Heather's Mewsings

44

2011-03-16T19:03:00.001-07:00

Well, it's that time of year again. I've turned another year older. I don't mind that so much, but I am concerned at how quickly life seems to be passing by. I'm not sure where my 30's went, and all of a sudden I'm mid-40's. Ouch. How did that happen?

I'm a little superstitious. Just a little. I admit that this coming year makes me a little nervous. You see, my Mom was the age I am now when she had a massive heart attack. She survived, but there was a lot of damage; she was never the same. Man, did that seem old to me at the time. It sure doesn't now.

Somehow this last year, I've seen the need to move faster, move quicker. It's like there's something driving me. I'm not sure what it is, but there's some urgency to the call.

Hopefully next year, I'll have accomplished something that I've always dreamed of doing.

The Art of Letter Writing to your Best Friend...

2011-02-12T10:25:00.000-08:00

Today is a day of mixed emotions for me. I'm both excited and feeling sorry for myself. Excited because I have a new cousin. Sad that I couldn't be there to see her join the family.

Let me now explain myself...

I grew up far away from all of my 12 cousins. In fact, many of them were a lot older than me - a lot. There was one, however, who was close in age to me (I was 18 months older) and we were best friends. He was the closest thing I ever had for a brother.

We first met when I was four and he was almost three. We met again when I was nine, 14, and 17. It wasn't until his family came for a full two and a half week visit when I was 21 that we really bonded. That visit had a profound effect on our relationship. Something magical took place. We did the silly things young people do: wandering around Lumberland together looping bungee cables on to the loops on the back of our respective shirts and walking around the store for a bit. One day while we were shopping at the mall with our families, we popped into a bookstore and I purchased a copy of War and Peace. I said, "Well, at least you can say your cousin doesn't read crap." Obviously surprised and impressed, he said, "No. I can't." (And, yes, I did read it in case you were wondering).

I was stunned at how devastated the loss was after they'd left. I literally cried for weeks - perhaps even months - afterwards. I was miserable. And the only way I knew of to alleviate that pain of loss was to write to him - and write lots. It was the start of a furious correspondence. Within days of their departure, the letters started (literally) flying back and forth across the ocean.

I wasn't just spilling my guts on paper for the sake of writing. No. I was writing to my best friend who I knew would read my letters soon. I also knew he'd write back and almost literally every day when I came home I eagerly looked for an envelope with his handwriting. It was the highlight of my day. It always made me sad to read the last page of his letters because I knew I'd probably have to wait a few more weeks before I'd receive another. Letters - especially the missives we sent to each other - took so long to write but could be read so quickly. Our letters were almost literal blow by blow descriptions of our daily lives.

Kids these days. Bah. They knew nothing of letter writing. They know nothing of writing, period. That's my biggest bitch of the Internet: the butchery of the English language. It's shocking how many people (especially young people) can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" or "there" their" and "they're". It drives me mad.

They know nothing of the pain of waiting. They don't even get the joy of reading a lot of their "bff's" inmost thoughts. They'll never know how just writing to your best friend can be healing in and of itself. Their friends will never see the authenticity of tear drops on the pages as the writer shares the pain of her latest break up. They'll never know the spontaneous card and handwritten (not typed) letter with some mementos (a photo, a sampling of art work from the kids you worked with, or some such thing).

They'll never know the feeling of knowing that no one else would read these words; there was no chance. Those words were on paper and were secreted away and kept close by for re-reading and furiously guarded. It would have been an abomination to have someone else read them. These words were sacred. At least they were to me. Somehow just holding the same paper they had made you feel so close to that person. On the bad side, paper can be lost. And that's a shame. Some of those letters were special, very special. I remember one in particular: the way the letter had been placed in the envelope, he'd accidentally spilled the secret he'd been building up to the whole letter: he was coming for another visit. I'm sure he heard my screams of delight and excitement all the way from my room.

They'll never know the pain of having to wait until you get home to tell them you miss them after leaving them at the airport. But the recipient could tell by the tears on the page when he got the letter a week later. They'll never know the long running inside jokes that if other people read your letters would think you were "stark raving mad". Perhaps we were. I looked forward to writing to him. It was my pass time. It was what I loved to do. He was always on my mind.

My hands would ache from writing sometimes. But this was my best friend and he was worth the physical pain. I'm sure his hand often ached, too. Eventually, the letters went from handwritten to typed - an improvement on our output and was easier on the hands. To this day, I love listening to music while I write which was something I used to do while writing to him more often than not.

I always knew it wouldn't last forever and I dreaded it. I knew we had something very special and I didn't want it to end - but I knew it would one day. I knew we'd both eventually get married and even though we'd always write to each other, it wouldn't be the same as what we had at the moment.

We've always kept in touch, though since I got married not as much as I would like. We originally scorned the idea of email. After all, we both agreed that there was nothing like seeing a package in the mail at the end of a long, hard day. I wonder now if there was email back in the 80's and early 90's if we would have been as close. Somehow I don't think so. It was because we had to put so much effort into our letters that kept us close. There's no effort to email; there's no privacy.

So, it's with great joy that I'm excited that he has is now married to his best friend. It's also tinged with a little sadness that I can't be there to share that special day with him.

The Year In Review

2010-12-31T21:34:00.001-08:00

Well, it's that time of the year: when people take stock of what's transpired in the past year. I guess I'll do a little of the same.

2010 has been an interesting year. I've had better years; I've had worse. I know the low point: August 17th. The day we lost Duchess. It may sound shallow, but it deeply affected both of us and I know it's really left a scar. As I said at the time, it was more than the loss of a beloved pet, it was the guilt that we couldn't help her when she really needed us. I'm not sure if I'll ever get over that.

Highs? I can't think of that many outstanding moments. I suppose Canada doing well at the Olympics in our own back yard was a treat. But that wasn't something personal. I can't think of much outstanding or major goals/accomplishments. Life just went on - as it so often does.

One nice thing is that I've actually started writing this year. It hasn't been much, but I've reawakened my inner writer and that's been very illuminating. You wouldn't know that from my lack of blog posts, but what I've been writing has been "off the grid" for now.

I'm not sure what to expect or hope for out of 2011. One thing I do suspect is that it's going to be a major turning point: it may be either a boon or a huge bust.

Happy New Year and may 2011 be a healthy happy and prosperous one.

Carpe Diem

2010-09-23T20:51:00.000-07:00

I have a new favourite song. Okay, I have a couple, but I'm only going to talk about one today. But I'm going to keep you in a bit of suspense for awhile longer while I give you some background.

Lately, I've been having a lot of morbid thoughts. I know that Duchess' death has made me re-evaluate my mortality and look at what I'd like to leave behind when I'm gone. I've really wondered, "Crap. What if this is all there is? Wouldn't that be awful? Surely there must be more to life than this miserable existence." I get depressed just thinking that.

I was generally a passive creature; passive by nature and passive by "molding". If I tried to do something and it didn't work out, I accepted it as that was what God wanted; that that was the way things were meant to be. Yet, somewhere, inside there was a spark that wanted freedom - but I was too scared to "steal the fire from the gods" and face the consequences of my actions. Occasionally, if I wanted something badly enough I would fight back against the forces of the universe. I do have a stubborn streak.

I don't know why, but on Monday I found myself humming a song I don't think I've (consciously) heard in months. When I got home, I "you-tubed" it ("is you-tubed" a word?)to watch the video. And it amazed me. I'd been aware of the band's existence since about 1987, but didn't pay that much attention to them. What few songs I'd heard of theirs I liked. You can see the video: here.

And here are the lyrics:

This ain't a song for the brokenhearted
No silent prayer for faith departed.
And I ain't gonna be just a face in the crowd.
You're gonna hear my voice when I shout it out loud.

It's my life. It's now or never.
I ain't gonna live forever.
I just wanna live while I'm alive
(It's my life)
My heart is like an open highway.
Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
'Cause it's my life.

This is for the ones who stood their ground.
For Tommy and Gina who never backed down.
Tomorrow's getting harder, make no mistake.
Luck ain't even lucky, gotta make your own breaks.

It's my life. And it's now or never.
I ain't gonna live forever.
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
(It's my life)
My heart is like an open highway
Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
'Cause it's my life.

You better stand tall when they're calling you out
Don't bend, don't break. Baby, don't back down

It's my life. It's now or never
'Cause I ain't gonna live forever.
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
(It's my life)
My heart is like an open highway
Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
(It's my life)
And it's now or never.
I ain't gonna live forever
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
(It's my life)
My heart is like an open highway
Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."
I just wanna live while I'm alive.
'Cause it's my life!

Okay, okay. If you haven't figured it out by watching the video, it's Bon Jovi's "It's My Life." (And how did I miss Jon Bon Jovi being such a hottie all these years?) What a passionate call to life, to freedom. It's an anthem. It's a challenge to take accountability for one's actions and to take charge of one's life. The symbolism of having to go underground to sing to young people about freedom wasn't lost on me.

It's a song about desperately wanting to do something with your life and being true to who you are. It's about looking at your life honestly and a call to take steps - even leaps if necessary - to live life to the fullest.

Notice in the video, there's a clock running; time is running out. The young guy has only five minutes to make it to the tunnel. We don't know why it's important to him that he make the concert. We only know it is. The first time I saw it, I was on pins and needles: will he make it, or will he miss it? will this have a tragic ending? (I actually thought the semi might get him).

I've heard the call. Changes are coming. Slowly but surely, I'm learning to take some responsibility for my life, instead of being blown by the wind. This is my new theme song (yes, theme songs like on Ally McBeal. Speaking of Ally, wasn't Jon Bon Jovi on a few episodes?)

I look to the future with some hope. I pray there's still time left that I will leave behind something I will be respected for, so my life will not have been a complete and utter waste. I think I understand the pyramids now; why someone would want to leave a monument. It's so they won't be forgotten. I can almost hear the voices of the dead pharoahs mockingly say, "Who will remember you? I reach for the skies. They know my name. I am immortal".

What my "monument" might be, I don't know. I have some ideas of things I'd like to be remembered for. I've always wanted to be a writer. However, would I want to be a Stephenie Meyer, or a Margaret Mitchell? Let's face it, Twilight is NOT great literature (decent potential, poor execution). Margaret Mitchell's - though she only wrote one - is a classic and one that will never go out of print. It's still popular today, 70 years later. No one (hopefully) will still be reading Twilight in 70 years. Mitchell's one book? None other than my favourite novel, "Gone With The Wind." I'd like to think I could leave something that wonderful behind, but I'm not sure I could live up to the standard she set.

Join me in taking up the challenge to do something meaningful with your life - and I don't mean just going to work for the sake of making a living. Life is a gift - and we never know when it will snatched away from us. Life is eerily fragile. From now on, I'm going to try and take some "baby steps" to actually do some of the things that up to this point in my life I've only dreamed of doing.

Carpe Diem - Seize the Day.

Eulogy to an Aristocat - RIP Duchess

2010-08-17T14:01:00.001-07:00

I know I'll never get through this without sobbing, but I have to do it today while the memories are still fresh.

This morning, we lost our beloved pure bred lilac point Siamese cat, Duchess. She was 12 years old. We're both taking this pretty hard. Let me tell a little bit of her story.

We first met Duchess at the mall. We were newlyweds and we were in search of a cat/kitten. Originally, we were looking for a young adult, maybe a year old or so. I had hoped we'd find a Siamese, as that was my favourite breed, having had two previously. We'd been to a couple of animal shelters but couldn't see a cat/kitten we both agreed on. Then DH suggested we go to the mall and look at the pet store. Sure enough, not only did they have kittens, but Siamese kittens.

We asked to see the kittens. There were at least two on display, maybe three. One leaped over the other kittens and beat them to the door. She climbed up DH and started purring. Then she turned to me and climbed up me and started purring. That did it. We were both smitten. We looked at one of the other kittens they had, but it just didn't have the personality. This one was THERE. She was vibrant. As this was a Monday evening, we put down a deposit and came back for her on the Friday after work.

We were so excited to take home our new baby. I originally wanted to call her "Esmeralda" as when I'd read the "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" two years previously, I thought, "What a cool name for a Siamese cat." I remember talking to a friend on the phone the night we took her home and telling him about our new baby. Kitty was down at the end of the hall, and when I called her she came running; gamboling was more the word. She was all legs.

We took her to the vet the next morning to get checked out, and then we went to lunch. While sitting in the car eating our McDonalds, we said, "Well, if we're going to get a second cat, now's the time to do it." So, we went to the local SPCA and there was a little Siamese. She was obviously the darker markings, whereas our "first born" was the lighter. I picked up the little fur ball and said to DH, "What about this one?" And he said, "I can live with it." So that was how we added a second kitty. They meowed all the way home in their respective cat carriers.

When we got home, we opened up the carriers and let them meet. I put down food for them and let them go at it. The first born immediately started eating. The second one let out a cry, as it to say, "Hey! I want some, too." Firstborn, immediately put her paw on second born's head, as if to say, "Be cool, kid". To which, the second born literally had a hissy fit.

Now we had a problem. What would we call them? As I said, I originally wanted to call the first born "Esmeralda" but somehow, that didn't suit her; it suited the darker markings of our second born. So, the second born had a name: Esmeralda, but what to call the first born. I suggested "Duchess" after the mother cat in Disney's "The Aristocats" and because she was a pure bred. DH agreed, so that was how we ended up with Duchess ("Duch") and Esmeralda ("Essie" or "Es").

Duchess accepted Essie right away and wanted to play with her, but Essie wasn't so keen on Duch. It took about three days before she accepted Duch. By the Wednesday, they were sleeping together. That was it. From then on, they were siblings. They loved each other, yet could get on each other's nerves. I saw them "bitch slap" each other as kittens.

Having two cats - let alone kittens - was new to both of us. I'd never had more than one cat before, and neither had DH. It was fun. It's sad, but I can't remember a lot of the mischief they got into, but I do remember some stories. Notably, the time Duch climbed out on to the patio railing, stretched herself out and put her front paws on the window to the right, exposing herself to a fall of 13 stories. I'm glad it was DH that was home and not me. I might have freaked out and she would have plunged to her death right then and there. Somehow he coaxed her back down, all the while thinking, "Heather's going to kill me."

Duchess was a smart cat. Man, was she ever. Being the pure bred, she was also a feline jumping machine. I once saw Essie charge Duch and Duchess avoided Essie by jumping straight up in the air, about two feet. Ah, the joys of kitten hood.

Everyone - including pets - have their flaws. But not Duchess. Seriously. I can't think of a single bad trait she had. The worst I can say is that she could be stubborn and a bit proud, but those are good things. She was patient, she was loving as well as smart.

Like all pets, she had her quirks. Hers was what we called, "playing with dolls." She used to take her toys, carry them in her mouth (like a mama cat) through to the kitchen and dump them in the food and/or water bowl. I had to be very careful when I stitched that I picked up all my bobbins of floss afterwards, or she'd steal them, too. Many's the time I had to chase her around the apartment in an attempt to take back my floss, or it, too, would suffer the fate of her toys and take a bath in the water dish.

People used to say, "Oh, Siamese? I bet they're noisy." No. Neither of them were. Of the two, Essie was more vocal. Duchess had a very quiet meow. In fact, she hardly meowed at all. When she was one year old, we moved down to the U.S. for the first time. It was late August/September and the mallard ducks were starting to congregate beneath our window, two floors down. Duchess used to sit in the window and watch them, fascinated. Then we noticed she started "quacking." Seriously. She was walking around imitating the noise of the mallards. She wasn't meowing; she was quacking.

Eventually she found her voice. When she wanted to, she could turn on the full volume Siamese yowl. When we lived in a townhouse with three floors, she often could be heard at night in the basement "tuning up."

She was a perfect pet. When DH's mom died, it was Duch who climbed up on DH and started purring in an attempt to comfort him. She didn't go to me. She went to him. Somehow she knew exactly who to go to. Essie just didn't get it. I used to say that Essie was "brainless but beautiful," which is a fairly accurate description. I've often joked that she may have been deprived of oxygen at birth.

Essie and Duch took turns being top cat. Eventually, however, Duchess seemed to emerge as the dominant one. I guess Essie pissed off Duch one day, and I saw Duch grab Essie by the throat and smash her head against the floor a couple of times to teach Essie a lesson. But it would take Duch a LOT to lose her cool like that. She was very patient; always dignified; always a lady. She never took a swipe at us, of scratched us, or tried to bite us. EVER. I can only think of one time in all her years where she hissed. It was the first time she met a child: when she was four months old.

She became DH's cat; she favoured him. I was all right with that. They had a special relationship. He used to play with her with his keys. He would jingle them for her, and she would try to swipe them. Whenever she did, she would start doing the "Duchess dance" (as we called it) to demonstrate her superiority. The "Duchess dance" consists of kneading into either a person or some piece of furniture with the claws, while swinging the hips, in an attempt to show off.

They were our babies and I loved them dearly. I dreaded the day that I would lose either one of them. Being Siamese, I expected they would live a long time. One of my previous Siamese cats lived to 21. Being a pure bred, I knew that Duchess would probably be the first to go.

Everything was fine and I had two healthy (eventually three, but Hesperatu doesn't really figure much in this story) cats. That was until about nine months ago. Duchess - almost overnight - lost weight. I was concerned, but thought, "Well, she'll put it back on." I watched her to ensure she ate. She always was the more picky eater, so I tried to do what I could. She seemed to lose more weight. I took her to the vet and she was five pounds, down from the nine pounds when she was last weighed. The vet did a blood test and it came back clean: kidneys and liver were fine, and she didn't have diabetes. He did express concern about the lack of protein in her blood and hinted that it might be cancer and that she would need to come back for an x-ray to see what they could see.

Unfortunately, due to finances, I wasn't able to do the x-ray until last week. Up until that point, she was doing pretty well. Still eating, still peeing. True, she'd lost a step or two, but I put that down to the fact she was 11 years old, approaching 12. I didn't think it was cancer. I thought she just might be clogged internally. I did notice she'd had a problem going "poop" and added more fibre to her diet to help her go. I even upped the fibre and it worked. Ten days ago, she laid a ping pong sized ball of poop (sorry if that's too much information). But something happened after that. From then on, she refused to eat. I had to force feed her. I took her in for the x-ray and the vet said she was "bad off." She was dehydrated and was now down to three pounds. She was literally skin and bones. The x-ray showed that a lot of her organs were "fuzzy" looking. They weren't clear like the heart and lungs were. He gave me some antibiotics and I was told to bring her back once they were finished.

She cascaded downhill after that. Mom and Dad came round on Sunday evening to say "good bye".

By yesterday, she could barely walk. She dragged her hind legs around. Last night, she slept in the cat basket, which was balanced on my night table. At some point during the night, she moved and reached out towards me. I picked her up and took her into bed with me. I'm not sure what time that was, but it was still very dark. When I woke up about 7:45, she was gone. She was still warm, but she was dead. We sat with her for about three hours, reminiscing - looking at photos and videos we'd taken. We placed her body in the cat basket. She looked like she was asleep. I kept saying, "Wake up, Duch. Come on, wake up."

What killed her? We did, ultimately and I'll never forgive myself. This has hit us hard, and it's more than just losing a precious pet and companion. It's the guilt that we just couldn't afford to help her in her hour(s) of need. She's the innocent victim of our mistakes and she was forced to pay for our "sins." Naturally, there is no guarantee that if I'd taken her in to the vet right away that they could have caught whatever it was that was ailing her. But it might have. She never once complained, or showed signs of being in pain. She may have looked miserable, but more like she was fighting a nasty flu, not fighting for her life - until this last week.

Duchess, I'm so sorry. I hope you know how much we both loved you. I'm so sorry we let you down. I'm glad you're away from your suffering. You were the perfect kitty.

I sign off with her theme song, the title song from The Aristocats sung by Maurice Chevalier. You can listen to it: here

Which pets' address is the finest in Paris?
Which pets possess the longest pedigree?
Which pets get to sleep on velvet mats?
Naturalment! The Aristocats!

Which pets are blessed with the fairest forms and faces?
Which pets know best all the gentle social graces?
Which pets live on cream and loving pats?
Naturalment! The Aristocats!

They show aristocratic bearing when they're seen upon
an airing, and aristocratic flair in what they do and what they say!
Aristocats are never found in alleyways or hanging around the garbage cans where common kitties play. Oh no!

Which pets are known to never show their claws?
Which pets are prone to hardly any flaws?
To which pets do the others tip their hats?
Naturalment! The Aristocats!

Naturalment! Naturalment!
Oh, Naturalment!
The Aristocats

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Wax Museum...

2010-08-06T14:38:00.000-07:00

You're just never sure what things will impact you for your entire life. I have three stories I'd love to share that have formed some sort of conspiracy (OMG. The spelling of that "c" word is pretty hilarious considering what I'm going to be writing about) to profoundly affect my life.

When I was about four years old, Mom and Dad somehow got the dubious privilege of taking some of us kids from church over to Victoria, BC for the day. One of our destinations was the Royal London Wax Museum. If you know the museum, you'll know there's a figure of Cleopatra bathing there in front of Julius Caesar. Dad, being the dutiful tour guide asked, "So does anybody know how she died?" None of the kids knew, so he said, "She was bitten by a snake."

Something happened at that moment. It was like some genetic memory switch had been turned on. I refused to get into bed that night as I was convinced - somehow - that there was a snake in my bed. I howled and set up such a fuss that Dad came in to see what was the matter. He pulled back the sheets to prove to me that my Mom was telling the truth that there was no snake in my bed. He then reaffirmed her orders to get into bed. I was "disinclined to acquiesce to their request" (that means "no") and continued my assertion that there was indeed a reptile hiding somewhere betwixt and between my sheets. I'm fairly sure I lost my case based on the lack of evidence on my part. Considering who the judge and jury were, I'm sure I couldn't have had a fair trial anyway. I should have launched an appeal. But I digress...

From that moment on, I have been irrationally afraid of reptiles (in general) and snakes in particular. I loathe them and despise them. It's something I've never outgrown and probably never will. I even get queasy watching nature shows, as I get so upset over watching some poor animal getting devoured by these vile creatures. Okay, wildebeest sort of don't count. They're too stupid to exist. "Oh, look! There's a pair of eyes swimming towards me in the water. I wonder if it will be friends with me." Um, no. Not unless you are thinking in the Hannibal Lector sense of it "having an old friend for dinner."

So that's the first thing. Here's the second:

In 1975, when I was eight, my parents finally gave into my years of, "Can we go to Disneyland, Dad? Can we go to Disneyland, Dad?" (Well, I'm not sure I really was that big of a pest, but I'm sure I did ask). We left on a Friday morning and drove down to Anaheim. I was warned that repeated questions regarding the arrival at our destination would not be tolerated and that we'd be there Monday. In the meantime, I was encouraged to stick my head in the books I'd brought along for the ride.

On the Sunday morning, upon waking, I was informed that our ETA had been adjusted and we would be arriving in Disneyland that evening. However, we would be arriving too late to go to the park. It would have to wait until tomorrow. I found this new change of itinerary satisfactory.

I know we spent two days at the park. I'm not sure what day we went on Pirates of the Caribbean, but it might have been our first. I don't think I'd heard of the Caribbean before (I vaguely remember asking my Mom where the Caribbean was as we were walking in) and I'm not sure if I'd heard of this attraction or not. Yet, something is ringing a faint bell about hearing about it on a Sunday night episode of "The Wonderful World of Disney" that featured a tour of Disney World in Florida. Something happened on that ride. It began my love affair with pirates. It's the only explanation I have for my love of pirates. One of my all-time favourite movies is "Captain Blood" starring Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland. So, yes, I loved pirates long before they became cool thanks to Captain Jack Sparrow and the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise. I was so ahead of my time.

So, when DH and I started dating and I mentioned that I loved pirates, he asked if I knew that pirates were Templars. I said, "What's a Templar?" Well, thanks to Dan Brown and the DaVinci Code, we all know what they are. There does seem to be some evidence that pirates were, indeed, Templars.

So, that's the second thing. Here's the third:

One of my favourite books as a child (under eleven-ish) was "Heidi." This was before I read the "Anne of Green Gables" series. I'm sure I read Heidi many times. I was always fascinated by how Johanna Spyri described the beauty of the mountains of Switzerland. I loved to pretend I was from Switzerland, which I can only attribute to reading Heidi. Reading it made me crave cheese and milk as a child. (Who funded this book, the Swiss dairy guild?) Oh, and guess what my name is in German? Heide. No wonder I loved the book.

Now, here's where things get interesting. The Swiss have a legend of the founding of their country by some knights in white. This legend dates back to around the time the Templar order was dissolved in the first decade of the 14th century. If you look at the Swiss flag, there is a strong resemblance to the Templar cross. Also, the Templars were the first international bankers, and well, what's Switzerland known for? (other than cheese and chocolate?) Banking. Some very interesting coincidences.

So, there you have it. Templars and pirates and snakes, oh my. So that's it then. I'm off to commandeer a ship, "pick up a crew..., raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out." Who's with me? And guess what I just found out? There are no poisonous snakes in Jamaica!!! (but they do have constrictors).

Drink up, me hearties, yo ho!

Where True Friendship Begins...

2010-07-31T10:40:00.000-07:00

You never know when you'll find yourself facing a moment when you're challenged. I had one of those moments the other day. If you've ever read some of my older posts, especially the ones dealing with religion, you'll know I'm an outspoken "radical gracist". But lately I've been confronted with the fact that though I preach such things, I can still be quite ungracious.

Here's what happened: I met up with someone from the distant past. Someone I never kept in touch with once we left high school. This was someone that was from my viewpoint, at the top of the social order. I can't say that I looked up to her exactly, but I know that I sought her friendship and approval and that I would have died of happiness if I thought that she considered us to be friends.

Twelve years ago, we ran into each other at a reunion and the first thing she did was grab me into a big bear hug and say, "I'm so sorry for the way we treated you." Wow. That was something. The funny thing is, I never felt that she was mean. Sure, she teased, but it was all in good fun and I played along. We both had a sense of humour.

We recently found each other online and we met up in person the other day. Naturally, part of the conversation consisted of the shared experiences of our youth. I was shocked to hear how she considered herself an outsider during her early years at school. Really??? No way! I was also stunned to hear how she had been hurt by the same institution. In fact, I think her story was probably far more painful than mine. We talked about the legalism of the institution and how damaging it was. It was a bonding moment for me to realize that I wasn't the only one who was affected. The legalism was NOT what I was used to. The group I hung out with from my home church wasn't like that at all.

Somehow she has managed to not only survive, but has kept her faith and her graciousness. Yet, here I was, someone that considered myself a radical gracist who in many ways just wanted to close the door on the past and let it be. The past was the past and it was dead. It was what it was and I wasn't really interested in looking back. I didn't think I held a grudge, or was angry. I just didn't want to go back.

Due to the nature of the education, we were fairly isolated as students. We each sat in our own cubicle. There wasn't that much interaction with the other students. It wasn't until my last year when the format of the curriculum changed and we had more interactive learning that friendships really developed, but she had graduated by that point and missed out on that.

I recently saw a quote from C.S. Lewis that I loved: “Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another, "What! You too? I thought I was the only one." Friendship was born the other day; true friendship. She introduced me to her family as her friend. And, now, I realize, yes, that's what we are. We *are* friends.

