless. So, I quite literally dig around in my pockets (and the change tray in our front entranceway) and fish out a loonie, seven quarters, ten dimes and five nickles, and hand this handfull of change over to one of the girls. Because as much of a pain in the ass as it was to hunt around and find that much change, I knew that the instant I said "no," the girls' bottom lip would start trembling and their big puppy dog eyes would start watering and frankly, I don't know if I could handle that. Actually, I'm pretty sure I couldn't. Furthermore, even if they just turned around and walked away, I was pretty sure that almost before they made it to the bottom of the walk, I would have been frantically trying to track down four dollars then racing down the street to ask for a box of cookies from these three insufferably cute twelve-year-olds.

Plus, I didn't want their mother to kill me in my sleep.

See what I mean? Evil.