Supreme court to hear case on Ten Commandments

(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)

I have said this before, and I will say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against religion in any form. I have no issue with people of strong faith. I have no issue with faith in general, provided that faith isn't blind.

At the same time, I firmly believe that faith and government should be separate entities. No one faith has any right to force their beliefs on those who do not believe in that faith, and likewise, the government should not demonstrate any form of favortism towards one faith in particular.

In short, faith should be a private thing, not a public one.

Right now, the US supreme court is hearing a case wherein the question is whether a state courthouse should be permitted to display stone tablets listing the ten commandments.

I find it very depresing that this is even being debated.

The argument being made in favor of keeping the tablets in place is that "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law."

Let's consider this for a moment:

The ten commandments, translated from the original Hebrew:

1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Let's start here, shall we? This is a direct contradiction to the first amendment to the bill of rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Not a good start for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

Graven image is not terribly well defined. It could be argued that a monument displaying the ten commandments would directly contradict this commandment.

At any rate, there is no law in the US which prohibits this.

Zero for two.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

No law exists in the United States which prohibits this. In fact, prohibition of such speech could be construed (within reason) as a violation of free speech; in direct contradiction to the bill of rights.

4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

First off, we don't know when the Sabbath day is, exactly. Ask the seventh day adventists, and you'll get a different answer than when you ask the Catholics.

Second, no law exists which prohibits working seven days a week.

Zero for four.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

No law exists which states that you have to honour your father and mother. No law exists which states that you have to even like them. In fact, you can legally divorce your parents and declare your independence from them.

Zero for five.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

Okay, we now officially have one commandment which is actually supported by US law. Of course, the commandment not to kill is not original from the Ten Commandments. Actually, it's been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws.

One for six.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultry.

Generally frowned upon, but not illegal in any juristiction.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

two for eight.

Of course, not stealing has also been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws, so it's hardly original with the ten commandments.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

May or may not be illegal, depending upon the context.

False witness, when placed upon the witness stand is perjury; when printed (only in public, and only if it serves to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is libel; when spoken (only in public, and again, only if it can be shown to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is slander.

Otherwise, false witness is pretty much legal within the US.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

As of this date, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted for coveting.

So, as of today, recapping, a total of three of the ten commandments are actually endorsed by American law. One of those is only supported in very specific cases (9th) and the other two (6th and 8th) are not exactly original with the ten commandments.

Not exactly a stellar argument.

--Drew

Sometimes, truth really is stranger than fiction.

Oh, my God.

It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.

How is this accomplished, you might ask. It's a dead man switch that will automatically send the emails when it is not reset.

Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?

And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.

I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.

Ouch.

I'll say this for Lion Dancing, it has a way of making you rather brutally aware of every single muscle in your body.

We probably put in a total of about thirteen hours of lion dancing this weekend. Thirteen hours. That's a long time to be dancing under what amounts to a gigantic blanket. Actually, it went very well. I enjoyed it enormously, and I have a really good partner for the dance. We've got a solid level of communication going on between us.

She was a huge livesaver yesterday, and I'm not at all certain that I mean that figuratively. We were dancing around a mall. Lots of fun, stopping at stores all over; doin' a little dance, grabbin' a hunk of lettuce, taking our paycheck; etc, etc. etc.

My partner and I had just completed five consecutive dances (which doesn't sound like much, but trust me, it takes a lot out of you); three of which required me to lift her onto my shoulders. Suffice it to say, we were both rather tired. Nobody was coming in to spell us off, and it was getting to the point where I thought my back was going to be permanently fixed at a 90 degree angle from my legs. So, someone comes in to replace my partner, and at this point, I'm dying. We do two more stores; my partner's replacement is all fresh and energetic, and here I am just trying to keep myself upright. We do another store during which I'm pretty sure I heard my lower back screaming in protest.

So, my Lion Dance partner (God bless her) shows up after only the briefest of breaks to let me out of the tail, while I'm wondering if she's gonna have to physically pull me out of the lion tail and roll me out of the way. It very nearly got to that point.

She managed to get her butt out of the lion a little farther down, but I cannot emphasize how much I needed that one break.

All in all, this weekend went well. About eight hours of lion Dancing on Saturday, another five-ish on Sunday. I think I lost about 30 lbs in the last 48 hours, and it ain't even over yet.

We have another dance on the 18th, which includes some rather nicely-done Kung Fu demos.... well, hopefully nicely done. The first demo we did turned out quite nicely, so I can't complain there.

If all goes well, we'll give a hell of a show on Friday.

On the Role of the Catholic Church in my Life

I got into a discussion with my significant other's family over the Gay Marriage issue. They're strongly Catholic, but they are also very strongly in favor of Gay marriage, so to some degree it wasn't so much a discussion as an agreement; but we did cover some very interesting ground in that chat.

The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.

In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.

I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."

Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.

In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Lions and Kung Fu and Swords (oh my!)

So, we survived our first show, managed to keep ourselves breathing, keep ourselves together, and the show went without any real hitch. All in all, no complaints.

We started with the Lion Dance (and that's L-I-O-N, not L-I-N-E), which was probably the single most solid lion dance we've ever done. Everything just came together. Linda and I walked through our corners and did our routines without a hitch; something which pleased me to no end, since there was a time when we weren't sure if she'd even be in the dance tonight. She was, which made all of us very happy. It would've been kinda a bummer for her to be put on the bench 24 hours before the show.