I can't under-estimate how healing the experience of that visit was. I found myself almost literally, physically healing. Again, the odd thing was I don't even consider myself angry or holding a grudge. I found myself letting go and realizing that we were all just kids, all in our own little worlds. I didn't know much about their backgrounds and they probably didn't know much about mine. That's just typical narcissicic kids. I bet there were a LOT of stories of painful pasts at that place. A lot. No wonder some of the kids were so miserable.

A friend has suggested that perhaps in my rejection of mainstream literalistic Christianity that I was throwing the baby out with the bath water. I now am beginning to realize how accurate that statement might have been.

I think I've passed a milestone on this journey I'm on. At least I think I have. Thank you, friend, for sharing your heart the other day. It's helped me more than you will ever know. We are fellow pilgrims on this journey and may God guide us both in our search for truth and grace. I love you.

25 Years

2010-06-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe, but I graduated from high school 25 years ago today. In many ways, it feels not that long ago; in some ways, it feels like it was a different lifetime.

Let me start off by saying that I hated high school. I went to a high school that was run by a church that we didn't attend. Having gone to Catholic school and having been picked on because I wasn't Catholic, I was looking forward to going to a school where I figured I would fit in better. How wrong I was.

I was shocked at how mean spirited and ignorant most of my classmates were. Most of the guys weren't bad; it was the girls. Some of them out downright nasty. This is NOT what I expected. I put my head down and did my work. I also had the "misfortune" to be a good student, so I got picked on almost every time I hit 100% on tests. Occasionally, the teachers held me up as an example of good behaviour and that "their" kids could learn a lesson from me. Oh, man. Did that ever do wonders for my social standing. Yes, the movie "Mean Girls" was fairly accurate. You know you were treated like crap when the most popular girl in school grabs you in a big hug at a reunion and the first thing out of her mouth is, "I'm SO sorry for how we treated you." I'll never forget that. She wasn't even, really, one of the "mean girls." She had a heart.

I was pretty lonely. I had no friends. The only people I hung out with were other "outcasts". The one time I remember ever being shown some friendship was during a school trip to Dallas in 1982. Part way through the trip, two girls took me "under their wing" and insisted that I bunk, eat, and go around Disneyland and Magic Mountain with them during the latter part of the trip. I've never forgotten that kindness, either. (I like to think it was because they wanted me to be with them and not because some teacher told them to).

It was completly opposite to my home church youth group. NO ONE there was nasty; we didn't treat outsiders that way. New friends were always welcome. At least that's how I remember it - and I'm sure that most of us from that youth group would say the same thing.

By the time I got to grade 12, the format of the curriculum and method of instruction had changed, making it easier to interact with classmates. That was when friendships started to form. Yet, once graduation happened, within a couple of years, a lot of us had lost touch with each other. I only kept in touch with one, but that was sporadic and we'd sometimes go for years without talking to each other.

Recently, I've reconnected with some of the people I went to high school with. Some of them I welcomed back to my life, others more reluctantly so. It's not that I judged them by what they were 25 plus years ago (as I certainly wouldn't want to be), it's just that other than the fact we went to the same school, there wasn't anything to talk about. Even then, our perspectives on the school would probably be quite different.

I look back at the intervening years and wonder, "So, what did I accomplish?" Sadly, I don't see a lot to be proud of. Because I lacked any self-confidence, I never went to university. That was because I was scared of math. Little did anyone know that I had a physicial disability that caused me to struggle with it. Yet, because I was good at everything else, it was swept under the carpet. I don't blame the school for that. No one would have known. I'm just sad that it wasn't caught early, for it would have made a huge difference in my life.

So, I guess today is a day to remember and look back, and also to "go home and rethink my life" to see if there is yet time to accomplish something I can look back at the end of my life and be proud of.

Miley Cyrus

2010-05-31T21:04:00.000-07:00

Teenage sensation Myley Cyrus has come out and reportedly said that she "doesn't get" Glee. You can see the story: here.

She says, " Honestly, musicals? I just can’t... What if this was real life and I was just walking down the street on Rodeo Drive and all of a sudden I just burst into song about how much I love shoes?”

I find it rather funny for someone that's made her money from singing and a tv show that is musical saying something as inane as this. I mean how realistic is it to think that all her Hannah Montana character has to do is put on a wig and no one recognizes her? And they don't just break out spontaneously in Glee. The songs are appropriate to the story being told and are often set in a rehearsal or performance setting. What is there not to get about Glee? It's not rocket science; in fact, it's a very good show. Naturally, it's not to everyone's taste, but you would think that someone in the music industry would appreciate other people's talents. The kids on Glee are *definitely* talented.

Granted, Miley's young and when you're 17 you often speak your mind without really thinking. She's also grown up in the spotlight so almost everything she does is recorded, and who hasn't said something dumb they regret?

Unfortunately, she's developing a very bad pattern: I remember reading that she whined publically about the car her parents bought her for her 16th birthday becuase it wasn't brand new; it was used. She dissed Twilight (not that I'm a huge fan of Stephenie Meyer's writing; she's not that good) and she's apparently said something not too pleasant about the latest sensation, Justin Bieber.

Well, I'm not saying that she isn't entitled to her opinions. Of course she is. But, the same kids that watch her and like her, also like Twilight and Justin Bieber. She's going to start alienating fans if she does that. You would think someone would have spoken to her about that, as she's starting to get a reputation of being a bit of spoiled brat - deserved or not. Unfortunately, the media is always going to pick up on the worst. But, perhaps someone has warned her.

She's a Disney Channel star and she may have short shelf life if she keeps this up. Look at Hilary Duff. She hasn't done that much lately, but at least she went to Harvard (or at least was studying via correspondence). Miley, on the other hand, has said she won't go to college but focus on her career. Frankly, I think she definitely needs some more education. It might help her learn some good life skills.

Musings on Earth Day

2010-04-22T18:19:00.000-07:00

Today is earth day, a day we take some time to think about the environment. Now, I'm not one of those radical environmentalists, but I try to do my bit. I recycle as much as possible, I use environmentally friendly cleaners (including a wheat based cat litter for the cats), I take transit to work, I take shopping bags to the store, so I don't require plastic, etc. etc. It's not much, but every little bit helps - I guess.

I encourage everyone to take a moment and, if you can make a small change or two for the sake of the planet, to please do so. I'm excited to see how many environmentally friendly cleaners there are for laundry, dishwashers, etc. The planet is our home and we owe it to future generations to try and clean up some of the mess that's been done.

Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Truth?

2010-03-19T18:24:00.000-07:00

I remember getting warned in high school about studying the Bible outside the mainstream church. Studying it at university was bad because university was filled with arrogant intellectuals who would pick apart the Bible and try to cause people to lose their faith. And I believed it.

As I've said before, I was a mainstream christian who thought the Bible was inerrant, etc. etc. etc. until nine years ago when my faith was destroyed. In case you want to know a bit more, you can find more details on the story here.

After I'd walked away from mainstream christianity, the words from an old Amy Grant song had new meaning for me:

"All of my friends are happy to stay here in this yard day after day
But something inside me has called me away.
I don't understand but I know I can't stay...

'Cause I have felt for the first time
I can be myself
No more faces to hide behind
Just a smile and a dream that's mine
Even if I am the only one who wants to fly"

Recently, I've come to debate certain issues relating to the Bible truth with certain mainstream christians. Let's just say that these people come from a background that considers their denomination as "theology for the rest of us." In other words, the... um... not too intelligent. I'm not going to name the denomination, but it relies on a lot of "signs and wonders" there's a lot of "flash and boom" and "talking in tongues." I think you can read between the lines. When you try to point out that there are two different stories about Judas' death, two versions of the story of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter, two lists of Jesus' ancestry, they don't listen. One is told that anyone that dares to suggest such things is arrogant, deceived by logical sounding lies and that “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools.”

This attitude bothers me. I consider myself a seeker, especially a seeker after truth. I want to know who Jesus is. There's a lot of details missing in the Bible about him, and I want to know as much as I possibly can. Is there anything wrong with that? I'm a very curious person and I want to know - not so I can say I'm smarter than anyone. I just want to know.

I have now come to appreciate those scholars at universities who write and teach on the subject of religious studies. One is Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Does this sound like someone that's looking for contradictions, or a sincere seeker? Another is John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Another is Elaine Pagels from Princeton University, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ms. Pagels has seen her fair share of tragedy, losing a young son. These are NOT scary people. In fact, they sound like seekers to me. My kind of people: intelligent seekers.

These are people that have gone through the Bible meticulously and some of them have come out with things that don't quite fit with the message that's preached by mainstream christianity. Bart Ehrman has pointed out some very interesting contradictions in his book, "Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them." None of these contradictions should be dismised lightly. They should be taken seriously. One thing that deeply disturbs me is the allegation that most seminaries now teach that Paul did not write all the epistles that are attributed to him. For example, it's well known in (most) seminaries that Paul didn't write I and II Timothy. Other people wrote those letters in his name. Yet, these pastors never tell their congregations that. That sounds like fraud to me.

So, who are the arrogant ones? The ones that refuse to listen to the facts, and open their eyes because they're frightened at what they might find, or is it those who are seeking? Personally, I think it's the former. I know that know-it-all attitude, for I, too, once thought that I knew all the answers and that anything that disagreed with the Bible was wrong and couldn't stand up to scrutiny. Isn't it arrogant to think you can't learn something from someone you may not agree with?

The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know. That's the place I come from. I admit that there is a LOT I don't know. Like everyone else, I have some pet theories about Jesus, but I'm also open to the idea that I might be wrong on some things. Everything I read influences me. How is that arrogant? I really hate the idea of being ignorant, and I think God gave us brains for a purpose - to use them. I consider education very important. I would rather know the truth - even if it hurts and disturbs my comfortable worldview than be misled. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

So, who are the arrogant ones? The know-it-alls, or the seekers who aren't afraid to challenge their boundaries?

May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth.

Three Visions of Grace

2010-03-11T20:19:00.000-08:00

I posted a couple of months ago about "Amazing Grace". Grace is one of those things that it may be hard to put into words, but you know it when you see it - and when you don't. Here are some of my favourite visualizations of grace.

One of my favourites is a scene in the movie "Gone With the Wind". It's the scene were Scarlett shows up at Ashley's birthday party. Scarlett wasn't going to go, as gossip had ripped through the town earlier that afternoon regarding Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett makes Scarlett attend the party, and leaves her at Melanie and Ashley's front door to "enter the arena alone". Scarlett stands there proudly and haughtily, daring the gossip mongers to say something. Melanie breaks through the crowd and marches directly to Scarlett. There is a moment's tension: what will she do? Will she slap Scarlett across the face? Order her out of her home? No. She kisses Scarlett on the cheek, and welcomes her, saying, "Scarlett, darling. What a lovely dress." There is a moment of confusion on Scarlett's face. This was not what she expected. It was grace.

Another favourite is in "The Mists of Avalon" mini-series. King Arthur's wife, Gwenwyfar, a christian, never really trusted her sister-in-law, Arthur's sister, Morgaine. Morgaine was a follower of the Goddess, and in Gwenwyfar's eyes, a witch. Gwenwyfar had even gone so far as to manipulate a marriage for Morgaine in order to remove Morgaine from Arthur's court. Fleeing for her life after she's been caught with Lancelot, Gwenwyfar returns to the convent at Glastonbury where she had been before she married Arthur. Morgaine is also in the convent, and when she sees her sister-in-law, she doesn't hesitate. She embraces Gwenwyfar and welcomes her to her new home. The past was forgiven and forgotten. It was grace.

I found another one tonight - and it made me tear up.

Recently, I've discovered a new favourite tv program: "Glee". Being musical and being an awkward outcast in high school, I love it. Most (if not all) of the kids in McKinley High's glee club are social outcasts; they aren't cool. None of them have friends outside of glee club. They have to stick together and stick up for each other. There's a lot of grace on that show.

There's one character, Quinn, who is pregnant. She was a cheerleader until she got kicked off the squad due to her condition. She's also president of the abstinency club and she's too scared to tell her parents that she's expecting. When Quinn's parents (who are church-going christians) find out, they throw Quinn out of the house. "What went wrong? We raised you right. Who are you?" her father asks. With tears in her eyes, Quinn says, "I'm your daughter who loves you and I need my Daddy to hug me and tell me everything is going to be all right." Both parents walk out of the room. Quinn and her boyfrined, Finn (who thinks he's the baby's father) go to Finn's house. When Finn tells his mother that Quinn's parents have thrown her out, he asks if Quinn can stay there. Without a moment's hesitation, Finn's Mom hugs Quinn and says, "Of course". It was grace. Knowing that Quinn and Finn (who came up with that name combo?) are going through a rough time, the glee club expresses their feelings of friendship and support for them in a rendition of "Lean on Me". It was grace.

Why is it that in two of these three stories, it's the christians/church goers who just don't get grace? Is it because they've never "lived" and fallen down and scraped their knees? Perhaps, is it possible, they've *gasp* never been truly confronted with it, and if they did, they'd be confused - like Scarlett was. If Melanie had flown into a rage at Scarlett, or been icy cold, Scarlett would have understood and known how to deal with it. She was so haunted by Melanie's actions that she went home and paced the floor for hours. In Rhett's words, "So she stood by you, did she? How does it feel to have the woman you loathe cloak your sins?" I love the phrase, "cloak your sins" as that is what grace is: a mantle, a cloak, something to keep you warm.

It's Oscar Night in Hollywood

2010-03-07T11:39:00.000-08:00

Well, it's that time of the year again when Hollywood hands out the hardware. As in past years, I'm going out on a limb and predicting tonight's winners in some of the major categories:

Best Picture: Avatar;
Best Animated Feature: Up
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges;
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock (even though I'm hoping Meryl Streep wins);
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz;
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'nique;
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow.
Best Special effects: Avatar
Best original score: Up
Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria;

I'll update this post later to see how I did, and my impressions of the show.

Edited to add:

Well, with one exception, my predicitons were bang on. I was wrong in the best picture category, as The Hurt Locker won. I haven't seen it yet, but I knew it was Avatar's biggest competitor in the best picture race. I agree with the awards that Avatar did win: special effects, cinematography and art direction. Those were its strong points. (even though, personally, I thought the art direction in Sherlock Holmes was excellent and would probably have voted for it or The Young Victoria).

I missed hearing the nominated songs being performed. I generally enjoy those. I wasn't overly impressed with the dancers performing during the performance of the nominees for best original score. I didn't feel they added anything to the music; in fact, I found them distracting. Glad to see Up win for best animated feature and score. I *loved* that movie.

Though I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, I still think that Meryl Streep was robbed. She was fantastic as Julia Child. I didn't care for Mo'nique's acceptance speech: "I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics." Um, you just DID make it political.

Best dressed list: Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz (surprise, surprise!), Anna Kendrick. I liked Rachel McAdams' and Kristen Stewart's dresses, but not their hair. I liked Sarah Jessica Parker's dress and hair, but not her makeup (looked like it was sprayed on). Another pleasant surprise was Jennifer Lopez.

Dresses/ensembles I didn't like: Maggie Gyllenhal, Miley Cyrus, Nicole Richie, and Charlize Theron (what *were* those things that looked like they were grabbing her breasts, cupcakes?). I didn't like all the fruff of the bottom half of Zoe Saldana's dress, either. Made her look like a Zigfeld girl.

Something has changed...

2010-03-06T13:54:00.000-08:00

When I was growing up, Canada always sucked at the Olympics. It seems we came in third - at best - to either the USSR or the US. It seemed that we couldn't compete with the best in the world. And we accepted it, or at least seemed to.

Now things have changed. Ever since the Calgary Olympics in 1988, Canadian medal counts have slowly gone up. The only thing that was missing was an olympic gold medal won in Canada. This time, in Vancouver, everyone knew it would be different. It wasn't "if" a Canadian athlete would win a gold medal, it was a question of who and when. Thankfully, we didn't have to wait long. Alexandre Bilodeau won his gold medal on the second day of competition. The whole nation rejoiced. Our embarressing legacy of being the only host country not to win a gold medal was over. Bilodeau predicted that more would follow. By the end of the first week of the games, Canada had nine medals - at least one per day. There were those who criticized this, saying it wasn't good enough. I was happy - as I remember a final total of five or six medals for the whole games.

Then, the floodgates opened: the women's hockey team won gold, two gold medals and a bronze in men's short-track, a silver in women's curling, followed by a gold in men's curling. The crown jewel awaited: the men's hockey. In some ways, no matter how many gold medals were won, if this one eluded Canada, it would be disappointing.

The men didn't make it easy on themselves, getting by Switzerland in a shootout and losing to the US in round one. We waited nervously with bated breath to see what they would do against the Russians. Turns out, we needn't have worried. It was a rout: 7-3 Canada. Next up were the Slovakians. After going up 3-0, Slovakia got two late goals in the dying minutes, and Canada hung on to advance to the gold medal game against the US. Once again, the men kept a nation in suspence: after going up 2-0, the US tied it in the third period, and it went to over-time. Thankfully, it was settled quickly. Sidney Crosby was the hero and scoring seven minutes into it. For the second time in three Olympics, Canada was double gold medal winners in hockey. The nation went nuts. It was delirious. By the end of the games, we won 26 medals, our best haul over - and 14 of those were gold - a record for *any* country.

Canadians are quiet patriots. We aren't pushy about it. Yet, you could sense in the air with this Olympics - even before the opening ceremonies - that there was something special about to happen. There were splashes of red and white all over: flags waving from cars, homes and office buildings, people dressed in red and white, etc. We just needed the occassion to show it off, that's all.

We've changed these last three weeks. We are no longer meek and mild and just happy to be invited to the big dance. We are now fiercely competitive and can definitely say that we can compete with the best. The days of Canada sucking are long gone.

Thank you, Canadian Olympians. You made us all proud.

An Olympic Moment

2010-02-23T01:01:00.000-08:00

I love the Olympics. Whenever they are on - summer or winter - I try to watch as much as I can. It's rather odd, as I'm not a sporty person. I always sucked at sports. I figure skated as a kid, but failed my second badge as I couldn't perform a certain manuever for the required amount of distance on the ice. Thus ended my Olympic dreams. Pity, as I would have been the perfect size for a pairs skater.

Every now and then, you come across a moment at the Olympics that really epitomizes what it's all about - the true Olympic spirit. Tonight was one of those nights. Tonight was the free dance segment of the ice dancing competition. The Canadian team of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir were in the leading heading into tonight's competion. Their closest rivals were the American team of Meryl Davis and Charlie White. Turns out the teams train together and are the best of friends. White and Davis skated first to the music of "Phantom of the Opera." They laid down the proverbial gauntlet and skated a fantastic routine. They received excellent marks, with a slight deduction as one of their lifts was too long (like anyone other than the judges would have caught that). Then came Virue and Moir. They were magical and skated flawlessly. The look on their faces at the end of their routine was priceless. He could be seen saying, "I love you so much" to her. Canada held its collective breath. Would their marks be enough to move them into first place with two teams left to skate? Yes!

CTV hypothesized that the two teams had performed so well that perhaps double gold medals might be in order. When it was all decided, Virtue and Moir were first, Davis and White, second and the Russian team of Domnina and Shabalin were third. It was a historic night as no North American team had ever won gold in ice dancing before. While being interviewed backstage after the win by CTV, Virtue and Moir were interupted by Davis and White who came by to say "Hi!" and then proceeded to hug, kiss, and congratulate them. They were genuinely happy for their rivals. Apparently at some point they said, "We're so proud of you." Wow. The feelings were reciprocated, as Moir told CTV that they were proud of Davis and White and, "without them... we wouldn't be here." During the medal presentation both teams were glowing and very excited with their medals. The skating and the conduct of all four skaters impressed me. After the medals had been handed out, the teams went for a victory skate. I felt slighly embarressed for the Russian team as they were the only team that didn't have a flag to skate with.

It's good to see that sometimes at the Olympics, the Olympic spirit does, indeed, shine through. Congratulations to both Virtue and Moir and Davis and White. All four of you are a credit to your families, your countries and your sport. I wish both teams well and I look forward to watching them skate for many years to come.

A Very Bad Precedent.

2010-01-27T21:56:00.000-08:00

The voters in Oregon have done something that I consider sets a very dangerous precedent. You can see the story: here

As a Libertarian, I believe that "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys". (Cato Fellow PJ O'Rourke)

First of all, if they have a $727,000,000 deficit for a two year budget, there's a problem. Let's be honest: greedy, looting governments never get enough - and it's all in the name of the "public good". They need to do some serious cost-cutting before demanding more. They should be ashamed to be demanding more. I think there are better options. Apparently more money is spent on prisons than on education. That, to me, is wrong. For many reasons. So, here is one solution:

I read some time ago that 1/100 Americans is in jail. That, to me, is far too high a number - and I bet that most of those stem from drugs. So, the first step is make marijuana and other drugs controlled substances. I have no problem with drugs being legal. As a Libertarian, I believe as long as you don't violate any one else's rights, you should be allowed to do as you please. Therefore, as long as your drug habit doesn't drive you to breaking and entering, etc. you should have the freedom to waste your life doing drugs if you so choose. People may cry, "Oh but what about the carnage to families?" I say, look at the carnage that the DEA has done to families by throwing people in prison for 90 years for marijuana - a drug that more than half the population believes should be legal.

So, if you make drugs legal, you have need of a LOT less prisons and no DEA (which has far too much power as it is - talk about teenage boys with whiskey and car keys). You can tax the sale of the drugs, and the tax revenue from the drugs and the savings from closing the prisons and DEA can go back to education, or better yet returned to the public that it was looted from.

Taxpayers are maxed out and the looting has to stop. Yes, public education is important, but I sometimes wonder if those in education sometimes play on parents' vulnerable heartstrings a little too much. There is NO excuse for a $727,000,000 deficit. They need to live within their means and start spending as if it was their money - and not someone else's.

Truth vs. The Lesson

2010-01-25T10:55:00.000-08:00

Recently, I was sent a youtube video called, "This will make us all think" and an invitation to join a group called "Keeping Christ in the Classroom" ("KCITC"). This person also posted it in a public place where other people could see it. You can see it here, and the group that posted it. I hate to ask this, but I'd encourage you not to watch the video and give them the readership in order to inflate both their numbers and their egos. I'll provide a link to the complete story in the next paragraph. I'd heard the story years ago; this was nothing new, but alarm bells went off in my mind because the story claimed that the events happend "recently". Me, being me, I went to snopes.com - that great debunker of urban myths and legends. It's a great resource for checking out all those stories that you come across on the internet.

Just as I thought: It's false. They had the story posted there with different variations. It's nothing but an urban legend. I hit the roof; I was so angry.

I was angry that this KCITC would post such a story without either (a) checking their facts or, (b) posting this propaganda knowing it was myth and legend in order to further their cause, which is a blatant violation of the separation between Church and State and a violation of the U.S. constitution and is illegal. If you want Christ in the classroom, send your children to christian school. Either that, or home school them. Your choice. There is room for both secular and relgious education in this society. Even if you agree that Christ should be in the classroom, don't you want your viewpoint represented by solid facts and not urban legend? The fact that they would use myth and legend to propagate their illegal agenda just made me livid with rage because most christian people wouldn't even bother to check the story; they'd just blindly accept it.

Let me define what I mean by myth and legend. Merriam-Webster describes myth as: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society. It's a belief not facts. Legend they define as: a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable. In this case, the story is insupportable. I don't mean to say that myths are lies just because they didn't happen. They are just stories and often there is a moral or lesson to them. They are that: just stories.

I let the person know that forwarded this story and invited me to join this KCITC (obviously she hadn't even bothered to read my blog, or she'd know where I stood on such things) that this was just legend and guess what I was told? It didn't' matter. It was the lesson that was important - standing up for what one believed. Several other people chimed in the same. Not one other person had an issue with it. I couldn't believe it. If the story was told as an anecdote or prefaced with, "There is a story about a professor..." but it wasn't. It was told as an actual event that happened USC.

I was told that this was no different than a movie or a novel where the lesson was what was imporant. I disagree. Novels and movies often have disclaimers stating that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters or actual events is mere coincidence." Or, if the story is based on actual events, they will say certain parts of the story/dialogue were changed for dramatic purposes. There is NO such disclaimer here. Jesus spoke in parables, but he didn't try and pass the stories off as actually having happened - and his audience knew that.

I was told that "I once knew the truth" and that I'd been "deceived by a logical sounding lie." Yet, I've done far more research, reading and study on all these topics than the lot of that group put together. In any other field, I'd be regarded as an amateur expert and my knowledge taken seriously. But not when religion's myths are exposed as just that and people's worldviews are in jeopardy. No way. Then it's me who's in the wrong.

I posted again asking the people that had responded saying they were fine with the story being just a lesson, "Which one of you would have checked this out? I bet you none of you would have. You would have just accepted this as fact if it hadn't been for me doing some research". Do I get any thanks? No. Guess what? I got an email entitled "enough venom spitting" and the thread was deleted - with the exception of the original post. This person obviously isn't interested in truth or rational discussion but simply propagation.

I love the hypocrisy of KCITC's statement, "...if we simply have faith and one person stands up for him. There is a lot of power in faith and we need to keep it strong so that when people do try to break it we can hold on". I seem to be one of the only ones that's interested in standing up truth against these devious manipulators.

This really bothers me. Deeply. On many levels. First, that KCITC is using myth and urban legend to affect public policy. If that's the best they have as evidence, they shouldn't be taken seriously. Any judge would dismiss this in court. Second, that when the story is exposed as urban legend that it doesn't bother people. Third, that someone would shut down a discussion leaving the story in place without the disclaimer that the story is just legend thereby helping propagate this myth leading others to believe it's true.

So who is right? Is it important to expose things like this as myth and urban legend that are told as historical events when the group telling the story is using it for political ends, or is it the lesson that's important? I'd really like to think I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.

Sherlock Holmes 2009

2009-12-27T20:07:00.000-08:00

I first fell under the spell of Sherlock Holmes before I was ten years old. I can date that fairly accurately as I remember reading "The Hound of the Baskervilles" that I took out of my public elementary school library(I switched to Catholic School in grade four, so that's why I can date it). At least I think it was that book; I can't be sure now. When I was 20, I received a book containing all the Sherlock Holmes short stories for Christmas and immediately began reading them and thorougly enjoyed them. I now have the complete works of Holmes in one volume.

When I heard that Madonna's soon-to-be-ex-husband Guy Ritchie was doing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. I knew I would be seeing it.

I confess that I am a bit of a fan of Robert Downey Jr. He was the best thing about Tropic Thunder and I think if it hadn't been for Heath Ledger dying, Downey would have won the Oscar this last year for Best Supporting Actor. He was absolutely brilliant.

Downey wasn't the stiff, loner, Sherlock Holmes. No, he was more physical. Downey's Holmes can box and shoot a gun. There are a few sequences when you are allowed into his thought processes as he quickly analyses and assesses his situation. He was a convincing Brit, and carried it off well. He doesn't take himself too seriously. I am not a fan of Jude Law; I would have preferred to see Ewan McGregor in the role of Dr. Watson, but Law handled himself well as Holmes patient, loyal friend.

True to the spirit of the stories, Holmes and Watson are roommates, with Watson engaged to be married to his beloved Mary. We see that Watson takes notes and keeps records of their adventures, which, of course, are the basis for the stories. (If you remember, Watson was the narrator of the stories). You may also remember that Holmes was a frequent user of cocaine. There is only the faintest of hints of that in this tale.

Excellent re-creation of Victorian-era London; art direction and costumes were well done. Along for the ride is Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, who was immortalized as "the woman" from the story "A Scandal in Bohemia". From what I remember, she was the "love" and passion of Holmes' life - and only woman who ever bested him. I was thrilled to see that they had they had brought that character into this story. McAdams plays the role with perfect zest and spunkiness - and looks great in the luscious period costumes she's given. I did, however, find her makeup a tad distracting, as I thought it was a little overdone for the period.

A thorougly enjoyable adventure which leaves the door open for a sequal. In fact, it's almost necessary.

Merry What?

2009-12-23T14:49:00.001-08:00

Born December 25th to a virgin mother;
Son of God;
A travelling preacher who had 12 disciples;
Performed miracles;
Known as the "good shepherd", "the way the truth the light", "redeemer", "saviour"
Died at Easter

Sound familiar? Well it should. However, I'm not talking about who you might be thinking I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Jesus; I'm talking about Mithras.

The cult of Mithras pre-existed Christianity for at least 600 years. The similiarites between Jesus and Mithras were so similar and the early Church fathers were so fearful that their sheep would discover this that they claimed that the devil went back in time and created the story. Have you heard anything more ridiculous in your life??

Oh, and Mithras isn't the only demi-god that was born at Christmas and killed at Easter. There was Attis, Adonis and several more. Like the Mithras story, all those demi-god stories pre-dated Christ by several hundred years.

So, this begs the question. Which one is historically true? Which ones are myth? To me, it's obvious that NONE of them happened and they are all myth. Here's why:

One: We know that Caesar Augustus NEVER ordered such a census as Luke says he did. As I've said before, we have excellent records of that period of Roman history and no census was ever recorded. It would also have been logistically impossible.

Two: Look carefully at the geneologies in both Matthew and Luke. They contradict themselves. I've heard the contradictions explained away by being told that one lineage was Mary's and the other was Joseph's. Not true. Luke clearly states that it's Joseph's family tree and not Mary's.

Three: There was no massacre of the innocents by Herod as Matthew describes. There is absolutely no historical proof of this. Herod was a tyrant and despised by the Jews, but this is one crime he didn't commit.

Four: Quirinius and Herod were not contemporary. Herod was dead by the time Quirinius was governor of Syria, which Luke claims he was in his attempt to date Jesus' birth.

We all know that Christianity stole (or borrowed) things from the cultures it imposed itself upon. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about outright plagarism. There were no copyright laws back then, so no one had an issue with it. However, Christianity is the one religion that claims this stuff actually, historically happened. They claimed Jesus was unique. Obviously not true when so many parallels existed between Jesus and the other demi-gods. It doesn't bother me that Christianity stole the date of Jesus' birth. After all, Queen Elizabeth was born in April and the official celebration of her birthday is the Trooping of the Colour ceremony in June. However, if you strip away all the myth that pre-existed centuries before what are you left with? Um, not much. In fact, nothing at all.

If Jesus was so important, why don't we know more about him? The only records we have of him are in the Bible and a reference in Josephus. Yet, we now know that the reference in Josephus was a forgery. It was added by a monk a very long time later.

I'm not saying Jesus never existed. I don't know; I suspect he did, but I'm not sure. To me, however, it's obvious that he's not what we were told in the Bible.

So, where did all this mythmaking come from? I have read enough to be convinced that it was Paul - for many reasons. Paul was from Tarsus, which was a seat of the Mithras cult. Eating bread and drinking wine in a ritual meal was also part of the Mithras cult/Greek Mystery Religions. We know that I Corinthians (an authentic Pauline letter) was written before the gospel stories, so guess who made that up? You guessed it: Paul. Also, remember, since drinking blood or eating food with blood in it was forbidden to Jews, Jesus NEVER would have said, "This is my blood." I quote Hyam Maccoby (who, obviously, is Jewish):

“This is not to say, of course, that Jesus did not distribute bread and wine to his disciples at the Last Supper. This was quite normal at a Jewish meal... The leading person at the table would make a blessing (blessing is the original meaning of the word Eucharist) and then break the loaf of bread and pass a piece to everyone at the table. Then at the end of the meal, grace would be said over a cup of wine, which would be handed around at the end of grace... This procedure, which is still practiced today at Jewish tables had no mystical significance; the only meaning of it is to thank God for the meal He has provided. The addition of mystery religion trappings (i.e. the bread as the body of the god and the wine as his blood) was the work of Paul, by which he turned an ordinary Jewish meal into a pagan sacrament. Since the blood of an animal was forbidden at a Jewish meal by biblical law (Leviticus 7:26) the idea regarding the wine as blood would be found disgusting by Jews.” The Mythmaker pgs 115-116

Sometimes I wonder why I even post this stuff. After all, those that know this stuff don't need me "preaching to the choir" and those that want to believe in Santa Claus still will. I get tired of people telling me I've been deceived by "logical sounding lies" when they haven't read anything about church history and the origins of christianity. But if I can convince one person to look at the house of cards christianity is built on and rationally examine their beliefs by looking at the cold, hard facts, it will be worth it. This is shocking; heck, I know. It's as shocking to the modern day christian as Gallileo's heliocentric model of the universe was to those who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, Gallileo was the one that was right. Experts say that mainstream christianity has only one or two more generations left. I hope so. When one wakes up from this myth, one feels as silly as if they were 21 years old and still believed in Santa Claus.

Merry Mithras, Happy Holy Days (whatever you chose to celebrate) but please try and keep the myth in Christmyth.

It's a Sad Day

2009-11-02T21:28:00.000-08:00

It's a sad day in the stitching world. If you aren't a cross-stitcher, the name Teresa Wentzler probably won't mean anything to you, but for us stitchers, she was a well-known designer.

I first discovered her work in 1993. My first chart was her Rapunzel. So far, I've completed only one of her designs, a freebie, Jeanne Love's Angel. I don't have all her charts, but I have most that I want; there's just one or two more that I would like. Going through my "stash", it's her designs that I have the most of. In many ways, she is my favourite designer.

She specialized in mythological and fantasy pieces and almost singlehandedly brought cross-stitch out the dark ages of aida cloth and tea towels, and made it something special, and created wonderful art. Peaceable Kingdom, Egyptian Sampler Mermaid, and her Four Seasons Faeries rank high as some of my favourites of her designs. She was known as the "Queen of the Blended Needle" due to the profiliery of blended colours in her designs. Not only was she a very talented designer, she also had the reputation of being one of the nicest people one could ever hope to meet.

Economic times being what they are, it's not longer feasible for her to keep her business running. It's a real shame. It's always sad to hear of a designer or a Local Needlework Shop/Online Needlework Shop ("LNS/ONS") going out of business. It's a loss to the stitching community.

Good luck, Teresa, and thank you. You will be missed.

The Slippery Slope to Legalism

2009-11-01T11:37:00.000-08:00

I've heard it suggested that if we followed the Ten Commandments, those are "standard moral laws". I find that interesting. You see, Christians are supposed to be "under grace" and not "under law". So, if one is trying to follow those and use the Ten Commandments as a guidepost because they are "good moral laws", then one is not following grace, but law. That's my definition of a legalist, someone who follows rules to the letter of law instead of the spirit of the law.

I submit that most Christians violate those Commandments every week. I'm referring to "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". How is that? That's because most churches meet on Sunday and not the Sabbath (Saturday). Early Christians began meeting on Sundays and not Saturdays in order to distinguish themselves from Jews who met on Saturdays.

As James said, if you are guilty of violating one commandment, you are guilty of violating them all. (James 2:10). In other words, one is guilty of murder, committing adultery, bearing false witness, taking God's name in vain, etc. all because church meets on Sunday and not the Sabbath.

One could say that we don't have to worry about keeping the Sabbath because we are now under grace, but then that's a slippery slope, isn't it? What other commandments do we decide not to keep based on that? I eat bacon and shellfish; always have, and I see no reason why I would give them up based on some ancient rule. Both are forbidden under Jewish law (though not the Ten Commandments), so all my life I violated the law and was, by association, guilty of murder, etc. That seems overly harsh, doesn't it? And what choice did I have? None. I didn't decide when Church met; I was a child taken there by my parents. So, therefore, there were sealing my doom by taking me to a church that didn't line up with what the Bible said. Does that seem just? The church that I was raised in - and all that I've ever attended - therefore, were all not following the law. What about the grand total of 613 laws the Jews had? I can imagine some people saying that it doesn't matter to a christian if they eat such things as bacon or shellfish. But again, the slippery slope. If you throw out that, then you can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian, and claiming to strive to have your life "line up with God's word", or claim that your church follows the word of God because you are picking and choosing which rules to follow. Hey, I have no problem with not keeping the Sabbath or eating bacon, but then I'm not claiming to be a Bible-believing, Christian. All I'm saying is that if you are claiming to be such, you'd better think about what you are saying in order to be consistent in your arguments. Either one changes all church worship services to Saturday, or one admits that one doesn't have to follow the Ten Commandments.

If things like eating pork and/or keeping the Sabbath can be dismissed because one is now under grace, then one has to seriously think about the other laws that one doesn't follow anymore because we are no longer under the law but under grace. If one considers that the Ten Commandments are good moral laws, and that the biblical punishments for breaking those laws are just, then we need to be executing people for taking the Lord's name in vain, stoning those that work on the Sabbath, etc. Surely one must see how ludicrus this is because the Law does not just constitute the Ten Commandments.

Doing good deeds wasn't forbidden on the Sabbath. The Pharisees understood that. Jesus understood that. The Pharisees were somewhat pragmatists. They understood that sometimes you have to answer to a higher law. They, like me, had natural law tendencies. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. In fact, I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was himself, a Pharisee. Please see Hyam Maccoby's "Jesus the Pharisee" and "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". Jesus words' in Mark 3 where he is quoted as saying that "the sabbath was made for man" was actually a Pharisaic motto according to Maccoby (but he doesn't cite his source for saying that). It was not original to Jesus. So, there was no way he was arguing against the Pharisees as the writer of Mark suggests. He was actually quoting Pharisaic doctrine and beliefs. The Pharisees were more traditional Jews and "of the people" and the Sadducees were nothing but Hellenized Roman quislings. The two groups hated each other and did not get along. I first heard of that in Bible College, and that seems to be confirmed by all the readings I've done. In the verses immediately following the story in Mark 3, it says that the Pharisees "began plotting against him [Jesus] with the partisans of Herod to see ow they could make away with him." This was impossible; there was no way the Pharisees would have done that, as the Pharisees were against the Roman occupation and the Herodians were for it. The word should not be Pharisees, it should be Sadducees. (The Mythmaker page 34). I can't recommend that book enough; it's fabulous and sheds a whole new light on Jesus and Paul. It's sad Maccoby is not better known that he is.

That also goes for the story in Mark 2, where Jesus and his disciples eat grain from a field in violation of the Sabbath rules. I quote: "One may violate all laws in order to save life, except idolatry, incest or murder." (Palestinian Talmud, Seviitt, 4:2 (35:a); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a). When Jesus was questioned about the grain eating incident by the Pharisees, in Pharisaic tradition, Jesus recites the story of David eating the shew bread (which was forbidden) while David was fleeing from King Saul. It was a case of severe life or death, and so, therefore justified. All the Pharisees were doing when questioning Jesus was checking out the facts; they weren't accusing him.

My point is, one cannot get bogged down in rules and dogma. If one does, one will go crazy (almost literally) trying to keep every single piece of the law. Believe me; I've tried. In fact, it's impossible. Some of those rules were meant only for the times anyways due to the unsanitary conditions. They didn't have toilets or disinfectant soap and they had no idea of bacteria and infections and how germs and contagion could be spread.

I highly doubt Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." If someone was to say to you, "If you love me, you will obey me," what kind of person is that? That certainly does not show love, which Jesus supposedly came to do. That's something that an abusive, tyrannical wife-beating husband would say to his wife. Anyone that would obey under such circumstances is anything but free; they are under bondage and are obeying out of fear, not love. Either Jesus was nothing but a demanding control freak, or he did not say those words. I find the latter the most likely scenario. Here's why: Jesus supposedly said those words at the Last Supper. If so, why were they not recorded in the other three gospels? In no other gospel does he say anything like that. John was the oldest of the gospels, written possibly as late as 135 C.E., and it's authenticy was hotly disputed because of the gnostic teachings that pervade it. To quote Maccoby, "In the Fourth Gospel, that of John, Jesus has become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose Hellenistic mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. Here the authentic Jesus has been lost in the post-Jesus myth. It is not here that we find the genuine Jesus, rooted in the Jewish religion of his time, and pursuing aims that were intelligible to his fellow Jews." (Jesus the Pharisee p. 136) Note the word I highlighted, Hellenistic, not Judaic.

One doesn't find grace by meditating on rules and law, but by looking beyond them to what the goal should be. I've never discovered anyone who followed a rulebook to the "last jot and tittle" that was gracious; in fact, quite the opposite. Jesus was willing to break some rules because of a higher goal, and I agree with him.

Some People Just Don't Get it

2009-10-31T15:50:00.001-07:00

I just have to laugh at some people and shake my head. I really feel sorry for those christians who don't understand grace. They can talk all they want about it, but they are simply "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." I feel sorry for them, as they are missing out on so much. Anyone that would point to a list of mission groups and try to discuss grace on the level of "the doctrines of grace" just doesn't get it - especially if they name their blog after a lawgiver. It's so ironic. I really feel sorry for such people, as they are living under law and not grace. The sad thing is, they don't realize it I pity them. Yet I can't be too harsh, for I once was the same way.

Ryan O'Neil said, "Love means never having to say 'I'm sorry'" in the movie "Love Story". When I first heard that line, I really didn't get it. I think I understand it better now, as in many ways, you can substitute the word grace for love in that sentence. You don't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" and keep beating yourself over the head. God knows your heart. You don't have to keeping coming to him cowering and saying "I'm sorry". They even make fun of that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (Be warned: some people may not share the same sense of humour). You don't have to continually keep track of your errors. After all, sin just means that you've missed the mark. It's not a moral word. It means you've missed the goal, the target mark. That's what the word meant. It means you didn't score 100% on your test, or win the gold medal.

Do you really like people that continually pick at you and demand perfection, or you you prefer to be with people that accept you just as you are, warts and all? I know I certainly prefer the latter. Isn't that the way God is supposed to be? Then why do some people think that you have to keep confessing, or examining your heart and conscience before God? Doesn't grace mean that you are now a son of god and that you have the spirit of God inside of you guiding you? If so, how could you go wrong?

Grace means you don't refer to some church's doctrines on the subject. It's something that happens on a personal level, and it can mean different things to different people. It's an experience and not one that can be found by reading doctrine. The legitimate letters of Paul talk about "radical" grace. The disputed letters contradict the legitimate Paul. Grace means that "If it pleases you to please the Lord, you can please yourself." No one has the right to judge you.

Martin Luther may have talked grace, but since he was a well-known anti-semite, he was definitely missing out on the whole point of grace. Yet, he was definitely on to something. However, no one that could say the things he did about the Jews really didn't understood grace. That being said, anti-semitism was rife in the culture, and he was a product of his times.

I remember a class in Bible College where the teacher was talking about groups of people in the church. There were those who could be hurt by your actions, by your "eating meat offered to idols". Those people you should be sensitive to. To put it in modern terms, be considerate and sensitive to people: don't go indulging in a bottle of wine in front of someone that has a problem with alcoholism. However, there are other peopl in the church, who run around and think they have the right to tell other people what to do: "Don't do that. You'll offend somebody!" These people weren't offended themselves; they were just control freaks justifying their actions by telling the person that they "might" offend someone. Such people one didn't need to be worried about upsetting.

Since I don't like control freaks, I have no problem ignoring such people.

It's just sad, and is a big part of the reason I no longer attend church, as I've said before.

Amazing Grace

2009-10-20T18:30:00.000-07:00

Why is it that one so often finds more grace outside the church than inside? That's something I've wondered about for a very long time. Let me start this off by saying that I am not writing this from a victim's standpoint, whining and bitching that I've been hurt by people in the church and that's why I no longer attend. No. If I did, I would be extremely hypocritical, as I know that I, too, can be extremely ungracious; I still wrestle with it at times. To those I've hurt, I am deeply sorry. This may sound a tad hypocritical coming on the heels of my last post, but it needs to be said.

When I first started dating DH 12 years ago, he told me that he was a "radical gracist" in the Pauline tradition. When he at first explained to me where he was coming from, I really didn't understand it. I was one of those that really liked rules: black and white. I liked defined lines where I knew where I stood and understood my boundaries. If I stepped outside those boundaries, well I knew there would be consequences for my actions - but at least I knew that. I had a very sensitive conscience, and hated breaking rules. I didn't like things that were subjective. The funny thing is, I should have liked math, as there are always right and wrong answers, yet due to my chromosomal deficiency, I hated it. Oh, sure, I talked grace, but somehow I had missed out what it really was. I really didn't understand it. I didn't realize that at the time; I thought I did. But I didn't. I very much had a rod up my you-know-what and was a stick-in-the-mud and could be extremely judgemental. For example, I really didn't understand how certain denominations could justify ordaining gay ministers. I mean, it was right there in black and white in the Bible that they were going to hell. How could they not see it?

Yet, on the other hand, I always felt that it was more important to show people love than rules. I really didn't see how throwing a bunch of rules at someone would encourage them to come to church or convert them to christianity. Showing them that you cared was the only way to make them see that you had something special that they might be interested in knowing more about. Launching a lot of scripture at them would not be the appropriate thing to do.

In schools of legal thought, I would consider myself a natural law person, as opposed to a positivist. Let me take a moment to explain that. Natural law means that there is a higher law or higher principle than man-made rules. For example, if a pregnant woman was speeding to the hospital because she was miscarrying her baby and a policeman pulled her over, the right thing to do by natural law would be to let her off: there was a higher goal, preserving the life of the baby. Now, if the policeman was operating under positive law, he would give her the ticket: she had violated the law, and should therefore receive the ticket, even if there was a reason.

The whole idea of radical grace was a little disconcerting to me. I mean, Paul does say that everything is acceptable, but that made me uncomfortable. Everything??? When I thought of the ramifications, that made me very uncomfortable. Then I met some of DH's friends. They were some of the most gracious people that I've ever met. I haven't always been that gracious towards them, I'm sorry to say. Yet, they had something that I admired.

Slowly but surely, I felt some of my legalism and judgementalism strip away. It wasn't working anyway. The more I tried to be good and failed, the more miserable I was. I wanted freedom. Not because I was planning on running around abusing my freedom, but inwardly, I've always hated rules for the sake of rules. Sure, we need some rules to function by as a society, but there was enough of a rebel in me to say that some rules weren't worth keeping. Just because it's a rule doesn't necessarily make it right. For some rules, there is no basic moral reason behind them. For example, we don't drive on the right-hand-side of the road in North America because it's immoral to drive on the left.

As someone said to me, "If it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself." I began to realize that who was I to judge someone because they were gay? What did it matter to me? Wasn't it between God and their conscience? Why was it any of my business? Why did I think I had the right to judge them? When I realized that, it was a tremendous relief. It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. I realized that I had been very arrogant in thinking that I could play judge and jury. People are grown ups and can be responsible for their own decisions. Now, I may not necessarily like what a person may do, but it's not my place to judge. Here's an example: I don't like abortion - not by a long shot. Yet, I don't feel I have the right to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. All I hope is that she makes an informed choice.

It reminds me of the novel, "In His Steps" in which a group of church members took a vow that for the next year they would do nothing without first asking themselves the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" How they anwered that question was between them and God. No one else in the group that took the pledge was to question a choice that another member had made. A decision one person made would not be the same decision that another person made. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could live like that? Wouldn't it be intensely freeing?

I'm not saying that *everyone* inside the church is ungracious; I'm talking more about the institution in general. I think Jesus was right when he said, "If your neighbour is taking you to court and on the way you meet up with him, settle it there." The reason would be it's better if you the two parties can work it out together; the minute you get an institution involved, you end up handing over some (or all) of your autonomy and nobody gets the result they want and often justice isn't served. The same thing with church; it's an institution. It seems to be the nature of institutions. The minute they are involved (whether government or churches), rules, protocol and procedure come into play and the whole goal of the exercise is lost. The rules are there so that people have guidelines of behaviour; so that people can "expect" others to behave in a certain way. The church, sadly, becomes more about keeping the flock in line than showing grace. How often has a person in a church either unconscionably or consciously done something unexpected? I don't need to elaborate; we've all seen the reaction and fallout when that happens.

A long time ago, I know of an individual who was going through a tough time (Person "A") and the church didn't make it easy on them. Yet there was one person (Person "B") who stepped up to the plate and went and did something very loving and gracious for Person A. I know some people thought that perhaps Person B was condoning what Person A had done. Who cares? I'm sure what Person B did was a real bright moment during what was otherwise a very very painful time for Person A.

Perhaps because we're all walking wounded and it's those that are disturbed by the legalism they've come across in the church that it's those of us who are outside can understand grace more than those inside. (Notice I said *can* not *do*). I'm not perfect - far from it. As I said, I still wrestle with legalism and ungrace. I still lose my temper (as evidenced by my last post). I'm a pilgrim on this road searching for truth - just as you are. Where your path may go, may not be the same as me. And I'm all right with that. I don't expect you to agree with me 100%. Wouldn't it be ironic if I got hate mail for this post? I think it would just go to prove exactly what I've been saying...

Coming out of the Closet - The Fallout

2009-10-08T16:10:00.000-07:00

This is specifically addressed to the person who responded to my blog post and decided to set up a blog themselves to show me the evil of my ways. You can see what they did here. I find it interesting that the person would call his blog "Beginning at Moses". Considering Moses was the lawgiver, you can see where the person is coming from: legalism and definitely NOT grace.

Dear sir,

Unless one has spent the time reading all the books on church history, origins of christianity, religious studies, and watched the hundreds of hours worth of documentaries that we have, then one really can't comment by saying "no contradiction" in one or more blog posts. Once you have read our list of books – and maybe come to a different conclusion, then we can possibly communicate. Then, perhaps, only then can we talk. I know where you are coming from. I’ve been where you are and changed. Yet, you do not know where I am coming from. Until you have walked in my shoes we cannot have a rational discussion about this. I cannot go back to where I was. If you see no contradictions, that's fine. I, for one, do.

The comment “bravo” was meant in the original context of the word, “brave” as my husband was proud of me for having the guts to actually speak my mind. I knew the potential consequences and I did it anyway. Because I’ve read dozens and dozens of books on these subjects, it’s hard for me to articulate in an abbreviated space what these authors have said in volumes.

It's well known in academic circles that Paul never wrote II Timothy. It’s generally agreed that Paul’s genuine works are: Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Galatians and Philippians. Most Bible Colleges, supposedly, teach that (but the pastors NEVER tell their congregation that). Please see The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus J. Borg. The rest were written “in his name” but not by Paul himself. Today we would call that plagiarism, but no one had issues about it back in the first century. In legal terms, he would have no subject matter jurisdiction to do a raid on the people of Damascus. It was out of his jurisdiction and he had no authority there. I know there are contradictory statements in Acts about Paul’s conversion experience and what Paul says happened in his letters, but I can’t find what book that was in. I think it was The First Paul I mentioned above. Paul was from Tarsus, a seat of the Mithas cult. (Tarsus/Taurus both meaning “the bull.”) I’ve read convincing arguments that what Paul was doing was basically rewriting the Greek mystery religions for Jews and that he was no Pharisee. No Jew would EVER have drunk blood – it was forbidden in the book of Leviticus. Jesus NEVER would have said, “This is my blood...” as Paul claims - even if it was meant as a symbol. I was stunned when I read that. I should have known that all along. It seemed so obvious to me when I saw it before me, but why hadn’t I seen it before? Even you can’t refute that drinking blood was forbidden to the Hebrews.

I'm not saying I know it all - heck no. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else. I challenged what I believed - and found it sorely wanting. If you challenge yourself, and it stands, I'm happy for you. For me, the Bible that I thought I knew (and I thought I knew it well) didn't stand up to too much scrutiny. It bothers me that something like Jesus' divinity came down to a vote – by someone like Constantine who had an agenda for political control. Some archaeological digs do support some things about the bible - some don't. It's estimated by the Jesus seminar that up to 84% of what we are told about him in the Bible never happened. And, how do you reconcile the stories of Mithras, Adonis, Attis that all pre-dated Christ by hundreds of years, or are you going to side with the church fathers who said the devil went back in time and planted the story? Surely you must see how ridiculous that claim is. But before judging me, go read them for yourself. James Frazer’s “The Golden Bough” also retells some of those myths. If you are content with believing that only one of those is history and the others are simply myth, that's all right. I, personally, had to be honest with myself and say I couldn't accept that. The stories are too close to be coincidence. Go and do some research on the cult of Mithras. You should be shocked at what you find and how much christianity stole from it.

These men and women who talk about the contradictions I’ve mentioned have spent their lifetimes doing this work. A lot are people like Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Some are like John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Unless you have put in the hours and years of study that these – and other - men have, you can’t just simply dismiss them. To say that, “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools” is pompous and arrogant on your part – when you have not walked in these men’s shoes. You do not know them, nor the journeys they took. How dare you be so self-righteous that you would call them deceived by the devil. You should at least listen to what they have to say. How dare you say they don’t know what they are talking about and that their research does not stand. The fact is you say that because you don't want the research to stand, and not because you know anything about them or their work. Your opinion is formed in sheer and utter ignorance. You’ve never read what they’ve said, nor read the manuscripts they have. Once you have, then you can form an opinion. Until then, you have no right to speak.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are NOT sound, and I quote Mr. Ehrman, “Matthew left out some names in the fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian disaster. In 1:8, he indicates that Joram is the father of Uzziah. But we know from I Chronicles 3:10-12 that Joram was not Uzziah’s father, but his great-grandfather. In other words, Matthew has dropped three generations from his genealogy.”

Do I know what happens when we die? No. And if you were honest, you don’t know either. You believe something. Belief and knowledge are two quite different things. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is all there is, but I don’t know.

I find your accusation that I am a “dead soul” very insulting, especially when you don’t know me. In fact, I find myself in a far happier place spiritually and more healthy emotionally and a more tolerant and gracious person now than when I was a Bible believing christian. I look back on the person I was then with shame. I now consider myself a “gracist” and believe that “if it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself” and I won’t question it. I would just hope that I would receive the same from you. When you spoke of churches “dummying down” I do understand what you are talking about. Now that I see things differently, I want to chew on some meat and not the milk I was fed at church. I now read the academic stuff; the books one reads in upper level theology classes. I find the stuff one finds at the average christian bookstore much too dummied down for my liking and trite. I consider myself fairly well read, and fairly intelligent – though my academic career is nothing compared to a lot of people. Heck, all I have is a one year Bible Certificate, my paralegal certificate and a love of reading and learning.