My solo form went very well. Not perfect, mind you, but it was solid. I messed up in a couple of spots, but I don't think that anyone in the audience noticed.

Rock breaking, wire breaking, chopstick breaking... Kung Fu folks in general like to break stuff.

We then jaunted over to the local Chinese restaurant, loaded up on more food than I thought I could fit in my li'l stomach, and more cognac than I knew I could afford, and generally had a good time.

All in all, last night goes in the books as a success; for SiFu, for the school, for me personally, and for all of the students.

Yay.

And theyyyyyyy're off!

So, the religious groups in Canada are at arms about same-sex marriage, which comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody.

(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)

So my much, much, much, much, much better half informed me that in mass the other day, the priest (for, apparently, the fourth time in as many weeks) got into a tirade about same-sex marriage; at the end of which, apparently, someone stood up and cheered.

Now, I want it understood that this comes as second-hand information, and therefore should be given the grain of salt you feel it deserves; but from the description I got, there are a lot of arguments that were used which really, really scare me.

I will ignore the religious arguments he used, since I don't believe that any one religion should be writing our laws, he was basically singing to the choir there. The religious arguments have no meaning outside the Catholic faith, and as such have no influence upon the making, interpretation or enforcement of new laws. So, I'll ignore them.

One argument he did use which I've heard a lot is that the ruling was handed down by the supreme court, not by a democratic vote. He went on to claim that the majority does not want gay marriage, and therefore it should be prohibited.

Apparently, he fails to understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic system is that when majority rules, the rights of the minorities are at risk; and even the most ardently homophobic would not claim that homosexuals are not a minority. In a way, that's really why the Supreme Court of Canada (and the US) exists. Their entire purpose for being is to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, in the US, the Bill of Rights) applies to all citizens. Minority, majority, whatever. Their role is to ensure that the rights assured to all citizens by the constitution are not abridged by the democratic process.

Case in point: when the Supreme Court of the US overturned the laws which prohibited interracial marriage, they had approval of over 90% of citizens in the states where such laws were in effect. Now, you would be hard-pressed to find someone today who agrees that these laws were right and just. That's the whole reason why the supreme court is appointed, not elected. Their job is to do the right thing, as dictated by the constitution; not the popular thing.

There was also a suggestion which truly scared me. He suggested that this was an attempt to take power away from the Catholic church.

One question: what power?

The Catholic church has no role in the writing of laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the enforcement of the law. The Catholic church, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, does not exist; and this is the arena in which gay marriage is being decided.

Second question: what power is being taken away?

The finding of the supreme court is very specific: namely that allowing gay marriage is legal provided (and the supreme court was very specific on this one) that no religious institution is required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if they choose not to do so.

So, what power is being taken away from the Catholic church? The short answer is "none." The Catholic church is not required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, should they choose not to do so. Within the framework of the Catholic church, they still have full autonomy where marriage is concerned; but they have no influence upon marriages performed outside that framework. It could be pointed out that they never did.

What does this mean? Well, when you come down to it, I suspect that this isn't really about Gay marriage at all. My suspicion is that they want an acknowledgement by the government that the Catholic faith is the "correct" faith.

And that, frankly, is a very, very scary place to go.

The absurdity of politics

So, I'm seriously considering running for office.

No, I'm not joking.

Okay, this may seem hypocritical, considering that I didn't even vote in the last federal election in Canada; largely for two reasons: 1) There really wasn't anyone in my riding worth voting for, and I take my vote very seriously and 2) Canada's policy of giving $1.75 per vote to parties which earn more than 2% of the popular vote really rubbed me the wrong way. It struck me as undemocratic, and frankly, I just didn't like it.

So, I'm thinking of running as an independent. If nobody'll put up someone worth voting for, I'll try to be someone worth voting for. As an independent, I'm ineligible for the $1.75, so I see no hypocrisy in this course of action.

The real issue I have with politics is that there are too damn many politicians. There are too many people who either blindly follow the party line so that they don't have to think for themselves or have made a life out of pissing off the smallest possible number of people. Just once, I'd like to see someone who has no party line standing at center stage. Someone who knows, realistically, that they're not going to win the election, someone who has nothing to lose going into it, but at the very least has one golden opportunity to make the candidates who just may win address the issues. If nothing else, it'll get people talking; and maybe that's enough.

Seriously, am I the only one who wishes that once, just once, someone would stand in the spotlight and just cut through all the bull? You object to same sex marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. You want to pray in school? Do so, but don't expect anyone else to do it. You want to have government-sponsored Daycare? Perfect, it will be made available to those who have or are actively seeking steady jobs; 'cause I ain't paying to take your kids off your hands so that you can sit at home and watch Dr. Phil. Your church opposes same-sex marriage? Great, you'll be thrilled to know that nobody's requiring them to perform such a ceremony. You object to abortion? Fine, nobody's forcing you to have one. You object to stem-cell research? Great, when they cure Alzheimer's, you can deny yourself treatment. You want secede from the rest of the country? Swell; here's a boat and a paddle, France is thattaway. You want land when you separate? Okay, how does Ellesmere Island strike your fancy? You say that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy? Probably true; so what?

Just once, I'd like to see someone running for office speak in a way that isn't calculated to keep from pissing off too many people. I'd like to see someone speak in a way which isn't designed to keep the majority happy. I'd like to see someone running for office not just speak, but actually say something.

Sadly, those kinds of people don't get elected; and realistically, I won't either. But it'll make people talk, and maybe that's enough.

Okay, rant over. I just had to get that off my chest.

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!?