When I was in Bible College, we had a teacher that said that when he was a pastor, his goal was to work himself out of a job – to get the congregation to the place where he wasn’t needed anymore. I remember thinking how brilliant that was of him. As time goes on, I think more of him for it. To bring a person to the point in their (spiritual) life where they can stand on their own should be the goal. I don’t know what psychology you may or may not have studied, but when a person goes for counseling, they can develop “transference” and it’s up to the counselor/psychologist to make sure that transference – as painful as it may be for the patient – is broken. The movie “Holy Smoke” with Kate Winslet portrays it quite graphically. Kate’s cult deprogrammer, Harvey Keitel, in order to break transference slaps her across the face in order to force her to break from him. Perhaps those that have left the church have broken the transference and have the ability to stand on our own. Perhaps it’s us who “saw through a glass darkly, but now face to face.” My walk is my walk – and yours is yours. Surely after all this time you don’t need someone to tell you how to live your spiritual life. I have a theory that those who are still in the church are still afraid of their father (be it heavenly or earthly) and are too scared to stand on their own and need someone to tell them what to do. Once they grow up and are a little more spiritually mature, they, in theory, should no longer need that. God wants us to be spiritual adults – not simpering, whimpering, cowering children. He gave us brains for a reason: to use them to think. He didn’t make us robots.

As for Genesis, I know of a pastor in the C&MA church who doesn’t think there was a literal tree in a literal garden. I didn’t understand him at the time, but I do now. Are you going to say he’s going to hell for that because you see something different?

As for Judas, I suggest that you try and find a copy of “Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil” by Hyam Maccoby. It’s out of print now, but I was fortunate enough to get a copy a few years ago at a reasonable price. His basic premise is that christians used the character of Judas as an excuse to propagate 2000 years worth of atrocities on the Jews. Actually, it would appear that Andrew Lloyd Webber got it right in his musical “Jesus Christ Superstar” where Jesus tells Judas before the betrayal to (I’m paraphrasing) “wear the black cloak with pride”. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas seems to verify that. If Jesus was solely a spiritual leader, and had nothing to do with politics, why do as many as five of his disciples have ties to political groups (Judas Iscariot being one of them, Simon the Zealot being another). That figure of up to five I remember being told back in my NT class at Northwest Baptist. Are you going to say that he was wrong, too and/or just dismiss it because you don’t agree? Speaking of the disciples, can you even name all twelve? There are contradictions in those lists, too, depending on which gospel you read.

In the words of Steve Martin, “You know what your problem is, it’s that you haven’t seen enough movies – all of life’s riddles are answered in the movies." I would also say that there are a lot of life’s riddles answered in books. You need to do more reading – far more than what you can find in your christian bookstore. You need to read books that were written by Jewish scholars like Hyam Maccoby. After all, Jesus was Jewish and who better would understand Jewish culture than a Jew? You need to read books written by academics – real academics from real universities like Harvard, Princeton and Yale, not some bible-paper-mill. People like Elaine Pagels, Bart D. Ehrman, etc. The more you learn, the more you will find you don’t know – and that’s the beginning of wisdom: admitting you don’t know. The word virgin did NOT mean a young woman that had not had sex; it meant maiden, an unmarried young woman. It was mistranslated. If Jeconiah was so evil that God took the throne away from his descendants, then why did God promise David that his throne would be established forever? (II Samuel 7:11-16) Isn’t God contradicting himself, which God supposedly cannot do?

If you are going to say that God cursed Jeconiah and took the throne away from him because he was so evil, then do you condone the horrors of slavery that were imposed on Africans by their christian “massers” because Ham was cursed by Noah, and Africans are (supposedly) his descendants? That was the justification that “good Christian white folk” used. Are you saying that the estimated nine million Africans that died on slave ships en route to America somehow got what they deserved because of something that supposedly happened several thousand years before? Are you going to condone witch trials because all women were cursed through Eve? Are you saying the pogroms and the holocaust were justified because the Jews supposedly rejected Jesus? Surely to be consistent, you must.

If someone from the 15th or 16th Century were to time travel to our time and tell us that the earth was flat and it was the centre of the universe, would we believe him? No. Science has proven that’s not true. If he was to tell us that animals are “automatons” and feel no pain, would we believe him? No. (I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Rene Descartes would say something so stupid). Would we believe him if he said that you couldn’t trust a woman’s word in court simply because she was a woman? No. Would we believe him if he said a woman must be a witch because he came down with a head cold after seeing her in the street (or some such nonsense?) No. Then why would we trust anything he would have to say about religion and the authority of the church? That would also go for the London Baptist confession of faith, too.

My hope lies in the fact that, if there is a god, he will not cast anyone out who genuinely seeks truth. I want to know who the historical Jesus was. I want to know, so much that I am willing to go beyond the borders of the playground I was told was safe to play in to find out who he was. Short of going back in time, the best I can do is read about him. No doubt he is disgusted, as I am, at the atrocities that have been – and still are committed in his name. Most recent of which is the Iraq war which President Bush said was to “avert Gog and Magog” and Sarah Palin called, “A Mission from God.” My hope does not rest in a two thousand year old book that that’s unreliable as history and science and contradicts itself. I believe Luther was onto something when he said, “faith alone” but I don’t take everything he says as true as it’s well known he was a raging anti-semite, so that taints some of his sayings which coincides with what I said in the previous paragraph.

How can I explain how it changes lives? Easy. It’s because deep within us, we passionately want to believe that we are important to God. It reaches deep into our psyche, something very primal. We want to believe there is something more to this life than the miseries we see every day. How can I explain how it’s lasted this long? Again, that’s easy. You obviously don’t know anything about church history and how much control they had to ask such a question. Can I explain why supposedly over 5,000 documents agree? Sure. It’s called scotoma: the eyes see what they want to see. If you are determined not to see errors in the scriptures, you won’t. You are wearing rose coloured glasses. I’m not saying the Bible doesn’t have a place in the world, but I do have problems with everything in it being taken as literal fact, when I’m convinced that not everything is. There was no divine author. The stories were written down by men – sometimes many hundreds of years afterwards. And these men had agendas. If and when you realize that some of it is metaphor, you will find yourself in a much happier place spiritually with new eyes to see. You will see so much more than what is in front of you and see the bible as a richer document and you will wonder why you didn’t see it before. As I said in my last post, I am not going to be the one that stands up says which part is which (even though some things are more obvious than others).

You just haven’t seen it yet. You may never. Until you do, we cannot communicate. Please do not speak of this again; I do not wish to communicate with you ever again. There is no point, as we will probably never agree and it’s just not worth the time effort, stress and heartache on my part. Until your eyes are opened, this whole exercise is pointless. It’s not because if you don’t agree with me, you aren’t welcome to talk to me. It’s just I don’t think there is enough common ground to have a rational discussion. I have made a conscious point of weeding out people like you from my life: legalistic christians that really don’t understand grace. What gives you the right to say to me "Turn to Him"? What gives you the right to ask me when last I asked the Lord for guidance? How dare you presume I don't. Who made me answerable to you? Arrogant, ignorant, condescending, paternalistic, chauvinistic, holier-than-thou attitudes and beliefs wrapped in the hypocrisy of “caring” like what you have displayed are what drove me and millions like me from the church. The Inquisitors said the same thing when they were torturing their victims: they were doing it for the good of the person’s soul. Based on your comments, I think in another day and age you would have been one of them – persecuting anyone who disagreed with you. Perhaps no one (especially a woman) has ever dared say these things to you, but since I will not be communicating with you ever again, I have no problem of telling you exactly what I think of you. Your brand of "christianity" needs to die. The sooner the better.

You may never have the eyes to see, but I pray your children do one day.

It's Time to Come out of the Closet

2009-10-03T23:53:00.000-07:00

Ha! Bet that title got your attention. I guess it's time I do something I normally don't do: talk about something personal on the Internet. This is going to be a very long post. Okay, let's start:

I was raised a (Protestant) Christian, went to Catholic elementary school, a horrible Pentecostal high school, and Baptist Bible College. I always got "A's" in anything to do with religion or the Bible. I sailed through my One Year Bible Certificate at Bible College. I was heavily involved in church and church-related activities. I sang in the choir, led music teams, taught Sunday School, was on the Missions Committee, etc. etc. I believed the Bible was the literal, inerrant word of God, that Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth to die for our sins and that all who believed in his message of salvation would go to Heaven.

Yet, deep down, I always had issues. I struggled with a lot of things. How could a loving God demand that the Israelites wipe out whole communities of people, including innocent children? These were people that didn't have the chance to hear about the Israelite god or given a chance to convert, and God demands they are wiped out and sent to Hell? I had problems with that big time. I saw one or two other things in the Bible that bothered me, too: why are there two stories of Judas' death in the New Testament? One is in Matthew 27, the other in the first Chapter of Acts. One says he hangs himself, and the other says he trips in a field and his intestines spilled out. There was no way I could reconcile the two stories. Then there were the crucifixion stories where one gospel says that the thieves that were crucified with Jesus both reviled him and another says that one begged Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom. Okay, I could gloss over that one a bit. Two different people at the crucifixion were there at slightly different times. One missed the thief begging for forgiveness. Yet, still it bothered me.

It also bothered me that no matter how hard I struggled with my weaknesses, they never improved. No matter how much I really tried - and I did - I just kept failing. It was discouraging. I would continually fall into despair and dejection and a vicious cycle of legalism. I looked around at the people I was in church with and found myself incredibly lonely; I must be a very bad person if I was wrestling with this stuff - it seemed they had it easy. No one else seemed to be wrestling with the issues and questions I was. I just kept getting told to "have faith." I found those platitudes really unhelpful and insulting. I learned to keep my mouth shut.

Then, one day, I met DH. It was refreshing to talk to him, as he had wrestled with the same isues and questions. He suggested that there were others that had, too. In fact, a of of very intelligent people wrestled with those same issues. When I read Freud's "The Future of An Illusion", I was blown away by his statement that we try to gain god's approval as the same way we tried to gain our father's. It was true. I knew it. That's exactly what we do. DH also talked a lot about "radical" grace. It helped me see things in a new light. For several years I was still a mainstream christian and still believed, but then something else happened: I had an epiphany; a crisis. My world was ripped apart, and I would never see things in the same way. It was Easter 2001 and I read a book called, "The Hiram Key". It was a history of freemasonry; I wasn't expecting anything too radical, and I was interested in the masons and the Templars. But there was something in the early chapters that changed my outlook on everything I'd ever been told. In that book, there was a list of demi-gods that were born to human mothers and divine fathers around Christmas and sacrificed/crucified around Easter. Here are some of them: Mithras, Adonis, Attis, Dionysis. I was stunned - and these all predated Christ by hundreds of years. In all my readings, I'd never heard of any of this. I'd never even heard of Mithras. That was it. In that moment, it was like "scales fell from my eyes" and I never saw things the same. There was no way that I could dismiss the rest of those demi-god stories as myth and say that the one that I was raised to believe was the only one that was historically true. There was too much that could just be dismissed lightly. That was the end for me. From that point on, I could no longer accept Christianity as literally true. I walked away never to return. I've since done more readings that include those names and more. If you read Fraser's "Golden Bough" you'll come across more myths that are very much the same as the Jesus story. In fact, the parallels between Jesus and Mithras are so close, it's scary. So much so that the early church fathers claimed that the devil went back in time and screwed with the space time continuum and planted the story. Yeah. Right. It's sad to think that a lot of people bought that nonsense.

Around the time I started reading "The Hiram Key," DH was reading a book called, "The Templar Revelation" and, at one point, he leaped out of his chair and said, "Have you seen the Last Supper?" I said, "Of course I've seen the Last Supper." He asked me to pull up a picture online, and I did. He pointed out the person sitting on Jesus' right (our left) and he said, "That's a woman." I had to agree; it looked like a woman to me. Little did we know that within two years, millions more people would see it too with the publication of "The DaVinci Code" but I'm getting ahead of myself. It was one of those moments you never forget. You look at the painting, and look at it and wonder why you hadn't seen it before. It could very well be scotoma: the eye seeing what it wants to see. Does that mean that I want to see a woman now? Perhaps. I'm not ruling that out. Art historians claim that John was often painted very effeminate looking (look at Leondardo's painting of John the Baptist to see what I'm talking about. You can see it here

The next year (2002) I read, "The Holy Blood, Holy Grail" "("HBHG"). DH had been trying to get me to read that for quite some time and I was now ready. I was captivated from the first chapter. It started with the atmosphere of a detective novel about a priest called Bérenger Saunière in southern France in a small place called Rennes Le Chateau. The priest found "something" under his church and suddenly he became VERY wealthy. He was visited by all sorts of important people and even went to Rome. He never spoke of where the money came from. There is some talk that he trafficked in masses, but that doesn't explain how filthy rich he was. When he died in 1916, he was refused the last rites by the attending bishop who walked out of the room ashen faced. The writers went on to hypothesize that what Saunière found was documentation that proved there was a bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that the royal houses of Europe traced their ancestry back to them ("the divine right of kings"). That line of kings were called the Merovingians. They were later betrayed by the Catholic Church who replaced them with the Carolingian line.

Now, I'm not saying everything the authors said was right - even they don't claim that. Yet somehow, it made a lot of sense to me. The Hebrew word "messiah" meant earthly king; it was not meant to be a heavenly king. The Jews were right in expecting that. It also made sense to me that the Jews would have kept track of David's royal bloodline and heirs. No, I'm not talking about the census in the Gospel of Luke; historically, that never happened. Augustus NEVER ordered such a census. We have excellent records of that period of Roman history and there was no such census ordered. It would have been logistically impossible. Also, Herod was dead by the time Jesus was born (approximately 4 B.C.) and he (Herod) was not contemporary with Quirinus who Luke claims was governor of Syria at the time Jesus was born). While reading HBHG and it's sequel, "The Messianic Legacy" I could literally feel the physical healing of my soul.

Yet, I was confused. I was in a place Joseph Campbell would call "The Dark Night of the Soul" and I wasn't sure where I stood on a lot of things. I was convinced that a lot of the Bible was metaphorically true and not historically true. I was sure that Jesus giving a blind man sight could easily be giving him the gift of spiritual sight and curing spiritual blindness and not curing physical blindness. To me, they were both miracles. Was I going to stand up and say, "This one is history; this one is metaphor? No way.

The more I read about the early church and church history, the more repulsed and angry I became. Constantine was no christian; he was lifelong member of the Sol Invictus/Mithras cult and converted to Christianity on his deathbed. (I've wanted to trademark that phrase for a long time now: "Constantine: The Original Deathbed Catholic"). I found it very easy to believe that there was an agenda to cover up the fact that Jesus was married and possibly fathered children. On one side, there was the matter of secrecy, in order to ensure the survival of the family and, two, there was the agenda of disparaging Magdalene (and thereby denegrating all women) as the church fathers were misogynists. It's estimated that millions of European women were denounced as witches and tortured to death by the church. And guess who benefited? The Church. For the lands and properties of those victims of witch killings were seized by the Church. One tends to think there had to be more motivation than just the elimination of heresy: it was greed. Today, when I see photos of St. Peter's and the Sistine Chapel, I no longer see the beauty, I see blood money and I am repulsed. I think to myself, "How many innocent women paid the ultimate price for this?" Monty Python got it right in their scene involving a witch trial in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." You can see the scene here. You may laugh, (and it is funny) but if you know church history, sadly, the logic they follow is fairly accurate. In an episode of the Simpsons where they recount the Pilgrims coming to America, Bart denounces Lisa as a witch. Her response is, "Bart, the ability to do double-digit addition does not make one a witch." (or words to that effect, I'm can't find the exact wording). And I'm only talking about women; the church's treatment of Jews is another matter. It's shocking to think that the attitude that "the Jews killed Jesus" still persists. The facts are they didn't. Jesus was crucified, which was a Roman form of execution - not Jewish. The Jews used stoning as a form of execution. Since Jesus was not stoned to death, but crucified, the Jews were NOT responsible for his death. Sadly, it's led to a lot of horrors perpetrated against them: pogroms, expulsions, and, of course, the holocaust.

Keep in mind, this was all before The DaVinci Code was published. As DH said, "I'm so glad you read all that stuff before it became cool to believe it." When The DaVinci Code was published in 2003, I knew I would have to read it, and I did. My only problem with reading the book was that I knew where he was going with the story; we'd read the same books. DH never read it (he very rarely reads fiction), but we saw the movie opening weekend and he was impressed and said, "He [Dan Brown] did his homework." When DH had read "HBHG" way back in the 80's he said he felt the premise would make for a good thriller and said Dan Brown did a far better job than he ever could have with it.

I am constantly amused and frustrated at the vitriol that is thrown at the book. Come on, people. It's fiction. To me the arguments they throw at it are "straw man" arguments; they weren't attacking the real issue. If you want to address the real issues Dan Brown raises, then attack "HBHG" and the other books like "The Templar Revelation" that Dan Brown used as the basis for his research - the books that are non-fiction. The one argument that amuses me that people raise is, "If Jesus was married, it would be in the Bible." Well, I'm not sure about you, but I see a lot of information missing about Jesus in the Bible: What were his first words? How old was he when he began to walk? What subjects did he like in school? Who were his playmates? What were his favourite foods? etc. etc. The Bible is not some reality t.v. or "The Truman Show" where the cameras were on him 24 hours a day capturing his every moment for posterity. The Bible never said Jesus (to quote the Steven Curtis Chapman song), "...cried when he was hungry; did all the things that babies do. He rocked and he napped in his mother's lap and wriggled and giggled and cooed." The Bible never talks about those things, but one can assume that they happened since Jesus was fully human. I've heard arguments from an evangelical perspective (can't remember where, but it might have been at bible college) where I was told that, based on Hebrew culture at the time, that it would have been unusual for Jesus not to have been married, as it was a Jewish young man's duty to marry and bear sons.

Okay, so if it would have been normal for Jesus to have been married, who would be the most likely candidate based on what we know? It seems (almost) obvious: Mary Magdalene. Legends persisted that she went to France after the crucifixion taking the grail with her and was accompanied by a "dark-skinned servant girl" named Sarah. Woah, nelly. San greal (Holy Grail) was probably a copyist's error; it should read sang real, which means royal blood, or blood royal. Think of the drink sangria: it's red. So, Mary Magdalene goes to France with the blood royal accompanied by a servant girl named Sarah? If you know the meaning of the name Sarah, you should be stunned: it means princess. Is it so far fetched to believe that someone who was fleeing for their life and wanted to conceal her child's royal connections would refer to her as a "servant" (think of both Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament - they both did the same thing when it came to their wives; they referred to them as "sisters"). Is it so hard to believe that people would have had to cloak this in metaphor and symbols for the protection of the family?

In order to tarnish Magdalene's reputation, the Church called her a prostitute. She was no such thing - yet the stigma remains. There was a Jewish tradition that God had a wife, but the Catholic Church did all they could to wipe out the sacred feminine. However, belief in the "goddess" survived. She was transplanted in the belief that Mary, the mother of god (not Mary Magdalene) is the Queen of Heaven and the intermediary between man and God. (Hey, that's what I was taught at Catholic School). The final scene of the mini-series "The Mists of Avalon" depicts it beautifully. You can see it: here. That's Julianna Margulies as Morgaine (Morgana Lefay) who is also narrating the scene.

I know that C.S. Lewis said that Jesus was either a lunatic, liar or Lord. But, as I read in Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted", Lewis was missing another category: legend. I am fairly convinced that there was a Jesus (though Jesus is a title, and not a name). I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was a pharisee. If that was true, that would be an even stronger argument that Jesus was married, as you had to be married in order to be a pharisee.

This brings us to the other night when we watched a documentary called "Bloodline". We were unsure if it was going to shed any new information on the subject, and we were both stunned. For guess what? It would appear that they have found Mary Magdalene's tomb in France - just as the stories claimed she was. In the words of the first Lord of the Rings movie: History became legend. Legend became myth - and for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge. Yes, Tolkien was in on it, too. He knew. Aragorn was definitely a Merovingian. Aragorn's father, just like St. Dagobert (a Merovingian king who was betrayed and murdered) was killed with a spear through his eye, and Aragorn had the ability to heal, which was characteristic of the Merovingian kings.

Don't shoot the messenger. In the words of the X Files: "The truth is out there" for those that wish to see. History proves that Christianity is built on nothing but a pack of cards, violence, and lies. It's high time that Christianity as we know it is destroyed. Go read for yourself. Here are a list of books I've read that have highly influenced me:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh;
The Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Margaret Starbird;
Mary Magdalene - Christianity's Hidden Goddess by Lynn Picknett;
Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contraditions in the Bible (and why we don't know about them) by Bart D. Ehrman;
Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong;
The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby;
Jesus the Pharisee by Hyam Maccoby;

If you read the same books and come to a different conclusion, I don't mind. I was shocked to discover so many contradictions in the Bible. There's a lot more than I believed possible. I have no issues with people that challenge their spiritual beliefs and may come to a different place. As the pastor that married DH and I once said, "There is truth in all places." For me, this was where my journey took me. In no way am I saying that I have all the answers. In fact, the more I read, the more I realize I don't know and am always open to re-evaluating my beliefs. New archealogical discoveries are always being made; new books are always being written. Do I still consider myself a christian? Yes and No. Yes, because it's the mythology that's influenced me the most. No because I don't believe the doctrinal statements. I consider myself somewhat of an "emergent christian". I refuse to ever again attend a regular church, but enjoy discussing religious issues and subjects with DH and a few other friends who no longer attend church. I do miss the sense of community, but I just don't fit in anymore - and there's no going back. What has been seen, cannot be unseen. Do I believe in God? Perhaps - but certainly not the vengeful, bloodthirsty god that's depicted in the Old Testament. Yet, I've seen too much of some divine guidance (for lack of another word) to completely dismiss a spiritual realm.

In the words of Bill Maher, in his documentary "Religulous", (which I highly recommend) "If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler - a mafia wife."

But one thing I am sure of, I WILL NOT be a mafia wife any longer. I wasted over 30 years of my life believing something that was nothing more than mythology and a fairy tale. I plan to spend the rest of my life working to bring it down. If you've made it this far doing this extremely long post, thank you.

Government and the Arts.

2009-09-17T11:31:00.000-07:00

In today's newspaper, actress Kim Cattrall, (Samantha from Sex and the City) had some comments to make about the provincial government's cutbacks to arts programs. You can read the story here.

I completely disagree with her, and, on this one the Premier is right. Government should NOT be funding the arts. Period. Government exists solely to protect our rights and should not be funding the arts (or any business) in any way shape or form. I'm sure all those artists are hard-working, but that's not the point. The point is that if people want to support the arts, they will. They will go to plays, the movies, the symphony, art galleries, etc. It should not be looted from taxpayers at the point of a gun and demanded that it go to them.

This also goes for the CBC. It should be privatized. Let it fall or fly. Government should not be in broadcasting. This also goes for the CRTC. Believe me, the CRTC does it's best to strangle the arts and successful artists (but that's another post).

Obviously Cattrall she has had some success. As a successful artist, she can set up a foundation to help those that are just starting out. Perhaps she has. Hugh Jackman has done it. It was reported that when he was in Vancouver filming one of the X-Men movies that he donated a considerable sum to a fund for young actors. It was a classy gesture on his part and it was nice to hear that about someone in an industry of huge egos giving back. That's the way it should be: voluntary. Those that are successful in Hollywood should not be forced to support those that are struggling, but if they feel passionate about it, let them do it. After all, some of them had to struggle very hard to be where they are. Some have lived out of their cars (like Madonna and Hillary Swank). Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have "Project Green Light" that helps young filmmakers get their films made. They know what that's like; they shopped their script for "Good Will Hunting" around Hollywood, so they know how hard that is. Good for them. Should they be forced to? Absolutely not. There may be some that don't wish to support their fellow artists because they have other causes they wish to support; it's their money. They've worked hard for it and can do what they like.

In this economic climate, people won't be going to to the symphony or plays like they may have in the past. People will have to cut back on such discretionary items. It's a fact of life. No one forced these people to choose such a difficult career. They chose that, knowing the risks - and they have to accept that. If it doesn't work out, then they need to find other means of employment. Hey, we'd all like to be successul movie stars. Who hasn't dreamed of seeing their name up in lights, or winning an Oscar? The reality is, the chances of making that kind of success are very rare. But some people have made a decent living, if they aren't marquee names.

Do these people that are upset at the lack of government funds for the arts stop to consider that's because we handing over so much of our paycheques to the government in the form of taxes that that is part of the reason why people can't afford to go to such events? If the amount that was given to the arts was returned to the taxpayer to do with as they wished, perhaps more people would support the arts. It is rather sad when a well-made Canadian movie like "Passchendaele" which cost over $20,000,000.00 to make is considered a success when it only brought in $4,000,000.0 at the box office. The same goes for "Young People F#$#ing. It cost $1,500,000.00 (which is darned cheap) and brought in $14,459 worldwide. Damn shame.

Email or get on the phone to your MLA, MP, Prime Minister's Office, the Federal or your provincial Finance Minister - whomever. Tell them that these artists need to stand on their own, or find other employment and that the government needs to get out of funding the arts.

Mr. President, I agree with you.

2009-09-16T10:00:00.000-07:00

I may not agree with President Obama on a lot of things: bailouts to the auto industry and banks, raising taxes to pay for health care, running up a huge deficit, etc. Well, here's one thing that President Obama and I agree on: Kanye West is a "jackass". Here's the story.

Sunday night, at the VMA's, rapper Kanye West made another of his imfamous classless moves during Taylor Swift's acceptance of her award for Best Female Video. He left his seat, went up on the stage, took the microphone away from Taylor and said that Beyoncé had one of the best videos "of all time." The camera panned to the seated Beyoncé, who was clearly embarressed at West's remarks.

This is a guy that's famous for charging the stage when he lost an award in Europe and for claiming in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that President Bush, "Didn't care about black people." I really wonder at the mentality of someone that doesn't realize how ridiculous it makes them look. What kind of a person would deliberately ruin someone's moment to shine? Even if Beyoncé did make it up to Taylor later (which was the right thing to do) the moment was still ruined. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to his opinions. He does. It's what he did - and in the name of someone else.

Some people really shouldn't open their mouths in public.

R.I.P Patrick Swayze

2009-09-15T21:58:00.000-07:00

In a year that seems to have claimed more than its fair share of Hollywood-types, late yesterday afternoon we learned that actor Patrick Swayze had died after valiantly battling pancreatic cancer for over a year.

I was very saddened to hear this. Though I wouldn't consider myself a *fan* per se, I did like him and I liked the movies that I'd seen him in. Not only was he handsome, but he was talented. Back in the 80's and early 90's when musicals were out of style, he was one of the few "triple threats" in Hollywood that could sing, act and dance. Now that musicals are "back" we're seeing a few more people show off their singing and dancing skills, like Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellwegger, Richard Gere, Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman to name a few. Personally, I would have liked to have seen what Swayze would have done with the role of Billy Flynn in the movie Chicago; not that Richard Gere was bad (he was quite good) but I think Swayze also could have pulled it off. (He placed the role in the Broadway revival).

I'm not sure which role I liked him best in. It's a toss up between Ghost and North and South. I loved him in both of those. Yes, he was also very good in Dirty Dancing, but it's those two that have a special place in my heart. I always felt it was a pity he didn't become a bigger star than he was.

He was not one of those who was in the tabloids; he kept out of the limelight pretty much - that's something I liked. His 34 year marriage to wife Lisa Niemi was another. It's not often you read of that in Hollywood, the graveyard of so many marriages.

He fought his disease with courage and dignity and brought attention to a cancer that has a 90% fatality rate.

Rest well, Patrick. You will be missed.

September 11th - the zeitgeist edition

2009-09-11T08:47:00.000-07:00

What a difference a year makes. You can go back and see my blog post here for my thoughts last year. Since then, my ideas about what happened eight years ago has changed.

Not long after the 7th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, I heard about a movie called "Zeitgeist" and then watched it. I was stunned. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Up until that point, I'd dismissed the conspiracy theorists as "crackpots". But watching that changed my worldview. You can see it: here. Be warned: if you are a mainstream christian, you will not like what it has to say about the origins of Christianity, which is the first half hour or so of the movie. That being said, they are correct with all the parallels beween Jesus and Mithras, and in my view, the similarities are too close to be dismissed lightly - but that's not what I want to address in this post. Feel free to skip over that part until about the 29 minute mark where you see Tucker Carlson.

Now, I may not agree with *everything* the movie says and it does leave a lot of unanswered questions. However, I do agree with some of its general premises. Those are: the World Trade Centre towers (all three - not just two) were a staged demolition and that President Bush lied about what he knew (there are youtube videos showing him contradicting himself). Watch for yourself and you will clearly see puffs of smoke coming out of the lower floors before the floors above collapse on them.

Decide for yourself. You may not agree, but it's always good to question your beliefs and why you hold them.

Musings on Labour Day

2009-09-07T21:34:00.000-07:00

I really don't care for unions. If truth be told, I think they are outmoded and that their time has past.

As a libertarian I don't want to prohibit workers from unionizing. I do realize that unions have served a good purpose in the past and did a lot for the common working man. And perhaps they still do. As I said in a previous post, unions used to have "slush funds" set aside for their members who fell upon hard times. That's taking care of their own, and they should have the right to do this if they wish. However, those days are gone.

These days most - if not all - the things that unions have fought for are now governed by legislation. I've worked in a couple of union environments, and hated them both (incidentally, both were government). Though, in theory, it's good to have someone to go to if you feel you have a grievance against the company and someone on your side, since approximately the 1960's unions appear to have lost their way and their raison d'etre. Where I come from, it seems that my home Province is either run by or at war with unions.

One of many reasons I don't like unions is the hypocrisy. For example, if there is a strike vote and the members vote to go on strike, there are members that just can't afford to be on strike and can't survive on the strike pay they are alloted. How is this standing up for their fellow brothers and sisters? How is this taking care of their own, when those members will never make up the amount of money they will lose during a prolonged labour dispute? How does this improve the members' lives? Why should some idealistic radicals over-ride those members with common sense? I hate leaving my fate in the hands of others like that. I'd rather take my own chances.

Here's another example: earlier this year in Eastern Canada earlier there was a CAW shop that employed 1,000 people. Economic times being what they were, the company was asking for some concessions from the union as the company was cash strapped (I can't remember which automaker this was). The union refused and 1,000 people were thrown out of work. Well done, CAW. If I was a member of that local, I would be furious . Surely it would be better to keep working even at at the same or slightly reduced wages took than be out of work. How is this taking care of their own?

If I work my butt off and the person next to me does nothing why should we be paid the same? Where is the incentive to work harder? Why work harder than them when due to seniority and not merit, they will get promoted ahead of me? We all know that once a person joins a union, it makes it *very* hard for an employer to get rid of an underperforming (or non-performing) employee. That shouldn't be. Let's face it: if we're honest, we'd admit that we're all selfish at heart. We take jobs because we want to better ourselves and want to make a decent living. We educate ourselves and do other things to show a potential employer that *we* are the person for the job - and not the next person. To heck with them. It's ME that needs this job. It's MY family I have to feed. Trying to say otherwise is contrary to human nature. It's survival instinct.

Another big reason I don't like them is their overvaluing of work and labour. I know someone that worked at the Transit Commission on a short-term contract. While there, he discovered that people that pumped gas were making $23/hr. All they required was a grade 10 education. And this was over ten years ago. $23/hr for pumping gas??? That's ludicrous; especially when it's a job with no educational requirements. If that person was working in the real world (like Chevron) they would be making minimum wage - because that's all the job is worth. When the hell did pumping gas become a career? No wonder the stupid morons on the Transit Board are always in the hole. There is NO WAY that they should be paying that kind of wages for that kind of job. How can unions claim to speak for the common man when they drive prices up like that? Let's be honest: most of the trade union-type jobs don't require that much training and/or education. How much schooling does one require to cut meat at a grocery store, or drive a bus? In the realm of things, not that much. In some cases, just weeks (or days). They aren't like doctors and lawyers who spend at least seven years at university investing in their career and become high-level specialists. What jobs do union members create? They don't. Lawyers and doctors do. Get a little perspective here. As a matter of fact, what unions do is drive up the wages for their members and then limit the membership in order to keep those wages high. If they lowered the hourly wage for their workers, more people would be employed - and that's a good thing. In fact, according to Milton Friedman, unions drive up the wages of 10-15% of workers, and lower wages for 85-90% of us.

Another reason I dislike them is their belief that their workers have a "right" to a job and their demands to raise the minimum wage. Guess what? No one has the right to a job. Nowhere is that guaranteed in any constitution. As for the minimum wage, scrap it. Get rid of it. Let the market decide - truly decide - what a job is worth. It should not be dicated by some ivory tower bureaucrats. There's been talk here of trying to raise the minimum wage by 25% ($2.00/hr). Now what employer can afford to give an employee a 25% increase? If you stay at that same job making minium wage (or barely above) for "x" amount of years, that says more about you than the the employer. Get off your butt and educate yourself to get something better. As we all know, every time the minimum wage goes up, jobs disappear. So, how is it a good thing for the economy when jobs disappear? Wouldn't it be better to have some student working at a restaurant earing $5.00 an hour and gaining valuable work experience than not working at all? What about the entrepreneur who started his or her small business? We all know that business owners end up working for less than minimum wage. I don't see any outcry over them - someone that pours their heart and soul into a business and works long hours to make ends meet because they cannot afford to hire they help they need due to minimum wage laws. Yet, these business owners are the ones that create jobs - some "small-time" jobs like cashiers, or more career oriented jobs like accountants and paralegals.

So, I guess thanks are owed for what you have done - but you need to rethink your place in this world.

The U.S. Healthcare Debate.

2009-09-03T19:27:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about Obama's attempts at healthcare reform. He seems to be taking a lot of heat for it, and his popularity has been slipping. First of all, I'm not surprised that his popularity is slipping. There was a lot of unrealistic expectations put on him, and there is no way one person can possibly live up to all that.

I see both sides of the healthcare debate. Something seems morally wrong when people can lose their homes because of medical bills, or die because they don't have coverage. I find that very scary. Medical coverage for all is a noble goal to be sure.

Now, here's the other side. As a Libertarian, I believe that government exists solely to protect our rights. Period. Do I think that healthcare is a basic right? No, I don't. Now, I do have a bit of minarchic libertarian leanings, meaning, if people want to band together to do something, they should be allowed. If an issue is too big for the private sector, that's where government gets involved. I'm not so sure that public healthcare falls under this category.

My first issue with government-run heathcare is this: Is there anyone who actually trusts government to run anything? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone care to raise their hands? (*looks around and sees no hands raised*) That's what I thought. I sure as heck don't. Government are simply bloody leeches; parasites that never get enough and are always screaming for more and demanding it at the point of a gun in the name of "the public good." I may not necessarily agree with a CEO of an insurance company making millions of dollars, but at least he' s a businessman and I can chose to do business with his company or not. Government leaves you no choice. When they get involved in social issues (like social housing for example) they push out those private entitites that can do - and DO do a much better job. Where will you go if government takes over? The US already has Medicaid and when we were living there, we were paying into it with absolutely no expectation that we would ever see a benefit from that. None whatsoever. Um, somehow that seems wrong. We had no say; it was taken from us.

I disagree very strongly with Obama raising taxes on families with income of more than $350,000.00 to pay for this scheme. Why, you ask? Because they don't need the government run health care. Families making that much - or more - will either have their own healthcare, or simply pay the doctors' bills as needed. Why should they be forced to pay for something they will not use? That, to me, is looting (in other words, theft).

Apparently 85% of Americans *DO* have health care. It seems morally wrong to strangle those 85% for the sake of 15%. Government's arrogance knows no bounds that it thinks it can find a solution to something that the private sector can take of - and has been. There are ways that people without insurance can get help.

Let's face it: someone like Bill Gates or Julia Roberts doesn't even need health insurance. Now, I'm talking about the uber-rich, but the point is both Bill Gates and Julia Roberts work hard for their money. If they feel passionate about healthcare (and we know Gates does) they should be able to make donations to hospitals or research in the name of promoting the "public good." Philanthropists like the Shriners set up hospitals that people can go to. If someone like Bill Gates wants to donate to that, why ever not? Why raise his taxes? He pays more than his fair share.

Who do you think will find a cure for AIDS faster? Bill Gates with all the money he's given to AIDS research, or some goverment run lab? Just think of the success he's had with computers; if he has even half that success with finding a cure for AIDS, he's done well. Do you think a government run institution will? Not likely.

One good thing unions used to do was take care of their own. They *did* have funds available for their members that fell on hard times, were disabled, laid off or needed medical help. There was accountability. If someone was found out to be abusing those funds, that person was cut off. There is no accountability when the government takes over something

There is a hospital in Hollywood that was designated for those in the film industry and set up by the Motion Picture and Television Fund. The hospital's motto was, "We take care of our own." It opened in 1941 and was set up to take care of those in the film industry that couldn't afford healthcare: the secretaries, janitors, etc. A lot of famous people went there. For example, Hattie McDaniel, who was an Oscar winner in Gone with the Wind, died there. Sadly, it's closing due to rising healthcare costs. I agree with what they were trying to do. That's the way it should be. Those people that can afford to donate (like Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, George Lucas) can donate to keep it going - *if* they so choose. Let's face it, there's a lot of money in Hollywood; they can host fundraisers, etc.

There are also places like St. Jude's Hospital for children that people like Antonio Banderas and Sarah Jessica Parker help campaign for. As both are parents, one can see why this is a cause close to their hearts and why they would feel strongly about it. With St. Jude being the patron saint of lost causes, you know what serious cases they must be treating. If you feel passionate about children and raising funds for a children's hosptital, you should be free to donate to it. On the other hand, if you DON'T feel strongly about that, but your passion lies somewhere else, you should be just as free not to donate (or have your tax money go to that). That's the upsetting thing about taxes; you can't tell the government where you want your money spent - even though it's yours. Personally, prostate cancer is the cause that's nearest and dearest to my heart. Each year I help raise funds for the annual father's day fundraiser.

By what I've been told, Medicaid actually drives up healthcare costs. Apparently they don't pay enough for the doctor to even cover 15 minutes of his staff's time. I've been told by an online friend that she knows of a doctor that almost lost his house and had to give up his private practice because his medicaid patients were costing him money. Because Medicaid doesn't pay enough, the doctor had to charge more to the patients that could afford it. So the patients that weren't relying on the government were, once more, subsidizing those that were.

That's the sad thing is with anything that's government run, you WILL be paying for it - one way or another. It will be looted from you in the form of taxes in the name of the "public good." Even if you can afford your own private healthcare and don't require government care, you still have to pay for it. Healthcare is expensive; nothing is free. The money has to come from somewhere.

Who's to blame for some of the costs in heathcare? I blame unions. I remember years ago hearing a new graduate from a nursing program saying she was going to be making "x" dollars an hour when she started working. She was upset to learn that, after all her education, she was going to be making only $.50 more an hour than someone that was changing the beds. That, to me, is wrong. When you have someone that does the laundry at hospitals making $.50 an hour less than a new nurse, there is something wrong with the system. Granted a new nurse will have to be supervised the first couple of years, and her salary will go up as she gains more seniority, but come on. When I was in college, I had a friend that worked in the food services in the hospital to pay for her education. She was making $11.00 - and that was a lot of money back then. That was when the minimum wage was hovering around $4.00/hr. But, because she was part of the HEU, she was making big bucks - for serving food. I'm sure that position pays well into the $25 - $30/hr range now. That's crazy. I have no issues with doctors and nurses getting good wages. The most obvious reason being they are making life and death decisions every day; secondly, they have invested several years of their life into education. I do have issues with people that change beds and serve the food making big bucks - for a job that basically requires very little training and no education. Come on, any high school student can do that. Get your priorities straight. Over-valuing jobs like that are a big reason why I don't like unions. Unions drive up the wages of 10% of the people and reduce the wages of 90%. (I'm quoting Milton Friedman). When they drive up healthcare costs like that, how can they say they speak for the average working man?

I come from a country where private healthcare is not allowed. I think that's ridiculous. I think we should have at miniumum a public/private option. If for no other reason than those that can afford to pay for surgeries can "jump the queue" and thereby free up the waiting lists for those that are in the public system. Private healthcare companies would have to compete for your business and have an incentive to treat their customers right and give good service. Government has no such incentive. In fact, when have you ever had good service from government? Private healthcare wouldn't let their hospitals fall into the sad state of disrepair that some of the hosptials fall into here.

You should have the right to choose your healthcare. Now, I do find it sickening that private insurance companies' CEO's make millions of dollars and then turn down treatment for legitimate healthcare needs. I'm not saying CEO's shouldn't make good salaries, but I agree that that does seem ethically wrong.

I saw an interesting video on this debate last night. I'd never heard of Mike Rogers before I saw this, but I agree with everything he says: http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/ It isn't long - just over three minutes.

I really hope this bill isn't passed.

Sleep Well Sweet Princess.

2009-08-31T20:27:00.000-07:00

Wow. Time sure does past fast. It was one of those evenings that started off like normal. It was Saturday, August 30th, 1997. I was over at a family friend's where we were doing needlework and watching old movies. We used to do this a lot.

Then sometime around 8:00, we heard that Princess Diana had been in a car accident. I distinctly remember thinking, "She'll be all right. She's Diana." We turned off the movie and turned on the tv to CNN. Within minutes it was confirmed that Diana was indeed dead. I was devastated.

I stayed way past midnight, glued to the tv. When I got home, I continued watching. It was surreal. I couldn't believe it. It just couldn't be true. I finally went to bed sometime around 3:00 a.m. It was then that I let loose all the tears I'd been holding back and cried myself to sleep.

I felt like I had lost a friend. I had been an admirer of hers since 1981. She had her faults; we all do. I don't agree with some of the decisions that she made in her personal life - but who am I to judge?

I was in London the summer she got married. Almost every store was decorated for the event and selling memorabilia of some kind. It was then that began my love of all things royal.

I met her in 1986 when Prince Charles and Diana came to Expo 86. My best friend and I got up very early and waited three hours at Central Park to see them. It was worth it. We couldn't believe our luck when they rolled out the red carpet right in front of us. There was a child next to me getting squashed against the barricade. Diana bent down to talk to the child and said, "Dear, are you squashed?" She straightened up and looked around at her bodyguards and said, "Can't we do something?" Prince Charles shook his head and said, "It happens everywhere we go." I managed to hand her a single red rose and a note. I even managed to snap a few pictures. I was struck by her beauty. She was stunning. No picture ever captured how truly beautiful she really was - I'm not exxagerating. The afternoon I met her was the day she fainted in the California Pavillion at Expo 86. A few days later, I received a reply to my note. It's a treasured momento (even if was only signed by her secretary).

It's so sad that someone so beautiful was snatched away so young. Thirty-six is far too young to die. To think that her death was completely unnecesary. For all that I don't really care that much for Prince Charles, it is a credit to him that William and Harry have turned out so well.

Rest well, Diana.

Happy Birthday

2009-07-30T21:03:00.000-07:00

Wow. Time sure has flown. My little blog is two years old today. Not that I post as often as I should. I'll try to do better; I seem to post in fits and starts. Here's hoping this starts a few flurry of posts.

Here's to the first two years - and to more to come.

Two Icons in One Day

2009-06-25T17:58:00.001-07:00

This morning it was reported that 70's "it" girl Farrah Fawcett died of cancer. I was sad, as I used to watch Charlie's Angels (though not that often as we only had on tv and Dad usually was the one who had control of it) and I had all four of the Charlie's Angels dolls and their hideout treehouse home. I collected photos of the Angels and made a small scrapbook. Like most young people, I wanted her trademark lion's mane hairdo and, at one point, had a haircut with her trademark "flip." She was beautiful (though for my part, I always felt that Jaclyn Smith was the prettiest of the three). I was sad, but this wasn't unexpected. She had been battling cancer for a long time and it was obvious that she wouldn't last too long. She battled her disease with dignity and courage, and 62 years is far too young to die.

Then, sometime around 3:00 pm, I clicked on msnbc.com and saw that Michael Jackson had a heart attack and had been rushed to hospital. Minutes later, tmz.com was reporting he was dead. About half an hour later, the major media confirmed that it. I'm in shock, and it's affecting me far more than I ever thought it would. I wouldn't consider myself a fan, really. I've never owned one of his albums. I was a teenager when he was at the top of his game. I saw some of the videos, but I am fairly confident in saying that I don't think I saw the *whole* Thriller video until a few years ago.

He was only 50. Yes, he had his oddities, but I remember a time before all that: a time when he was normal looking and was at the top of the world. He was a remarkable entertainer, a trailblazer. The videos from the Thriller album were brilliant ("Billy Jean", "Beat It" and "Thriller") they are classics. What an amazing lithe dancer's body he had. What a talent.

Then things started to go downhill. Now, I'm not going to talk too much about that, except to say this: if the best the LAPD could do to prosecute him for child molestation was to put a woman on the stand that had been accused of fraud, it sounds to me like there wasn't any substance to it. Secondly, if the parents of the first child that accused him were happy to settle out of court for money instead of pursuing criminal charges, I think it speaks volumes about their priorities. One would think that they would want to see Jackson behind bars so that he couldn't harm other kids. Instead they settled for cash. Due to his eccentric behaviour, he was an easy target for such allegations. I'll leave it at that. I'm keeping an open mind.

It's a tragedy of a life cut short, and probably someone that was very lonely - and obviously troubled.

What a bizarre news day.

Two Thumbs Up to Pixar

2009-06-24T09:36:00.001-07:00

In case you think I write too many rant/soapbox-type posts, here's one that's completely different.

All I can say is, "Well done, Pixar. You've restored my faith in the goodness of humanity." I couldn't help but cry as I read this story a few days ago. It still chokes me up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448115/ns/entertainment-movies/

Today's Soapbox

2009-06-19T10:57:00.001-07:00

I may be prejudiced, but if there is one class of people I can't stand it's welfare moms. I'm not talking about some woman who for some unforeseen circumstance or tragedy finds herself in need of temporary assistance and then gets back up on her feet. I'm referring to the serial mom, the woman who has babies every few years so that she doesn't have to work. A woman who sits on welfare and does nothing to provide for her children and depends on the state year after year after year. They are an insult to every hard-working mother (single or married) and set a bad example for their children - especially their daughters. How will children learn to be successful in life if they don't see their Mom struggle? They are an insult to everything that women's rights advocates fought so hard for.

That being said, it brings me to the topic of today's post. In today's newspaper, a woman who has a disability and is on welfare is whining that due to government cutbacks, she can't afford to send her child to camp. Here's the story: http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/Disabled+welfare+kids+miss+summer+camp+after+funds+froze/1710609/story.html It was news to me that my hard-earned tax money even went to send kids to camps. Um, when did that happen? What government bureacrats decided that welfare recipents deserved this?

Though I feel some sympathy regarding this woman's disability (which went unnamed) I am disgusted at this woman who is living off the system is whining because the system isn't giving her more. When did summer camp become a right? It's not. It's a priviledge. If you look at the posts regarding this article on the Vancouver Sun website, you will see that other people have posted similar things: that they work full-time and can't afford to send their children to camp, etc.

Tax money should NOT be spent on sending children to summer camps. Period. Now, I'm not going to say that the government couldn't cut back on spending in another area in order to afford to do such things. I'm saying that that taxpayers should not be forced at threat of tax evasion charges to give their money to the government to send children to camp. There are charities like Tim Hortons who run camps and have an annual "send a kid to camp day" fundraiser where people can donate if they choose to do so. I've said it before and I'll say it again: government needs to stay out of things like this and focus on what they are supposed to do, which is protecting our rights.

With the welfare state that's been created since the Great Depression, people on welfare lose their motivation to work. Now, I'm not advocating completly eliminating a social safety net, but when someone has things constantly handed to them, they lose their pride and motivation to work. And that's bad.

The other thing that bothers me is the woman said she hasn't told the child yet, yet somehow this was plastered all over the front pages of the Vancouver Sun and their website - complete with photos of the child. How could someone humiliate their child like this? She claims to have always been honest with the child, yet some press photographer comes to the house to take the child's picture and the child isn't told why? Something doesn't sit right with me on that one.

I'm sorry madame. If you want your child to go to camp - and things like that - you need to work for it. With a recession still on, there are countless thousands of families who can't afford things for their families - and I'm not talking "fluffy" things like camp. I'm talking about the necessities of life. If you don't like the government rules that dictate how much money you will receive in welfare payments, then you need to stand on your own feet. It may sound harsh, but that's real life. If at all possible, you need to find some form of employment. Even if the only reasons are that you want to be a good example to your daughter and that you have some pride left in yourself. It may already be too late for your daughter, as she's already been socialized to think that moms don't work and that staying on welfare is normal. I hope that's not the case.

And there go more civil liberties

2009-06-17T20:57:00.001-07:00

So the government is planning on giving police the power to snoop on technology in the name of public safety. This is reprehensible. There is NO WAY I want my digital conversations tracked. Not that I have anything to hide; I don't. I just don't like the idea of my private email conversations being read by anyone other than the intended recipient. (Not that I'm naive enough to think I'm untrackable online; I know that). Here's the link to the story: http://www.canada.com/Technology/Feds+give+cops+Internet+snooping+powers/1706191/story.html

George Orwell was right; Big Brother is not just watching you. Soon he'll be listening in to all your conversations, reading your email and texts - all in the name of protecting you. The Police have too much power as it is - and they abuse it. I can only imagine what they'll do with this. There are too many rules in our society - and most of them are "for your own good." I don't buy it. For one thing, if someone wants to throw their lives away using drugs, it's their life. It shouldn't be illegal because it *can* harm them. Let the individual decide what is right and wrong for their body - not the state. For some, it's a rite of passage. Not everyone who tries LSD or weed gets addicted. Sure a drug addict in the home may cause pain and suffering to the family - but so does alcohol abuse. Where does one stop on the slippery slope? Do we want to go back to the days of prohibition? Not likely. What next? Chocolate? Over my dead body. And just because something may be addictive, doesn't mean that it it's harmful. Look at caffeine; it's addictive. Will that be next? I can only imagine the uproar if that was attempted.

STOP TREATING US LIKE WE'RE CHILDREN THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AFTER. MOST OF US ARE RESPONSIBLE ADULTS THAT CAN TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES. Our society is becoming more and more a police state. And that's scary.

Star Trek - 2009

2009-05-09T18:18:00.000-07:00

DH and I went to see the new Star Trek movie this afternoon, and since I made it known that we were going, I am under pressure to post a review. Here goes:

Let me start by saying, I'm not a die-hard Star Trek fan. I'm a Star Wars fan. I have seen a fair amount of episodes of The Original Series("TOS"), but I've seen almost six full seasons of The Next Generation ("TNG"). Though I like TOS, I prefer TNG. I've seen almost all the movies (with the exception of #3 "The Search for Spock").

This new movie sets the story back with the original crew (Kirk, Spock, Chekov, Uhura, McCoy["Bones"] Scotty, and Sulu. We are introduced to a younger crew, back when some of them were cadets at the Starfleet Academy.

The movie starts off the day that James Kirk is born. We are then fast-forwarded to a young Kirk as a rebellious teen in Iowa. We are also introduced to Spock as a child on his home planet of Vulcan. Then we are fast-forwarded to Kirk as a young man (Chris Pine) getting himself into trouble in a local watering-hole where he meets Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana) for the first time.

If you remember your Star Trek, you will know that Captain Kirk was not the original captain, it was captain Christopher Pike. He was in the pilot episode, "The Cage." This time around, he's played by Vancouver actor, Bruce Greenwood ("I Robot", "National Treasure 2", "Thirteen Days"). Taking the mantle of James Kirk is Chris Pine. He was fine. He had Kirk's swagger and roving eye with the women. There was a moment when he was lounging in the captain's chair just like William Shatner before him. He certainly had the looks to play the young Kirk, and occassionally if I closed my eyes, I thought I heard William Shatner's voice. Zachary Quinto (tv's Heroes") as Spock was also a good choice. He had the look to play Spock and the mannerisms. He didn't quite have Nimoy's gravelly voice, but he was fine. Zoe Saldana as Uhura was all right; nothing special. I think she could have been better, or perhaps they could have got someone better. There were moments when I thought I was watching Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde. John Cho ("Harold and Kumar") was miscast as Sulu. For one thing, he doesn't even look Japanese; he's Korean. Didn't have the voice or the mannerisms. I think they could have got someone better. Simon Pegg as Scotty didn't really look like James Doohan, but he had the Aberdonian accent and was otherwise true to the character. Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov had the voice down perfect, but I don't ever remember Chekov with curly hair. Other than that, he was fine. Eric Bana ("Troy", "Munich") as the villian "Nero" was unrecognizable. It wasn't until it was almost over that I recognized his voice. Saving the best for last, Karl Urban ("Lord of the Rings II and III") NAILED Bones. He looked like him, acted like him, and had the voice. He was perfect.

Directed by JJ Abrams (tv's "Lost" and "Alias") I was looking forward to see what he would do with the series, since I consider Lost and Alias two of my all time favourite tv shows. He did a good job. The special effects were great. Don't look for some moral lesson which is something one could expect from both TOS and TNG. This was no morality play speaking out about social issues of the time. (If you know the series, you will know that Kirk and Uhura shared the first inter-racial kiss on tv). I was thinking that under Abrams' hand, perhaps there would be something like that here, but there wasn't. Abrams is known for things like that in Lost and Alias, especially moral ambiguity. msnbc.com called it, "popcorn perfection" and I agree.

You don't really have to know the series to enjoy it. However, it does help if you know what a kobayashi maru is. (If you don't know, go do a google search, but I'm not spilling the beans).

Go see it. It's great. I give it 4 1/2 stars out of five.

420

2009-04-20T18:13:00.000-07:00

Today is National Pot Smoking Day. I had no idea until yesterday that that's what today was designated. Last night we watched Family Guy and there was a song and dance between Stewie (the baby) and Brian (the dog). They did a parody of the song "The Big Bamboo" from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" called "Bag of Weed" calling for the legalization of marijuana. It sent me into gales of laughter. In fact, I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time. At the first commerical break, I run to youtube, and sure enough, someone already had posted it. I watched it and laughed some more and posted a link to it.

So, today, after I get home, all those videos have been taken down due to copyright enforcement by Fox. Now, let me say this: I am all for copyright protection. People should get paid for their work. But somehow, this one is frustrating. First, it's a clip. It's not a full episode. It's only 3:00 long. In many ways, it's a free advertisement for the show. Let it go, Fox. Or better yet, post it yourself. There are plenty of other segments from Family Guy posted. There are other videos of the song posted, but it's just stills; there's no action. Why did they pick on this one?

On a Related Note:

Today, downtown there was a MASSIVE turnout of people who were participating in toking up for pot day. If you looked at the Art Gallery lawn from across the street, you could clearly see the haze. I'm guessing there were 5,000 people there. I cut through the crowd at one point just to be able to write about the experience. I've never smoked pot, and don't plan to until it's legal, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be a controlled substance (in other words, don't get behind the wheel of a car). Most of the people I saw were relatively young; early to mid-twenties. There were also a fair amount of people in their 50's and 60's, but the crowd was predominantly young. I didn't see any police, but apparently they were there in a crowd control capacity. Everyone was well-behaved. The crowd was hard to navigate through (it took me about 15 minutes) but no one got nasty at getting pushed and shoved - and there wasn't a lot of room to slip between people. There was a party atmosphere. Loud music and people tossing joints into the crowd for others to catch them. It was very interesting for this little miss-goody-two shoes.

Never Judge A Book By Its Cover

2009-04-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

By now, you've probably heard of Susan Boyle, the Scottish singer who has literally gone from unknown obscure citizen to a household name. If you don't know who she is, you can see her here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

Obviously, what makes her so special is that you didn't expect such a quality powerhouse professional-level voice to come from someone like her. Watch the video and you'll see when Susan says that she wants to be a professional singer that one girl in the audience rolls her eyes. When she says she wants to be as famous as Elaine Paige, another girl can be clearly seen to say, "Who's Elaine Paige?" For those of you who don't know, Elaine Paige was the original Evita from the 1978 Andrew Lloyd Webber stage production. The female judge, Amanda, appears a little sceptical at first, judging by her face, but seems to be reserving judgement about what she's about to hear.

That is until Susan started to sing. She sang Fantine's aria, "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Miserables. She sang it better than at least one professional actress I've seen play the role on the stage. Watch the reactions of both Simon and Amanda. They were completely blown away. No one expected that.

Good luck, Susan. You represent all of us who were laughed at, scorned, bullied, made fun of and ridiculed in school. I wish you much success with your dream. If you release an album of show tunes, I will definitely buy it. Your success is an inspiration for those of us who were laughed at and told we would never succeed in this life.

You go, girl.

In Defence of Barbie

2009-03-04T21:47:00.001-08:00

So, yesterday there was a story on msn that some West Virginia lawmaker wants to ban the sales of Barbie. Here's the story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29508066/ .

It's good to know with a war going on in two fronts, an economic mess on their hands, global warming, and the worst economic downtown in 70 plus years that this lawmaker has nothing better to do with taxpayers' dollars. His reasons: "such toys influence girls to place too much importance on physical beauty, at the expense of their intellectual and emotional development".

I had Barbies growing up and some of her cool accessories: Country Camper, her Townhouse, and, of course, lots of clothes. I think I was about 12 or so when I gave up playing with them, but I still like them. To this day, I have a Scarlett O'Hara barbie. If you saw how I dressed some days, you would know that Barbie did not force me to "place too much importance on physical beauty."

Did it cause me to not pursue "intellectual and emotional development"? Not likely. I was a reader; I read lots. In fact, I can't think of another kid I went to school with that read as much as I did (and that includes the Bible and other spiritual books).

Sure, Barbie has her detractors and people are entitled to their opinion. Yes, I know of one woman (I think she was in Britain) that was obsessed with Barbie and thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery to look like Barbie, but that's her problem. She's the one that needs some self esteem; don't blame the doll.

If I had a child, I'd rather they played with Barbies than toy guns, learning how to kill people and learn of war. Get your priorities straight.

Barbie is a rite of passage in a girl's life, and the age passes quick. Let them enjoy it while they can. If parent's don't like it, they won't buy it. People will vote with their dollars. Let the parents decide what's right for their child.

Oscar Night in Hollowood 2009

2009-02-22T14:21:00.000-08:00

Well, it's that time of the year. It's the night when Hollywood hands out the hardware and the culmination of awards season. Here are my predictions in the major categories:

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire;
Lead Actor: Mickey Rourke (the Wrestler);
Lead Actress: Kate Winslet (the Reader);
Supporing Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight);
Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona);
Directing: Slumdog Millionaire.

I'll report back later on how I did and to report on the ceremony itself. I'm looking forward to it; we have only missed it once in the 10 years we've been married. Besides, it's three hours of uninterupted stitching time!! whoo hoo.

Edited to add:

Well, I did pretty well in the major categories, with the exception of Best Actor. I don't care for Sean Penn (over actor) so I wasn't pleased to see him win again. Overall, I did 13/24 in my picks. I was very surprised that Slumdog won in categories like "Sound Editing (or was it mixing?)." That didn't make sense to me as something like The Dark Knight would have been far harder to mix and/or edit.

Good to see Kate Winslet finally win an Oscar. She looked lovely, as did supporting actress winner Penelope Cruz (both were high on my best-dressed list, as well as Amy Adams). Nobody really stood out as horribly dressed, though I didn't like Jessica Biel's outfit, nor Beyonce's.

I thought it was a nice touch having past winners in the acting categories introduce this year's nominees. Hugh Jackman did a good job of hosting. I really liked his opening number, especially when he grabbed Anne Hathaway up on stage for a Frost/Nixon routine. She was a good sport.

Morning Smile

2009-02-15T11:13:00.000-08:00

This morning, I was reading something that made me laugh. This is *not* meant to offend anyone in any way; it just made me laugh.

In the book of Exekiel, Exekiel says, "Your Father ws an Amorite and your mother was a Hittite". (Exekiel 16:3) I couldn't help but hear John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries."

Musings on Valentine's Day

2009-02-14T18:55:00.000-08:00

So, it's Valentine's Day, a day dedicated to love. When I was single I dreamed of a romantic Valentine's Day. When DH and I married, we decided that we would alternate planning Valentine's Day; he would plan the even years and I would plan the odd. Some years that meant simply watching a romatic movie, or a romantic comedy, but we always tried to do "something."

Fast forward to this year. For whatever reason, I just couldn't get into it. I couldn't figure out why. The best that I could come up with is that I didn't feel I needed Hallmark to tell me that I loved DH or he loved me. Heck, after over 10 years of marriage, it should be obvious. I realized that really Valentine's Day is for single people; couples that aren't married. It's their day.

Our wedding anniversay is the day for us to celebrate our love; not some artificial thing. Mind you, I won't say no to some chocolates.

Happy Valentine's Day.

STOP THE INSANITY!!!

2009-02-02T10:15:00.000-08:00

Something is wrong; we all know it. I'm talking about the world-wide recession. I'm not going to blame fingers at particular individuals, as it's not a cut and dry issue; it's very complex. However, I do have some thoughts I want to get off my chest.

First of all, am I the only one that thinks there is something *phony* about this whole thing? That there's something odd going on here? I can't explain it, or put my finger on it, but something smells very fishy about this whole economic mess.

One thing that really bugs me about this whole mess is companies that are making money (and I mean millions) but their stock prices have taken such a beating that they are laying off thousands of employees. Come on, people. I could understand if you were losing money, and were needing to cut costs in order to try and survive this, but to lay off thousands of people when you made a forty-something-million dollar profit last quarter?? I'm not talking about GM, or Circuit City here. I'm talking about two large companies that have their head offices in Seattle. (I think you know who I'm talking about).

I know that no one has the *right* to a job, but somehow this just stinks, and it seems a really horrible thing to do to your employees when you are making money - and not just barely making a profit. We're talking a lot of money.

I'm sure there is more to this than meets the eye, but this insane panicing seems the wrong thing to do. Keep your cool; things will pick up, but you aren't helping by throwing people out of work. Perhaps you need to do some fine-tuning and rethinking to come up with some new ideas or products (so cutting r&d is not a good way to go). After all, you can't rest on your laurels of the past, but this seems insane.

President Obama

2009-01-30T10:42:00.001-08:00

Well, I'm a little behind the times; I should have posted this last week during all the inauguration festivities and hoopla, but here we go.

Unless you've been off the planet the last few months, you know that Barack Obama is now President of the United States.

I did a little background searching on him, and was pleased and thrilled to find out that he taught Constitutional Law for twelve years. That means he knows the US Constitution inside and out. He knows how Americans' Constitutional rights have been violated. This is good news. We can only hope that with his knowledge of "con law" that he will roll back the violations that have been instituted under the Bush administration: the fact that the police can enter your home without a warrant in the name of suspected terrorism, etc. etc.

I'm also pleased to see that his first official visit will be to Ottawa next month, returning to the tradition startd by Kennedy of the US President's first official visit being to Canada. A tradition Bush thumbed his nose at and went to Mexico.

His wife is also a lawyer. Together, these two appear to be a perfect power couple.

On the bad side, he seems to have ties to unions (he's wrong when he says that unions are the backbone of the middle class. That's not true) and is willing to spend money in an attempt to save the US economy. That's bad. Government spending is NOT the way to stimulate the economy. In fact, it's exactly the WRONG thing to do. I want to throw a copy of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" at stupid "economists" that say that. In fact, it's these stupid socialist, Keynesian policies that have led to so much financial mismanagement at all government levels. Let's face it, when government says they have money available, everyone wants a piece of the pie. Look at Bank of America for example: they were healthy, now they want a bailout because the bank they were buying is going to cost them a lot more money than they thought.

I'm also concerned at Obama's "buy American" message to the US. This is the age of globalization. It really doesn't matter where a product is produced; just spending the money will help keep an American in a job. If you are buying a car, it shouldn't matter if it's a US made car. Just by buying the car, you are keeping *someone* (the salesperson, the lot boy, the sales manager, the service people that will work on your car, the insurance agency that sells you insurance, etc.) in jobs. It doesn't matter if the car is manufactured in the US, Japan, Korea, etc. You are keeping *someone* in a job - and ultimately it doesn't matter where.

I wish President Obama a lot of luck. He's going to need it. The violations of freedoms are the important thing he needs to deal with. Then we can worry about government overspending.

Taking Away Your Children For Over 50 Years...

2009-01-14T10:48:00.000-08:00

If you watch "Family Guy" you'll probably understand the title of today's post.

A family in New Jersey that gave their children names that have links to Nazis has had their children taken away by the State. No reason was given. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28655143/?GT1=43001Now let me say something: I am no Nazi sympathizer and I think what Hitler did was horrible. I also think the parents were stupid to give their children names like "Adolf Hitler" and "JoyceLynn Aryan Nation". It was bound to cause controvery. But, what are they guilty of? Bad taste? If that's the case, think of the oddball celebrity baby names out there: Zuma, Dweezil, Moon Unit, Bronx Mowgli, etc. etc. Were these children mistreated? Were they underfed and undernourished? Again, no reason was given. Surely to God they can't take the children away based on their names. Was it because of the names that the parents are tagged antisemitic? Well, if that's the case, then every Christian parent that's told their children that "the Jews killed Jesus" should have their children taken away. Just to clarify something: the Jews *did not* kill Jesus. The Romans did. The Jews didn't crucify people as capital punishment. They stoned them. It was the Romans who used crucifixion. But I digress...

The father of the children in question is quoted in a separate article saying that he said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically. But he said he would try to raise his children differently. "Say he [the son] grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care," he said. "That's his choice." So, in other words they're not hatemongers. They just have bad taste.

Perhaps there is more to the story than meets the eye, but it makes you wonder who the real Nazis are that the State can get away with this. No matter what the State came up with as an excuse, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this outrageous.

Well, it's that time of year again

2008-12-19T13:53:00.000-08:00

Another year has come and gone (almost). It's time for me, once again, to ponder the meaning of Christmas.

I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm not sure what to make of Christmas. I was raised a mainstream Christian, and was raised to believe that we were celebrating Jesus' birthday, God's only son sent to earth to redeem us sinners. I believed that for many years, and never questioned it.

All that changed in a flash when I read a book that pointed out the list of demi-gods born to human mothers and divine fathers on December 25th. All the myths about these demigods predated Jesus. I was stunned. I'd never heard anything like that before. The list included: Mithra, Attis, Adonis to name a few. From that moment on, there was no way that I could justify that the Bible stories of the birth of Jesus were literally historically true and dismiss the rest of the stories as myths. There were too many similarities, and all of the stories were centuries older than the stories of Jesus. In that instant, my beliefs were destroyed, and I could never look at the world in the same way again. It was pretty scary.

Ever since then, I've really struggled with Christmas. I don't know what I'm celebrating. I'm not celebrating the religious side, so does that mean I'm not celebrating Christmas? Yet, I do put out a manger scene most years. I know I'm not alone in not celebrating the religious side. I'm happy to celebrate anything that tries to promote peace in the world and tries to make the world a nicer place - even if only for a day.

I'm also happy to celebrate the birth of the heir to King David's throne, if indeed, Jesus was of the house and lineage of David. We even sing of that, when we sing the Christmas carol, "The First Noel". The last line of the chorus says, "...born is the King of Israel."

Of course, presents are fun, and I look forward to the good feast. That's the fun side of Christmas. I don't like the fake sentimentality; it gets on my nerves after awhile. As much as I love the movie, "It's a Wonderful Life", as I've gotten older, I found "Bad(der) Santa" a bit more appealing. I know it can be rude and offensive, but if you get sick of the schmaltz, you might find it funny

Happy Holy Days, whatever the holy days of the season mean to you.

The Menace on Parliament Hill

2008-12-03T11:26:00.001-08:00

Well if you read my blog at all, you probably knew that I would have something to say about the mess that's been going on in Ottawa these last few days.

I was raised in a Conservative household, so I was pleased to see the Tories win the election on October 14th, even though I didn't vote Tory. (If you read my older posts, you'll know who I voted for).

Now the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have ganged up on the democratically elected Conservative government and formed a coalition in hopes of bringing down the Conservatives. It's slimy, reprehensible, and disgusting. It's not unconstitutional or illegal, but it's underhanded and undermines the democratic process. I would feel the same way if the Conservatives were on the other side doing the same thing. I would be ashamed of them.

The nation spoke: it didn't want these men. It handed such a stinging defeat to Stephane Dion of the Liberals that he announced that he was going to step down. His own party isn't that pleased with him and now he plans to be the Prime Minister? It's outrageous. Heck, nine out of ten provinces can't even vote for the Bloc and they're going to be the kingmakers? (Personally, I resent having to pay taxes for the Bloc's pensions, a party whose sole purpose is to destroy the country).

These self-serving politicians (nick-named the "Three Stooges" or the "New Libs on the Bloc") are not trying to seize power without being voted for for the benefit of the country. (Proof of that statement is the decline of the Canadian dollar since this mess hit the fan). They are doing it in their own best interests because they didn't get the results they wanted.

The outcry against them is very, very loud, which is as it should be. It's good to see Canadians getting so involved in politics (rallies, petitions, etc.) I just hope the Governor General doesn't give in to these usurpers, but listens to the Canadian electorate.

Regardless of what happens, there will be payback: people will remember come the next election (and that could come very quickly if Parliament is dissolved) and will speak even louder, as they will be very angry at these parties wasting taxpayers' time and money on this when we just spent $290,000,000 on a federal election.

I shake my head at Liberal Bob Rae (former NDP now Liberal) quoted on canada.com saying "the Bloc will not be part of the coalition government". Say what? You can't have it both ways. You can't use them to topple the elected government, and then say they won't be a part in your new government. The whole point was that there weren't enough seats between the Liberals and NDP to do this without the Bloc. He also claims that there "is no crisis on Parliament Hill." Well if there isn't, why are they doing this? If there *is* a crisis, then it's a "phantom menace" of their own doing and shouldn't be allowed to benefit from it. This comes from Bob Rae, the worst premier in modern Ontario history. Thank goodness Ontario had the good sense to kick him out after one term. If he does win head of the Liberal party (which he is running for) then hopefully Ontario will remember that and ensure his party doesn't get in. He may be a member of the Liberal party, but he has red underwear. As far as I'm concerned, he has no credibility.

This could be the death knell for the Liberal party. Those that are more business minded could gravitate to the Conservatives; those that are more socialist (like Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanj) could go back to the NDP where they rightfully belong.

I have no time for the NDP. They repulse me. Without pulling a stunt like this, there is no way they would ever get in power. They just don't get basic economics, and their policies of tax and spend, tax and spend would ruin the economy that's already fragile. We haven't hit a recession yet, but there is a downturn.

Canada hasn't done so badly during this economic crisis because of the wise decisions that the Tories (and Liberal Paul Martin before him) have made. This gang of looters is going to waste all the gains we've made, and by wasting time and money on this instead of trying to solve the issues, are just making it worse. Canadians haven't lost faith in the government; just the political process that would allow these usurping looters into power - if they do get in.

Rant Du Jour

2008-11-22T13:45:00.000-08:00

So, yesterday on the news there was a story that some anti-poverty group claimed that one out of nine Canadian children lives in poverty; this despite the government promising to end child poverty eight years ago. So that means that 89% of Canadian children DO NOT live in poverty; that sounds pretty good to me.

This same anti-poverty group is demanding the government implement a "national daycare policy"(Why government needs to do this is a mystery to me, even though groups have been screaming for it for years).

This same group is also demading more low income housing. As I've said in a nearlier post, government has no business being in the housing business anyway; that should be left to charities. Why are these groups demanding that the government waste taxpayers' money on this?

As for a national daycare policy, why do we need this? This should be left up to each parent to decide what daycare they send their child to. There is already Provincial legislation that dictates how many children can be in a daycare, the standards for who can work there, etc. etc. Why does the federal government need to be involved in this, and double up on bureacracy?

Basically, what these so-called "do gooders" are trying to do, is level the playing field. They are wasting millions of dollars in taxpayers money to save one child in nine, instead of focusing on helping the eight out of nine succeed. There's too much money wasted on the trash, and not enough on helping the smart children succeed.

This is called "equalization of opportunity" and it's (forgive my language) bullshit. You can pour billions and billions of dollars into Surrey welfare trash, and they will STILL be Surrey welfare trash. There is no such thing as Eliza Doolittle; she only exists in a play.

These groups are trying to say, in essence, that each child has the right to go to Harvard. Sure, we all have the "right" to go to Harvard, but the reality is that very, very few of us will ever get in. I agree with that; otherwise, there would be nothing special about a Harvard education. Think of the Harvard students that have gone on to employ hundreds of people. Bill Gates comes to mind. Think of all the hundreds of people who wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for him.

This same group is also demanding that the federal government raise the national minimum wage to $10.00/hour. As I said earlier, that's ridiculous. I say scrap the minimum wage - period. Get rid of it. That would mean that more people would be able to be employed. If you got rid of the minimum wage, then there probably wouldn't be a need for welfare, as a lot more people would be employed. We all know that everytime the minimum wage goes up, more jobs disappear. It's far more degrading to go to the welfare office and beg for help than be gainfully employed at $5.00/hr. Let the market decide how much a job is worth; not the government.

Whenever these "do gooders" try to influence the government and the government implements their demands, what it creates is: more governement, more bureaucracy - and there is very little trickle down effect. Who pays for this? The taxpayer. That means that *all* families (including those that these misguided morons are trying to help) are forced to have more money taken out of their pocket to pay for stuff that supposedly helps them. If even a portion of these do-gooders get government funding, they are literally taking food out of these families mouths - all in the name of "helping" them. It's ludicrous.

Two Steps forward, two steps back...

2008-11-05T10:00:00.001-08:00

Well, it's the morning after the night before. Naturally, I'm referring to the US election. I'll talk about Obama another time, but there were a few things I wanted to address today:

I was excited to read that the voters in Massachussetts decriminalized marijuana last night if you are found with an ounce or less of weed. The penalty now is a $100.00 fine, and you have to hand it over. It's a small step towards total decriminization. As I've said before, I've never touched it; probably never will, but I see no reason for it to be criminal.

Another state, Michigan, now allows people who are terminally ill to register with the state and grow and buy marijuana for medical purposes. Again, a small step, but a step in the right direction.

On the other hand,I'm disgusted at the voters in Arkansas, who voted that couples who aren't married cannot adopt children, nor be foster parents. Of course, this was aimed at gay couples (that's what the opponenets said) but this is ridiculous. Sadly what else do you expect in the religious-right dominated south? Aren't states often saying they can't find enough people to be foster parents, and now the pool has been limited? On the other hand, if this means the state will be able to take less children away from their parents, that may be a good thing. Poking fun at the state's power, an episode of Family Guy I recently watched displayed a banner at a Child Welfare office advertsing,"Taking Away Your Children For Over 50 Years."

I'm also surprised and disapponted that the voters in California banned gay marriage. I thought California was so liberal that this wouldn't pass. Obviously it's not as liberal as I thought. I wonder what this means for the thousands of couples who rushed to wed before yesterday's vote. Are their marriages now going to be declared illegal? Somehow that just seems wrong. I am not gay, but I see no reason why I have the right to dictate what goes on in another person's bedroom, nor dictate whom they can marry. Apparently some gay rights groups are going to be challenging the results, and I hope they're successful.

Mourning the Loss of Literacy

2008-11-02T13:40:00.000-08:00

I love reading; always have, always will. I remember my Dad teasing me when I was little about "having my nose stuck in a book." I read a lot of fiction, but I read the classics: Les Miserables, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, War & Peace, Anna Karenina, Pride and Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Oliver Twist, to name a few.

My favourite novel is Gone with the Wind. You can read my thoughts about it, here in one of my earlier posts: http://heathersmewsings.blogspot.com/2007/08/its-easy-for-me-to-talk-about-my.html

I didn't read a lot of "pulp fiction", though I really liked early John Grisham (The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, The Chamber"). I probably liked them because they were legal thrillers and I worked in the legal field. I read a little "Christian fiction" but it really didn't do much for me; the concepts may have been interesting, but the stories, themselves, I found trite and there wasn't the detail and depth that I found in other books.

Then, I met DH. He encouraged me to break out of reading mostly fiction and read more non-fiction. Since then, I've (tried to) temper my fiction reading and read more non-fiction, mostly history, religious studies and philosophy. He's also encouraged me to keep track of what I read, and I've found that kind of fun, too. It's nice to look at what you've read.

This year, so far, I've finished 30 books. Now, that's a bit skewed, as at least 10 of those books are fiction which I've reread: Jane Eyre, Angels & Demons, The DaVinci Code, Frankenstein, and the seven books in the Chronicles of Narina series. That's a lot more fiction than I normally read.

We love to haunt and browse bookstores. We used to do this routinely once a week. Now, we don't do it as much, for various reasons. One because the bookstores here suck and it's difficult to find anything that's worthwhile. This brings me to the point of this post:

When we do go to the main bookstores, we find the store (a) filled with useless crap like candles, vases, pilates mats, gardening tools, etc. Stuff that has no use being in a bookstore. The justification I've been told is that, "We sell books on that topic." Yeah, right. So, if you sell books on auto mechanics, does that mean you are going to be selling cars, too? That logic is just inane. (b) We also find that the main bookstores are over run by pulp fiction. I'm not saying there isn't a place for that in society, but I find it disconcerting that there is so much "brain candy" out there.

I see tons of books by best-selling authors (and I'm not going to name names) yet it's hard to find a good selection of non-fiction books. You may find one or two books in the philosophy section by Nietzsche, but that's about it. I remember a time when the local chain bookstore carried decent books in the history section. When they used to carry Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy; but not anymore.

I really miss a good bookstore. We used to live maximum twenty minutes away from four really good ones (two large chain stores, one small used bookstore, and the university one) and I miss them like crazy. They were a joy to browse through. It was a treat and a pleasure, and something I looked forward to on an almost weekly basis.

What the hell has happened? Why are so many bookstores overrun with pulp fiction? What have we done? I suspect part of the problem is with the education system. We give our children novels to study - and that's it; they don't study much non-fiction. We've become a generation (or more) of people that are addicted to brain candy and our brains are being fed nothing more than junk food, and that's wrong. Just wrong.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't a place for studying novels in school. There is a place for that. I'm saying that there's just far too much of that. There is definitely a place and a need to study Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens, the Brontes, Hugo, etc. They all had something to say, and their stories are timeless. But I suspect that our educational system isn't even introducing our children to these literary giants. There semes to be no end to programs to promote literacy and reading, but WHAT is it that they are encouraging children to read? Generally just more fiction.

I'm not advocating censorship. No way. I'm a libertarian. I'm just discouraged and concerned about what I see as the dummying down of society, and the bookstores catering to the lowest common denominator. I've bitched and complained right to the highest level, but nothing has changed.

When I was in high school the curriculum that I was studying (which was religious right, fundamental Southern Baptist) gave us snippets and synopses of some of these greats. In English we read some of the outlines of Shakespeare, etc. Even though the curriculum was crap, it had the intended result: it whetted my appetitite to read some of these wonderful stories. Sadly, it wasn't until grade 12 that we read a complete Shakespeare play: and that was Hamlet. It was done so badly that I just didn't get it. I didn't have the analytical skills to understand what was going on. I simply said, "Ugh. Everyone died. The king died, the queen died, Ophelia died, and Hamlet died." It wasn't until I met DH and he reawakened my appetite for learning that I actually really got to understand Hamlet and the issues he was wrestling with. (Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. Perhaps we did talk about some of Hamlet's issues; I just don't remember).

After high school, I read some Shakespeare on my own: Romeo and Juliet and the Tempest. Sadly, that's all I've ever read. One day, I'll read more.

Meanwhile, back to my point: I'm very concerned about how much pulp fiction and brain candy there is in the bookstores. Perhaps this is the reason why Americans, especially, have the reputation for not being the brightest bulbs on the planet. Watch the following video: here. It's pretty scary; I think it took DH and I about a week to recover after watching it. It was hard to believe how stupid some people are. It was pretty shocking.

Yes, I do enjoy a good "fluff read" as much as the next person, and I know it's hard to break the habit of reading a lot of fiction, but the rewards are worth it. No fiction book has ever challenged me or stretched me as much as non-fiction books. I've been shaken to the core and had the carpet pulled out from under me by non-fiction. No fiction book has ever had that effect. I challenge all readers of my blog to break out of their mould and read at least one non-fiction book on a subject that interests them. It doesn't matter what it is: history, religion, mythology, psychology, philosophy, science. Just do it, I beg you. You won't regret it.

I'm off to go read now.

Musings on Palin and Obama and the US Election

2008-10-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

As election day draws near in the United States (under a week to go at the date of writing), I had some thoughts I wanted to express.

I remember hearing of Barack Obama four years ago when he made his speech at the DNC. I have been following him with some interest ever since then, as it seemed obvious that his political star was on the rise. It was no surprise that he clinched the Democratic Party's nominiation this time around. In fact, I would have been surprised it he hadn't.

On the other side of the political spectrum, there is Republican candidate John McCain. Like a lot of people, I was surprised when he chose Sarah Palin, the self-proclaimed moose-hunting, gun-toting, lipstick-wearing, hockey mom as his running-mate. Like a lot of people, I said, "Who?" only to find out she was Alaska's governor. I was excited as there was either going to be a woman or a black man in the White House - something that has never happened before. Either way, it was going to be historic and a bit of a shakeup.

I was even more excited when I heard that Palin had Libertarian leanings. Yeah!! I had heard that the Republicans had a caucus looking into Libertarianism, and that there are quite a few Libertarians in Alaska. Looking good.

Then something happened. Palin came out and said she was not in favour of gay rights at the vice-presidential debate. What? That surely is NOT libertarian. Then, there was the infamous video of her in church claiming the war in Iraq was a "mission from God." Uh oh. That's not good. Now this morning I read that there's another video of her in church getting "delivered from demons". Double uh oh. Now that I've had to chance to watch said video, it was nothing more than a laying on of hands by her Pastor. He mentioned the word "witchcraft" in his prayer, but only in terms of "coming against it." He was certainly not performing an "exorcism," as the video claimed. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she probably had no idea that he would use that word when she was called out of the congregtation that morning. She was simply going forward to be prayed for. As usual, the media blew it out of proportion. It turns out that her religous background is Assembly of God, a Pentecostal denomination. My personal experience with that denomination was anything but good, and believe me, I had quite a bit of exposure in my youth (but that's another topic for another day). Suffice it to say that renowned author Karen Armstrong ("The History of God", "The Battle for God") refers to Pentecostalim as "...theology for the rest of us." In other words, to put it bluntly it's for um... stupid people. It was for people who couldn't understand the basic tenets of the Christian religion. (Go ahead and send me hate mail. I can handle it). In all fairness to Palin, apparently she no longer attends an AG church, but has moved to a more moderate denomination. Perhaps she really had an epiphany, or it was simply the politically astute thing to do. Who can judge? I certainly wouldn't want any videos put up on youtube about some of the stuff I've witnessed or was a part of during the (short) period of my life that I had anything to do with Pentecostalism and then be judged by that.

Back to the Democrats. Obama has been linked to a vitriolic minister named Jeremiah Wright. Not good. That's going to turn off a lot of voters. That being said, I'm not sure how close the ties that bind are, and I wouldn't be surprised if the media are blowing that out of proportion, too. Obama has also claimed that he would pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. (Hilary Clinton, while she was still in the running, said she would pull out of it, too). Then Obama turned around and said he wouldn't pull out and that he had just said that to get union votes. As a Canadian, these threats to the Free Trade Agreement speak of more US isolationism, and that's NOT good.

I was very sure early on that this was going to be walk in the park for the Democrats; it didn't matter who they ran. But it's a lot closer than I ever expected. Palin, at first, added some much needed spark and zest to McCain's campaign, but there have also been the critics that say his choice may have cost him the election due to her lack of experience, etc. She recently said that Obama was "friends with terrorists" and there was a backlash from that. Understandably. On the other hand, a documentary I recently watched claimed that all terrorist activities were conducted by the CIA. Yes, that did say, "all", which is a chilling thought given its implications. So, if Obama is friends with anyone in the CIA, then by that documentary's definition, she may be right. Somehow, I don't think that's what she intended.

Who do I want to win? I really can't say. I see problems with either choice. If it's true that Palin has Libertarian leanings, I guess I lean a little more that way. On the other hand, we've had enough of the war-mongering Republicans, and, as Britain's Economist says, (I'm paraphrasing) a black man with the middle name Hussein will go a long way to dispell some of the beliefs the rest of the world has about America's closed-mindedness. I just wish that the Libertarian party had a shot, but that's not going to happen. At least not this time around.

The NDP Just Doesn't Get It

2008-10-28T11:21:00.000-07:00

In today's newspaper, there is a story of the opposition NDP laying out their economic platform. Oy vey. The Provincial NDP Leader said that if they were elected, they would build 2,400 low income housing units, with 1,200 more every year. Really? And where does she think the money is going to come from? Government Housing (BC Housing) is already a mess. Go drive by any of their projects and you'll see what a disaster and how dilapitated they are. And she wants to build MORE of these slums?

Government should not be involved in building housing at all. They need to get out of it. Housing should be built by private enterprise. Let charities build low income housing, charities like the Salvation Army, the Union Gospel Mission, Odd Fellows, etc. Let them step up to the plate and do that; it is NOT the government's job. Government should not be emasculating the charities who surely know best how to help people. When government takes over something, very little of the money actually goes to help people. Most of it goes to the bureacracy. Government's job is to govern. Period. They should not be in the charity business. We need less government; not more.

She also claims that she will raise the minimum wage by approximately $2.00 per hour, effectively a 25% increase. Now what employer can afford to give their employees a 25% increase? Think of how many jobs will disappear because of that. Here's a concept: how about letting the markets decide how much a position is worth. Oh, right. I forgot that Ms. James and her union buddies think they can impose wage rates on employers, telling employers how much a position is worth and how much an employer must pay. The NDP needs to go back and learn basic economics, starting by reading Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," followed up by watching the documentary series, "Commanding Heights".

People, please DO NOT FORGET what a mess the NDP made of British Columbia during the decade they were in power. They took the Province from one of the best economies in the country to one of the worst. We just can't afford to have the NDP and their misguided agenda in power. EVER.

Edited to add:

As was pointed out to me, I need to clarify something. BC Housing no longer builds the large low-income complexes like they used to. They now build smaller complexes that blend into the neighbourhood. It's the older ones that are especially rundown and dilapitated. Even if BC Housing is no longer building such large-size complexes, they are still stuck with them - and so are we as taxpayers. Yet, I also know of problems with smaller, newer built complexes.

Lessons from the Housewives

2008-09-19T21:05:00.000-07:00

I have a confession: I LOVE Desperate Housewives.

When the show debuted in 2004 on ABC and garnered good reviews, I knew that I'd watch it when it arrived on dvd. Sure enough, when season one was released a year later, I gobbled it up; I was hooked.

For those of you that don't know, it centres on four main characters: Lynette Scavo, (Felicity Huffman)a stressed out mom of four; Gabrielle Solis, (Eva Longoria Parker) a pampered and spoiled former model; Susan Meyer (Terri Hatcher), a children's book illustrator; and, Bree Van de Kamp, the ultimate domestic goddess. They are neighbours living on "Wisteria Lane" in "Fairview." Their stories intertwine as their live their lives.

Each fall, I get excited with anticipation waiting for the next season to be released. I've been known to get up very early on a Saturday morning and put on the fire and sit and watch it while drinking my coffee.

I think there's a little of each main character in every woman. Every working mom relates to Lynette's stress and guilt. A lot of people put up the fronts that Bree does, and put on a public face, always desperate to "keep up appearances". That's probably one big reason why the show is such a success. That's one of the reasons I love it, but that's not the main reason.

There's a lot of grace in the show. Friends get angry at each other; spouses struggle with the demands and stresses of marriage and raising children. Yet, there's something even deeper. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned.

In season four, a tornado rips through Wisteria Lane. Lynette screams in hysterics as she emerges from the destruction to see the home where her family had been hiding is now in rubble. The other women stand by her side and try to comfort her as the rescuers dig through the wreckage. Even though I was fairly convinced her family would be safe, I was momentarily panicking thinking Lynette's husband, Tom, might be dead. I cried when he was the last to be pulled out safe. Of all the couples on Wisteria Lane, they are the ones I root for most.

Sadly, one person didn't make it, Ida, a minor character. As Lynette is helping another neighbour, Mrs. McClusky, pack up Ida's stuff, she (Lynette) comes across some baseball memorabilia. She asks, "What's all this?" and is told that it was Ida's momentoes from her pro-baseball days during World War II. Lynette was shocked to hear this news. She had no idea that this lady whom she had lived nearby to had been a huge baseball star in her youth. In fact, Ida had loved the game so much, she asked that her ashes be scattered in the local baseball field. Lynette was told (words to the effect) that, "You didn't know, because you didn't ask." Lynette, feeling guilty on more than one level, decides to grant Ida her last request (which in itself is an amusing story). After they are done, Lynette remarks how it was so sad that she really didn't take the opportuntiy to know Ida while she was alive. Mrs. McClusky tells her that, "It's a lesson we need to learn every day". And it's true. So often, we take the people around us for granted, never knowing what may happen tomorrow. Life is fragile.

There's a character that is pure evil (in my opinion) and I was ecstatic when she got her just desserts. You should have heard me yelling at the tv, screaming, "SHE's EVIL INCARNATE!!" She's been upsetting me for a very long time. She's caused a lot of trouble for a lot of people. Justice, in this show, is never dealt out by the police or the legal system. It's dealt with within the family, or the participants and, somehow, it just seems fitting. There's a lot of "libertarianism" spoken.

Gabby, Susan, Bree, and Lynette have become my virtual friends.

Remembering September 11th

2008-09-11T10:46:00.000-07:00

Seven years ago today, the world changed. No one that is old enough to remember will ever forget that day, or where they were or what they were doing.

Being three hours behind the East Coast, it was 6:30 a.m. when our alarm went off and we heard something about a "plane hitting the World Trade Centre". I thought it was a "puddle jumper" that had gone astray and immediately rolled over and went back to sleep for another hour. The alarm went off again, and this time we sat up and took notice: there had been a second plane and one had also hit the Pentagon. We flipped on the tv to see the second Tower Fall. I remember Peter Mansbridge saying, "That was 15 minutes ago." You could hear the shock and disbelief in his voice.

All of a sudden the world was a less safe place. As DH said, "Car bombs are passe." Like most Westerners, I had never heard of Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden before that day. It didn't matter that it wasn't my country that was attacked, or that I didn't know anyone that was personally affected. Somehow, you felt that it was personal and that you were violated.

I can't imagine the hate that would cause someone to do such an act; it's unfathomable. I had heard that terorists were actually "sensitive" people, but didn't understand how that could be. It wasn't until I saw the movie "Munich" that I understood a little bit about it. If you haven't seen it, it's excellent. The clincher is the final scene were Eric Bana's character, who had been doling out retribution on behalf of the Israeli athletes that were slaughtered at the 1972 Olympics, is fed up of the violence, and says to Geoffrey Rush's characher, "When does it end? When does it end?" Bana's character had been involved in bombings and killings, all in the name of vengeance. Yet, he was a good husband and adored his baby daughter. The scene is set in 1970's New York; the camera pulls back to show the World Trade Centre. The obvious answer is: it doesn't end.

Spamalot II

2008-08-31T13:35:00.000-07:00

It's time for another edition of "Spamalot" a commentary on those annoying spam emails we receive. Here's some more that I've received since I posted my original post back in April.

"Paris Hilton abducted by Aliens"
We can only wish.

"Paris Hilton has Sex with Aliens"
Was that before or after the abduction?

"Set your Wife on Fire"
Um, isn't that illegal? Suttee was outlawed a long time ago.

"SAD because of Low EDUCATION? Cheap price Degree/Bacheelor/MasteerMBA/PhDD Certificate"
The insult to my education isn't have so upsetting as the credit you are giving to my intelligence at thinking I wouldn't notice the glaring spelling mistakes in your email. If that's the kind of standards your institution has, I think I'll pass.

A Rare Gem

2008-08-25T19:03:00.000-07:00

It was an ordinary Friday night. No doubt we'd had pizza, as was our routine on Friday evenings. For whatever reason, we decided to do something a little different (for us) afterwards. Instead of visiting one of our regular bookstores, we decided to visit a different one. Little did we know what an effect that would have.

We had done our browsing and were ready to leave. I took a quick look around the bargain section, when a book leapt off the shelf as it were and said, "BUY ME!" I showed it to DH, and he agreed that it was a must buy. Neither of us had heard of the author before, but the title caught our attention. If my memory serves me right, it was the only book we bought that night. It was only $6.99, but to us, it was priceless.

We took it home, and we both read it within the next week or two. It was one of those rare gems of books; one of those books that once you've read it, your world is rocked and you never see the world the same way again. Our mouths dropped open while reading it. The man's arguments made sense. In fact, they were so obvious, we couldn't believe we hadn't seen it ourselves, that we'd been blinded for so many years.

Since then, we've acquired two more of the author's books. I've read them both. In fact, DH got me one for my birthday last year.

Sadly, the author died a few years ago (before we discovered him) and his books are a little hard to come by. One book we want to get our hands on goes for over $135.00 on amazon.com or ebay.

The author was quite a respected scholar. Now whenever I look at books by other authors on the topics he wrote on, I always see if the authors reference him. It turns out that more and more are. I'm excited to see this. In fact, I wish everyone could read the book that rocked our world, as so many people need to hear what he has to say.

Who is this man, and what did he write about? His name was Hyam Maccoby, and the book that rocked our world was, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Chrisianity". It's a pity he isn't more well known than he is. He should be. As you may guess from his name, he was Jewish.

If you have any interest in the origins of Christianity, you MUST read this book. You can get it relatively cheap on ebay. The other two books we have are, "Jesus the Pharisee" and "Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil."

Read them. Read them all. You won't be sorry you did.

Happy Birthday

2008-07-30T18:33:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe that my little blog is a year old today; it's passed fast. I haven't posted as much as I originally envisioned I would, but I blog when I can or when I come up with something to talk about.

Here's to the first year and hopefully to lots more blog posts to come.

Musings on Ken Burns

2008-07-21T09:37:00.000-07:00

I'm a huge fan of Ken Burns. I love his documentaries and I rate his "The Civil War" and "The West" as two of my favourites. If you haven't seen them, get thee to a video store or an online dvd rental subscription and watch them.

I love history. I always have and I always will. The interesting thing is that I haven't been overly interested in 20th Century history. To me, the older the better. I love the Classical World (ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome), Church, British and American history.

I know about World War I and II. I studied them in high school. I remember reading Barbara Tuchman's excellent book, "The Guns of August" in Grade eleven. My Dad was a huge fan of war movies and I grew up watching lots of bits and pieces of war movies. I know the circumstances that led to World War II. I know when it started (September 1st, 1939) and that it ended in May 1945 (V.E.) and August 1945 (V.J.) respectively. My parents, growing up in Britain during the War, told stories of some of the hardships they faced. I love the fashions of the 30's and 40's and the music. I adore big band, especially Glen Miller. "The Glen Miller Story" with James Stewart and June Allyson is one of my all-time favourite movies and I have Glen Miller playing in the background as I type this.

So, when I finally got a hold of a copy of Ken Burns' "The War" I pounced on it and we watched all the episodes that we had on hand. Watching it, I found hard to get my mind around a time when, basically, the whole world had gone insane. I just can't imagine the whole world at war. I knew about the Battle of Midway, knew of General Douglas MacArthur, General Patton, etc. I knew about the Nazi attrocities; I knew about DDay and I've seen what veterans consider the most authentic depiction of DDay in "Saving Private Ryan". I've seen "Schindler's List" and cried my eyes out. Some of the images from those movies will haunt me forever. I knew my "Uncle Ben" fought in India. But, seeing the stories told by veterans did something to me. Hearing the letters read aloud that were sent home was emotional. Some of the recipients were crying as they read them. Some of the photos and video were graphic. You saw people being shot and I often winced, knowing this was not a Hollywood movie; that was someone's son/brother/husband/sweetheart, etc. that was killed. I'm sure I've seen it/heard it all before, but this did something to me. Perhaps because Ken Burns has put a human face on it. It's easy to dismiss a lot of war movies as "just Hollywood". I mean, we all know it's Tom Hanks ("Saving Private Ryan") or Henry Fonda ("Midway") or John Wayne ("Sands of Iwo Jima" and "Back to Bataan")up there on the screen.

Ken Burns tells the story from the American perspective; that's all right, That's what he does best - Americana. He doesn't do it obnoxiously. He shows America's involvement, warts and all. He shows that some white Americans weren't too happy working side-by-side with Blacks in the shipyards and in their military units; that some Blacks were turned down for military service; that Japanese-Americans weren't allowed to join the army after Pearl Harbor (Japanese-Americans were eventually granted their own military unit). Kids in high school should watch his documentaries as part of history curriculum.

It's not that I was blind to what transpired sixty plus years ago. I observe Remembrance Day every year and proudly wear my poppy. Yet somehow that just doesn't seem enough. To all those that served: British, Canadian, Australian, American - everyone - a heart felt "thank you". Those of us that came after you can never repay the debt we owe you.

A Tale of Two Stories of Customer Service

2008-07-18T11:39:00.000-07:00

If I get good customer service, I stick with a company. If I get crappy customer service, I dump them if I can or try to avoid shopping there. I sometimes even stick with a company that really tries to give good service, even if they fall short every now and then.

I live not too far from a pet food store. It's a major chain store, but I generally don't shop there as their prices are high and it's not a pleasant shopping atmosphere. It's dark and dingy and they don't have a good selection of the stuff I usually buy. I generally patronize a small store which has a few outlets and is considerablly further away. Their prices are quite a bit cheaper and if I have any questions, the staff are very helpful with their recommendations. The place isn't dark and crowded; it's bright and airy.

So, last night, I need to get some pet food. I normally do this chore on the weekends, but the cats ran out of dry food. I went to the store that was close by, thinking I could pick up a small bag for a couple of dollars to tide them over until the weekend. I was disgusted to find that the major chain store wanted to charge me $6.00 for a small one pound bag. Then I changed my mind and decided to buy a large bag and use a coupon I have for 20% off my purchase. So, I lug the large bag up the counter and I'm told that I can't use the coupon for food. Sure enough, if I'd turned the coupon over, I would have seen that. In disgust, I walk out and drive to the other store. Immediately, the girl behind the counter greets me saying, "Is there anything I can help you with?" I stocked up on what I needed and handed her the coupon that I had for her store. I got my discount and recounted my episode at the other store.

That pretty much sealed the deal. That main chain store has pretty much guaranteed that I will NEVER shop there again. (I can't say for sure, because I can foresee that there may be a time where I need to get something from them in an emergency).

Here's to good customer service and the lengths we go to get it.

The End of An Era

2008-07-01T12:14:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, June 27th, marked the end of an era. What era, you ask? Then obviously your homepage isn't set to msn.com or msnbc.com, as it was splashed all all over there late last week.

I'm referring to the retirement of Microsoft's Bill Gates. I wouldn't really consider myself a geek, even if I am one of the 10 types of people in the world that understand binary. (You techies will get the joke). I like Bill Gates. I'll admit I'm biased, because he put bread on my table and kept a roof over my head for several years when we lived down in Seattle. He was Microsoft's front-man and epitomized "geekdom". (Is that a real word?) Bill Gates and Microsoft: it's hard to imagine one without the other. He showed that "The Geeks will inherit the earth." I remember a very funny sketch from "The Royal Canadian Air Farce" where the Air Farce's character of Bill Gates claimed he was going to rename the US the "United Gates of America" and rename Mexico, "El Microsofto". He concluded his speech by yelling, "Geek Power!! Geek Power!!" It was priceless; I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

If you are interested at all in things "geeky" and "techy", I recommend you watch, "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" - a made-for-tv movie starring Anthony Michael Hall ("Sixteen Candles")as Bill Gates and Noah Wylie ("E.R.") as Apple's Steve Jobs. I also recommend "The Triumph of the Nerds," a documentary that tells a similar story.

Two years ago, Gates announced that he would eventually be leaving the company he founded in 1977 with friends Paul Allen and Steve Balmer. Bill, having conquered the technology world, now had his sights set on finding a cure for AIDS. Bill and his wife, Melinda, founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which has been donating money for years to worthy causes: immunization, education, etc.

I admire anyone that makes it to the top and then gives back to the world. If Bill is as successful in finding a cure for AIDS and malaria as he has been with revolutionizing the way we use computers (they're not just for geeks anymore) he'll do very well. I wish him all the best. Good luck, Bill.

A Novel Idea....

2008-06-19T14:41:00.001-07:00

I picked up a book last evening which I was considering reading. I'm not going to mention the title, but it's historical fiction. Two of the three main characters are Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.

To my surprise, I found the following disclaimer inside the book:

"This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

Am I the only person that sees that as funny??? I cracked up laughing.

What are we saying here? Is the disclaimer saying that Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn were merely figments of the author's imagination? That Anne Boleyn was not mother to the future Queen Elizabeth I and never lost her head to an executioner's sword? Sorry if that's a spoiler. But if that comes as a surprise, then you really must not have been paying attention in school. I was approximately four to five years old when I "met" Anne at the Royal London Wax Museum in Victoria and was told that she had her head cut off. Always the master of wise-cracks, Dad asked, "Why is she wearing a pearl necklace?" When I said I didn't know, he replied, "So they could cut on the dotted line."

Is it suggesting that England and the Tower of London are make believe? If that's so, that's pretty wild. You see, I've been both to England and the Tower of London. I've seen armour that belonged to Henry and I've stood on Tower Green where Anne was executed. This was in 1981 - long before this book was written. I even have photographic evidence.

I know the intent of the disclaimer: no one knows exactly what words passed between these people, and, obviously there probably are some characters that the author created. That being said, the far-reaching scope of the disclaimer just struck me as pretty funny.

The Man in the Hat is Back!

2008-05-31T11:04:00.000-07:00

After 19 years of waiting, the fourth Indiana Jones movie has finally been released. Being huge "Indy" fans, (well, that's mostly me) we went to see it opening weekend. Warning: there will be spoilers on the new movie towards the last few paragraphs.

I fell in love in with Indiana Jones with the first movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981. It wasn't hard; I had a major crush on Harrison Ford at the time (even if he is old enough to be my Dad). I'd also always had a sneaking interest in archaelogy. That summer, I became good friends with the neighbour boy next door. We'd bonded over our mutual love of Star Wars and he told me that he preferred Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones over Han Solo. From that point on, I started nagging my Dad to take me.

After weeks of pestering my Dad, we went to the local theatre and saw it. Dad was expecting some "Star Wars" science fiction type movie, so he was surprised when he saw horses in the jungle. Then, of course, we were told it was "South America - 1936" and things began to make sense. In describing the movie to someone a few days later, Dad said it was basically "James Bond for kids." That's exactly what George Lucas intended when he and director Steven Spielberg envisioned it. Indiana Jones: mild-mannered professor by day, but leads a double-life as a treasure-seeking adventurer (or "expert on the occult and obtainer of rare antiquities" as they call it in the movie) who beats up bad guys (mostly Nazis). He's a handsome smooth-talking hero with a devilish twinkle in his eyes, wears a fedora hat and carries a bull whip. In the first movie, he goes after the lost Ark of the Covenant. It was part of the idea when Lucas and Spielberg were envisioning Indiana Jones that he would always go after religious artifacts.

It took my breath away; there are so many memorable scenes. No matter how many times I've seen it, I always crack up when Indy shoots the swordsman and when the monkey takes the Nazi salute. Along for the thrill ride was Jones' former flame, the feisty Marion Ravenwood, played to perfection by Karen Allen. Marion was no damsel in distress, she gave as good as she got. In fact, her body count may be almost as high as his. The chemistry between Allen and Ford was fantastic; you could almost see the sparks fly. "I see you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time!" she yells at him after her bar is burnt to the ground. Marion set a very high standard for Indy's girlfriends who followed in the next two movies - and no one came even close - but more on that later.

Raiders is a classic and - in many ways - the perfect action adventure movie. I just don't care for the weak ending. It's like they ran out of ideas from the point where they get on the ship. Other than that, it's perfect. It won a few Oscars, and was even nominated for Best Picture that year.

A sequel followed three years later, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". By that time, I'd outgrown my crush and wasn't interested in seeing it. I finally saw it years later; it's still the weakest of the movies. It's dark. And to make things worse, they replaced Karen Allen with the awful Kate Capshaw (Steven Spielberg's future wife) and set the movie one year before Raiders in 1935. Every time I see it, I want to bash Capshaw's character, nightclub singer Willie Scott. Heck, even Steven Spielberg doesn't like it.

Then in 1989, they released the third movie, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". The reviews were good, and I dragged my Dad to see Indy once again. It was everything the second movie wasn't. It returned to the formula which made the first one so successful. From the opening sequence you learned a little of Indy's background: how he acquired his fear of snakes and how he learned to use a bullwhip, for example. This time they brought in Sean Connery - the original James Bond - to be Indy's father. It was a stroke of casting genius (even though Harrison Ford thought that it wasn't a good idea since Sean Connery was only thirteen years older than him). The chemistry between them was great. I remember walking out of the theatre thinking I'd been on a rollercoaster ride and I immediately wanted more of the same adrenaline rush. Becuase there is no weak ending, in some ways the third one is my favourite. The dialogue between father and son was razor sharp: "I'm as human as the next man." "I was the next man." The "girlfriend" in this movie, Dr. Elsa Schneider, though an improvement Wille Scott, turned out to be a Nazi turncout. Her greed got the better of her and she got her just desserts in the end.

Speaking of rollercoaster rides, the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland is a blast. Dad and I went on it three times when we were there in 1996. They even had the rolling stone chase you, which was the climax of the opening sequence in the original Raiders.

So, when it was announced that finally there would be a new movie and that they were bringing back Karen Allen, I was thrilled. I loved her character, Marion Ravenwood. Rumours circulated that Natalie Portman would play Indy and Marion's daughter. My immediate reaction was 'EW!" Not because I don't like Natalie Portman; I do like her. It's the fact that she plays Queen Amidala in Star Wars - the mother of Princess Leia. In other words, she's Han Solo's (Harrison Ford's character) mother-in-law. I was disappointed to hear that Sean Connery wasn't returning. It would have been nice to have a full family reunion. But, in his own words, he was enjoying retirement "too damned much". Selfish Swine :) Eventually, it was announced that Indy and Marion had a son ("Henry") not a daughter.

So, now it comes time to critique the new film (which, of course, we took my Dad to). Set in 1957, nineteen years after the last movie, it starts off in Nevada. It was good to see Indy make some wise-cracks about his age. It was also good to see Marion back. True, she'd lost a *little* of her spunk, but she was still feisty, and she's aged gracefully. Once again, there was good banter between her and Indy. That being said, I would have liked to have seen more. It's part of what made the first movie so great.

There was action; there was adventure; there were wise-cracks; there were creepy-crawlies (this time, ants). In short, there was everything you come to expect from an Indiana Jones movie. It was very good and I really liked it but I can't honestly say that I loved it - and I just can't put my finger on why. I was waiting for that adrenaline rush that I had while watching the third one - and it just didn't happen. There were too many special effects, which the first movies didn't have. Mind you, the sword fight between the young Henry and the villianess, Irina Spalko, (played by Cate Blanchett) was pretty cool. I would also have liked to have seen a catfight between Marion and Irina. Speaking of Cate Blanchett, it was good to see her playing a bad girl. She's best known for playing royalty - real (Queen Elizabeth I) and Hollywood (she won an Oscar for playing Katherine Hepburn in 'The Aviator'). DH didn't even recognize her.

It was good to see Indy and Marion finally reunited. If you knew the characters, you know that Marion is Indy's one true love. I just hope they don't plan to carry on the series with the son. I hope Indy picking up his hat at the end is a sign he's not ready to pass the torch just yet.

Long live Indiana Jones!

Civil Rights Being Eroded

2008-05-21T19:55:00.000-07:00

It's become big news recently that the Province of British Columbia has passed legislation that allows Police with BC Hydro’s aid and without a justified warrant to invade people’s homes and threaten to cut off power simply because their power consumption has gone up. This is morally wrong and completely unwarranted (no pun intended). I am disgusted and appalled at this. Just because someone’s Hydro Bill has gone up, is no justification to invade their privacy and accuse them running a grow op. This is a gross violation of our civil rights.

As I've said in a previous post, I’m a Libertarian. I believe in less police, less government – a LOT less. I think marijuana should be legal (even though I’ve never touched the stuff) but I digress, as I know that’s Federal Legislation. I lived in Washington State for a few years and part of the reason we came back, is because we didn’t like the way that the United States was becoming a Police State and becoming more and more paranoid. I fear that Canada may be following the US’s lead and going the same way. This is not the Canadian way.

There is absolutely no way that BC Hydro should not be allowed to “snitch” on people just because their power consumption has gone up, nor threaten to cut off people’s power. That’s way beyond their mandate, and reduces them to Police informants. It’s far too Orwellian and not the kind of country I want to live in. I do NOT want Big Brother watching me. This is an abuse of police power and BC Hydro’s mandate. There is no way Police should be allowed to do this without a warrant that they need to justify in front of a Judge of the Court.

There are a few cases regarding this before the Courts. I plan to follow them with interest. I only hope that the victims of these invasions win.

Spamalot

2008-04-08T14:15:00.000-07:00

We all get them. Spam emails. They drive us crazy, yet some of the titles amuse me. Here are some samples of headlines in actual spam emails I have received lately.

"Am I satisfied with the size of my member?"
Hm. Sorry. Can't help you with that one. Why are you asking me? *scratches head*

"Help me Get out of Debt"
Yeah. Right. I'm in enough hot water in that area myself. Like I'm going to help you.

"You must be the Real Man with Huge Dignity"
Why thank you very much. Mind you, when was the last time you met a man named Heather?

"You Feel up my Senses"
I guess that's a compliment. *shrug*

"We let you be more a man"
Thanks but no thanks. I'm quite happy the way I am - thank you very much

"It is good, when there are experts in what that"
Well, I guess it's obvious there's one thing you're not an expert in: English grammar.

"Be the Most People in Town"
Looks like you and the above spammer need to take the same grammar class.

"They do not want to buy their shops unknown them in stores?"
See above comment.

"Make yourself look really spiny"
And why exactly would I want to do that?

"What is the Church?"
Well, it comes from the Latin eccliesia which simply " a gathering of citizens" or "called out assembly". In other words, no religious context at all. The French word for church is "eglise". Bet you're sorry you asked, aren't you?

"You look stupid in this video heather new. See Yourself."
Damn. How did that video from the office Christmas party get out?

RIP Vancouver Canucks

2008-04-04T12:59:00.000-07:00

For the second time in three years, the Vancouver Canucks have failed to make the NHL Playoffs. Now the post-mortem ritual of fingerpointing begins. Who gets the blame?

Now, before I begin my rant, I'm going to give you a little background. I grew up on hockey. I grew up watching the Montreal Canadiens during their glory years in the 1970's. To this day, they are my second favourite team. I became a Canucks' fan in approximately 1977; this was during the years that it seemed the only teams they could beat were the Colorado Rockies (now New Jersey Devils) and the Chicago Blackhawks.

For me, the problem seems to lie with management/ownership. After years of mediocrity, the Canucks had coach and GM Pat Quinn in the late 80's/early 90's. He pulled some amazing deals as General Manager. He brought Greg Adams and goalie Kirk McLean in. He gambled on Pavel Bure's draft eligibilty and drafted him. It was a gamble that paid off; after months of legal wranglings, it was determined that Bure was indeed eligible for the NHL draft and Vancouver landed its first legitimate superstar. He was nicknamed the "Russian Rocket". That was just one of Quinn's magic deals.

Then there was the Cliff Ronning/Geoff Courtnall deal that was one of the biggest deals in NHL at the time. It was a ten player deal that brought local boys, Cliff Ronning(Burnaby)and Geoff Courtnall(Victoria), home from St. Louis. They became cornerstones of the team. It was one of Pat Quinn's best ever deals.

Team owner Arthur Griffiths was a "hands off" owner. He gave Quinn free reign to work his magic - and it worked. The Canucks went from a joke to a legitimate contender. In 1992, they won their first playoff round in ten years. In 1993, they repeated that feat, but went out too early in the second round to the Los Angeles Kings.

Then came 1994...

Quinn pulled another amazing trading deadline deal, bringing Jeff Brown and Brett Hedican from the St. Louis Blues. Then came the playoffs: the Canucks were down three games to one in the first round vs. Calgary. They fought back and won games five and six. Game seven was in Calgary. The Canucks were down by a goal with minutes remaining in the game. It looked like their season was over until Greg Adams (another BC boy) tied the game and sent it into overtime. Then, captain Trevor Linden fed the puck to Pavel Bure, who sped down the ice and scored. It was heady.

Next round was Dallas, whom the Canucks dispatched in five games. For the first time in twelve years, the Canucks were in the final four. Next up was the Toronto Maple Leafs. Greg Adams scored the series winner in double overtime in game five, eliminating the Leafs. The city went wild.

Now came the big boys: the New York Rangers. Kirk McLean was amazing in game one, stopping 54 shots. Greg Adams, once again, scored the game winner. The Rangers roared back in games three, four and five. The dream seemed dead - but not yet. The Canucks clawed back to force game seven. Sadly, the only forward that showed up that game was Trevor Linden, who scored the Canucks two goals. The Canucks lost. The Canucks maintained that it was fixed; that Rangers coach, Mike Keenan, phoned NHL Gary Bettman after the Rangers lost game six in Vancouver and screamed about the reffing. It's no coincidence to me that the first two penalties in game seven went against Vancouver, giving the Rangers the advantage, but I'm not going to delve too much into conspiracy theories here.

It was an amazing run, but after that, things went downhill. The first was the lockout. After such an amazing season, it was a slap in the fact to fans. In the abreviated season, the Canucks managed to make the playoffs and win the first round against St. Louis. They were swept the next round by Chicago.

From here on, things got worse. Team onwership changed. Arthur Griffiths brought in family friend, John McCaw, of Seattle. Hindsight says it was a huge mistake. McCaw, who made his billions in the cell phone industry, started interfering; eventually Arthur Griffiths was out completely. Pat Quinn was no longer able to make his amazing deals. For whatever reason, they brought in Mark Messier. I remember thinking at the time that this was a very bad move. As a Canucks fan, I couldn't possibly cheer for this person who robbed us of something from us only three years earlier. (To this day, I've never been able to watch Mark Messier hoist the cup after defeating the Canucks in game seven; it's too painful). The money would have been better spent on Joe Sakic, another local boy, who was a free agent at the time, and would have come a lot cheaper and would have put people in the stands.

Two years later, in the fall of 1997, Pat Quinn was fired. To add insult to injury, ownership brought in Mike Keenan as general manager. That was the day I gave up on the team. I couldn't possibly cheer for them now. The very idea was repulsive. He dismantled the team. Eventually, Keenan was fired (thank goodness) and Messier was gone. Hurrah.

By early 1999, the Canucks replaced Keenan with coach Marc Crawford. I was very happy. Crawford was a former Canuck himself, and had won a Stanley Cup with Colorado in 1996. They brought in a new gm in Brian Burke, who had been assistant gm under Pat Quinn. Burke was a worthy successor and pulled a couple of decent deals. He brought back Trevor Linden, who had been traded away under Keenan, and pulled a deal to land the Sedin twins. Then, ownership decided not to renew Burke's contract as gm. There was another lockout, but this time there was no NHL season.

Last year, the Canucks beat Dallas in the first round of the playoffs, but were bounced by the Anaheim Ducks, who eventually won the cup. This year, the Canucks have stumbled all season. It was only in the last two weeks that things collapsed. With the season on the line, they kept shooting themselves in the skates. They would blow leads of 2-0 to division rivals, ensuring the rapid fall out of the standings. Frankly, if you can't hold a two goal lead this late in the season when you are supposed to be fighing for your playoff lives, you don't deserve to make the playoffs. This happened against Calgary (losing 3-2) and Colorado (losing 4-2). All they had to do was hold those leads, and they would still be in contention. Sadly, something was lacking. Call it leadership, talent, dedication, passion, but something is sorely lacking in this team - and changes have to be made.

Rumours persist that Trevor Linden will announce his retirement after this season. That's a real shame. He deserved to go out better than this; he deserved to end his career with pride. He may not have worn the "C" for years, but he was in all but name, their captain.

I guess I'm off to cheer for Les Habs now. Go, Habs, Go.

Auntie Peggy

2008-04-02T11:20:00.000-07:00

Fifteen years ago today, my world was rocked. Fifteen years ago today, the only grandmother figure I ever really knew passed away. I called her "Auntie" Peggy. Her parents were neighbours of my (maternal) grandparents in my ancestral home town in Scotland.

When my parents immigrated to Canada, it was Auntie Peggy and Uncle Ben they stayed with until they found a place of their own. We lived only a five minute walk from them and we were constantly in each other's homes. They were at our house for Christmas dinner every year and they seemed to see it as their duty to spoil me - as they didn't grandchildren yet and their kids were grown. In 1977, I was flowergirl in their son's wedding. When my Mom took sick in 1978 and was in hospital for weeks, it was Uncle Ben who was always there to pick me up from school every day and take me back to their place where they would have dinner for Dad and me. Uncle Ben lost his battle with cancer in 1989.

Everyone needs an Auntie Peggy in their lives. I remember once going to visit her one evening after a breakup with a beau and she said, "What's wrong wi' ya, lass? I dinna lak to see ya lak that." Sometimes I wonder what I would give to hear her say those words again. She had a great sense of humour. It was priceless to watch hockey with her. She literally nagged the Canucks on. She would say things like, "Ach, you're useless. Get off the ice." and wave her hand dismissively at the t.v. Just a few months before she died, some pianists came to visit our church. She leaned over to me and whispered, "What's wrong wi' us? Why can't we play lak that? We have ten fingers, don't we?" I had to stifle the giggles.

She went quickly and unexpectedly. She had a heart attack on April 1st and was gone by the next morning. She didn't even give us a chance to say good-bye. Perhaps that's best, as I will always remember her the way she would have wanted: vibrant, warm, funny and full of life.

The next night, a Saturday, I was at a Michael W. Smith concert with a friend. If you know him, his signature song is "Friends" a song that became an anthem to a generation of Christian young people. As he sang it, tears streamed down my face. To this day, I always associate the song with her - even though she probably never, ever heard it.

I've got it softly playing in the background as I type this post, and I can feel tears trickle down. I give you "Friends" words and music by Michael W. Smith and Deborah D. Smith.

Packing up the dreams God planted in the fertile soil of you
Can't believe the hopes He's granted
means a chapter in your life is through
But we'll keep you close as always;
it won't even seem you've gone
'cause our hearts in big and small ways
will keep the love that keeps us strong.

Chorus:
And friends are friends forever
if the Lord's the lord of them
And a friend will not say never
'cause the welcome will not end
Though it's hard to let you go,
in the Father's hands we know
That a lifetime's not too long to live as friends.

With the faith and love God's given
springing from the hope we know
We will pray the joy you live in is the strength that now you show
But we'll keep you close as always;
it won't even seem you've gone
'cause our hearts in big and small ways will keep the love that keeps us strong

Chorus:
(twice)
And friends are friends forever
if the Lord's the lord of them
And a friend will not say never
'cause the welcome will not end
Though it's hard to let you go
in the Father's hands we know
That a lifetime's not too long to live as friends

And friends are friends forever
if the Lord's the lord of them
And a friend will not say never
'cause the welcome will not end
Though it's hard to let you go
in the Father's hands we know
That a lifetime's not too long to live as friends
No, a lifetime's not too long to live as friends.

Rest in peace, Auntie Peggy. I still miss you

41

2008-03-16T12:08:00.001-07:00

Today is my birthday. I'm 41 today. Somehow, it doesn't seem possible. That seems like a fair amount of time to have been alive on this planet. Sadly, the older one gets, the faster time seems to fly. Can it really be 20 years since I turned 21?! Can it really be 11 years since I turned 30? No. It can't be. Yet the calendar doesn't lie.

I don't mind birthdays, but I don't like getting older. True, people are living longer, but at 41, I am forced to admit that I've left my youth behind me forever and have to accept the fact that I'm middle-aged. Ick. I don't like that idea.

It's weird knowing that the "kids" in their 20's weren't even born when Star Wars came out in 1977 - almost 31 years ago. It's funny knowing that there's a generation that never didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father until the sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back" came out in 1980. It's weird knowing there's a generation that doesn't know a life before MTV and how big Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was in 1983.

It's weird looking back at tv footage of the 70's and 80's and saying, "Hey! I remember that!" I guess our parents felt the same when we were growing up. For example, they remember the Kennedy assasination in 1963; they remember the Queen's coronation in 1953. Those were events that happened before I was born. They must have shaken their heads and smile the same way I do today. I think that's why I like watching "That 70's Show" a retro look back at life in the '70's. Though, I would be younger than the teenage characters in that show (it would be perfect if one of them had a younger sibling) I do remember the fashions and the attitudes and the gadgets around the house of that time.

So, there you have it. The musings of a middle-aged (ouch, that hurts) woman on her birthday. I'm off to enjoy the rest of the day.

It's Oscar Night in Hollywood

2008-02-24T10:40:00.000-08:00

I'll admit it: I love movies. DH and I watch at least one movie a week. We routinely watch the Oscars every year. We don't make a big deal of it, but we do watch. (I can only think of one year where we missed them).

Why do we watch? Because we love film. It's nice to see the gowns that ladies wear. It also can be hilarious to hear the acceptance speeches. It's also a good way to find out what Hollywood considers to be "the best" and to add it to the list for movies to see. We've seen a few of the nominated movies. That being said, we haven't seen any of the best picture nominees yet. They're on the list for when they are released on dvd.

Here are my predictions for the major categories:

Best Picture: - "No Country for Old Men";
Best Actress: Julie Christie -"Away from Her";
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis- "There will be Blood";
Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett - "I'm Not There";
Best Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck - "The Assassination of Jesse James";
Best Director: The Coen brothers - "No Country for Old Men".

I'll check in later with a report on the ceremony and to see how close I was in my predictions.

Edited later to add:

Well, if you watched the Oscars, you will see that I went 3/6 in my predictions. Overall, I was 10/24. I *should* have gone with Javier Bardem for Best Supporting Actor, as that's what those in the know in Hollywood were saying. Mind you, those same people were saying that Julie Christie was a sure thing for best actress. That, to me, was the biggest surprise of the evening. I was also suprised at Tilda Swinton's win in the Best Supporting Actress category. I'm not a fan of hers. She was miscast as the White Witch in "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe." Swinton has my vote for the worst dressed at the ceremony.

As for best dressed, the ones that stood out to me were: Katherine Heigl, Helen Mirren, Nicole Kidman, Amy Adams, and Julie Christie (who would have been absolutely perfect if she had accessorized with different gloves and shoes).

Overall, I enjoyed the show. I liked Jon Stewart. He was obviously more comfortable hosting this time around than he was two years ago.

Dear America

2008-01-27T10:36:00.000-08:00

I write this as someone who has lived in your country and loved every minute of it. I'm someone that loves America and what it stands for, "liberty and justice for all". I've always had a fascination with American history (so much more exciting than Canadian). America has done a lot of good in this world and has the potential to do a lot more. If I was an American, I would probably describe my politics as Libertarian.

That being said, America, you must grow up and get over yourself. I write this based on the following article: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/297666 . The statement, "I thought there Canadians on the jury" is laughable, since you must be an American citizen to be on a jury.

For a country that was founded on the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, something has gone seriously wrong. That being said, all one has to do is watch Ken Burns's excellent documentary, "The West" to know that the United States has an abysmal record when it comes to human rights. I was shocked to hear the long history of abuses against Hispanics, Chinese, and, of course, the many Native American Tribes. The enslavement of Blacks and their ongoing struggle for civil rights is a category in and of itself. In other words, intolerance in the United States is nothing new. In other words, if you weren't white and weren't Christian, you didn't fit in.

Whatever happened to, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" If you don't know, those words are an excerpt from the poem, "The New Collosus" by Emma Lazarus, which is inscribed on a plaque at the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbour. Think of all the millions of teeming immigrants seeing "Lady Liberty" as the first thing they see in their new home as they pull into Ellis Island. (Picture the scene in Godfather II, where the young child, Vito Corleone, comes to America from his native Sicily). Think of those untold millions longing for a fresh start, fleeing persecution, or famine looking for the land of dreams. Think of the first line in the movie, the Godfather, "I believe in America..." words from a Sicilian immigrant who so desperately wanted to believe in the U.S. justice system which (in his view) had let him down. Sadly, many immigrants saw their American Dream become the American nightmare. They saw the prejudices they were fleeing follow them to the New World. For example, for many Irish the only jobs they could get in New York were policemen.

What went wrong? America, why do you denigrade anyone who doesn't agree with you? Why must you cast slurs? Why can't you leave well enough alone? Why can you not agree to disagree? Why must you insist that you are always right? Can't you see how childish that is? Is it any wonder that with your harsh "know it all" stance on many issues that a lot people outside of the United States just don't like American policies? I've often thought that America seems to *need* an enemy. The older I get, the more convinced of that I am. It wasn't always that way. Prior to World War II, America pretty much kept to itself. While I was growing up, it was the Russians and the Communists who were the enemy. Now, it's Islamic Fundementalists. Isn't it childish to be arguing over thing like religion that no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

Please read the following artle. It's pretty bad when a US Congressman describes America as a "Police State". http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

As Edward R. Murrow once said, "No one familiar with the history of his country, can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating. But the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Sen. McCarthy's methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom wherever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck". That quote is taken from the movie, "Good Night and Good Luck". I highly recommend this excellent movie written and directed by George Clooney about the McCarthy-era witchhunts. (Edward Murrow was a CBS reporter who took on Senator McCarthy).

America, you need to allow people to live and let live. Why do you think that Canada is "soft on crime"? Is it because there is no death penalty? Frankly, an article on msn.com recently said that even some American judges are becoming revolted at the practice.

Why are you libelling a country that allows gay marriage? What's the big deal? Does it hurt you? Isn't that being tolerant? Isn't that what you stand for? Why does a government have the right to dictate what goes on in people's bedrooms?

Is it because of Canada's lax marijuana laws? It is true that the "wacky tabbaccy" would probably be legal here if it wasn't for the interference of the DEA. I see no reason for it to be illegal. As one pot activist said, "Show me the bodies." It's not like alcohol that can make people violent. I'm perfectly satisifed with it being a controlled substance like alcohol. Of course one shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car after smoking a joint or two, but neither should you if you've had a few drinks. That doesn't mean to say it should be illegal. Most Americans would probably be shocked to learn that George Washington's family grew cannibas at Mount Vernon, the family estate.

Twenty-five percent of the people that are in prison in this world are in American jails. What does that say about their penal system? It's obviously way too harsh. I'm fairly confident that a lot of those people are in jail because of drugs. People, if someone has a problem with drugs, they don't need prison, THEY NEED HELP so they can get their lives back on track and hopefully be productive members of society. Throwing them in prison won't help, it will just make them worse. I quote Johnny Depp's character from the movie "Blow", "Danbury [prison] wasn't a prison, it was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of marijuana, came out with a Doctorate of cocaine". Shocking, isn't it? In other words, he came out a lot worse than when he went in.

America likes to brag that it was founded on Christian principles. I have news for you, America. You weren't. You were founded on Enlightenment and Masonic Principles. Yes, Masonic, i.e. Freemasons.

I just finished reading a book called, "The Pagan Christ" by Canadian author Tom Harpur. He said that some scholars believe that mainstream Christianity has only about one generation left before people abandon it all together, realizing that it's myth. Eventually, people will wake up and realize that the Bible is mythology and not history.

Perhaps with the progress of science and archaelogy, we can once and for all prove that Christianity is nothing more than mythology. I suspect that as more and more is stripped away, the harder some people will fight to keep the chains that bind them to the past. I think it's no coincidence that we are seeing the rise of the extremely militant religious right in America the more the Bible is proven to be more ficition than fact. America, believe me, you DO NOT want a religious-based society. As a bumper sticker I once saw said, "The last time we mixed politics and religion, we were burning people at the stake". Do you really want such a witch hunt? I think not. Both our countries have progressed too far to try to make the Bible any basis for our legal systems.

America, you need to realize how much better of you will be as a nation if you are more tolerant. I know, personally, I'm a lot more tolerant now that I'm out from under the mythos. You will be, too. I assure you of that.

Heath Ledger 1979 - 2008

2008-01-24T19:24:00.000-08:00

I came back to the office after lunch the other day and was shocked when my co-worker showed me headlines showing that actor Heath Ledger was dead at 28. It appears that it may have been an accidental overdose of prescription sleeping pills.

Let me start off by saying that I wouldn't consider myself a fan of his. I know some of his movies. I liked "The Brothers Grimm" and "A Knight's Tale." I have yet to see "Brokeback Mountain", for which he received his only Oscar nomination. (I'll get around to it one of these days). My immediate thoughts were for his little daughter, Matilda, who will grow up without her father, (and probably will never remember him) and her mom, Michelle Williams, who is apparently "devasted". (The couple split up a few months ago).

I was disgusted to read the following article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22813570/. Some Church plans to protest his funeral, due to his involvement in "Brokeback Mountain". (If you don't know the premise it's about two cowboys who have a long lasting relationship. In other words, it's a gay love story).

To the people who would do such things, I say, "Shame on you!" Are you so blind to see that this young man who died far too young left behind parents, a (former) fiancée and a little girl? Why are you adding to their grief and stress? Leave them alone. If you consider yourself Christians, ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Would he be protesting a funeral, or would he be reaching out to heal this grieving family's wounds? I seriously do not understand how anyone could be that uncaring and unfeeling, especially people who claim to be following Jesus's example of healing and compassion. I really dislike people who kick other people when they are already hurting and I don't think Jesus would approve, either.

Would these same people have protested Marlon Brando's funeral? After all, Marlon Brando played Don Corleone, the Godfather, a man who was a career murderer. Will they protest at Ang Lee's funeral, the director? He also made "Sense and Sensibility" with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet (two of Britain's finest actresses). Will they be tainted by association, two ladies that are destined for Damehood? Will they protest Philip Seymour Hoffman's funeral who won an Oscar for his portayal of Truman Capote, who was gay? (Ironically, he won the year Heath was nominated). Where does it end? It's just ridiculous. Such publicity-seeking self-aggrandizement at a funeral is disgusting and reprehensible, according to ANY moral code.

Wake up, people. It was a role, a job. Nothing more, nothing less. That's what art is supposed to do. Make people think, and challenge them. Perhaps, in protest, I'm going to watch this movie this weekend and I'm looking forward to it.

Rest in Peace, Heath.

Happy New Year

2008-01-13T13:02:00.000-08:00

Okay, okay. We're almost two weeks into 2008, but since it's my first blog post of the year, I thought I would start off by saying "Happy New Year". I generally don't make New Year's Resolutions. I find they get broken all too quickly. One thing I did tell myself was that I would try to take more time to post in my blog.

Here's wishing everyone a good 2008.

It's Christmas

2007-12-22T12:00:00.001-08:00

Every year I ask myself, "So what does Christmas mean? What exactly am I celebrating?" I was raised a mainstream Christian was was raised to believe it was Jesus's birthday and that God sent his son, Jesus, into the world to save us from sin; that his mother, Mary, was a virgin and that he was born in a stable in Bethlehim, since there was "no room at the inn".

Almost seven years ago, my faith in literalistic Christianity was destroyed. Poof. Vanished overnight. Ever since then, I've struggled to find the answer to what Christmas means to me. I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject, and I am open to the idea that Jesus was actually the heir to King David's throne; that he was a member of the Royal Family and that he was an earthly king. Apparently it's the Christians that screwed up the translation of the word "Messiah". The Jews knew very well that the word meant earthly king and not heavenly. They were right in expecting someone to come and save them from Roman oppression. I'm cool with celebrating the birthday of a Jewish king. Apparently the word "virgin" can also be translated as "maiden". It certainly makes one wonder, doesn't it?

The evidence suggests that there were several myths about ancient gods born in or around December 25th to human mothers and divine fathers. Here's a partial list: Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Mithra. When I first read that, my world collapsed. After all, if these are myths, why did I believe that the Jesus story was literally and historically true. It begs the question that his story may be just another one of those myths. I mentioned to DH recently, "Why is it that we are eventually told that Santa Claus isn't real, but we are raised to belive that the literal Christmas story is? Does anyone else see this as ironic?"

DH has said that as time goes on, he foresees the day that we may no longer celebrate Christmas. I suspect he may be right, but I'd be sorry to see that happen. After all, it is fun to get presents and celebrate with family and friends with parites and a good meal. I asked a Moslem friend a couple of years ago if he celebrated Christmas and he said, "yes" since he celebrated anything that tried to make the world a nicer place. After all, isnt' that what the message is all about?

Merry Christmas

The Myths We Live By

2007-11-06T07:31:00.000-08:00

Take a moment and think. What myths do you live by? "Myths? What myths?" you may ask. Yes, myths. What books do you read? What movies and television do you watch? Those are your myths. Those are the stories that affect you and speak as to what kind of a person you are. Take a moment and think about what your favourite books and movies of all time are. Here are some of mine:

Movies:
Gone with the Wind;
Lord the Rings;
Star Wars

Books:
Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell;
Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

You may not see a pattern in my favourites, but I do. It's about not giving up; carrying on and struggling when faced with insurmountable odds. There's one line in Lord of the Rings that especially speaks to me. It's something Sam says to Frodo. "It's like they say in the old stories Mr. Frodo. They never gave up." That line makes my eyes water - almost every time. It's longer in the book, naturally, than in the movie. In the book he makes the point that no one ever heard of those people that gave up during their struggles; only those that persisted. Enya wrote a song called "May it Be" for the first LOTR movie, and the ladies of Celtic Woman did a fabulous job of it. I often play it when I'm feeling discouraged or miserable and feel like quitting.

There's a similar theme in Gone with the Wind, as I stated in a previoius post regarding Scarlett's determination to keep her family together at all costs. I may not like how she goes about doing things, but I admire her determination.

As for Les Miserables, it's a wonderful story of grace and forgiveness. I've seen the musical three times. It was written as a protest against France's harsh penal system and was a call for educational reform. Hugo believed in universal free education.

Just think how less rich our lives would be without the mythmakers in our society: George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney and Jim Henson to name a few of my favourites. To illustrate my point at how powerful myths can be, look at what the movie Braveheart did: it changed history. It caused Scotland to vote to have its own Parliament. That may be an extreme example, but it shows how powerful an effect the stories we tell ourselves can be on us.
When I met DH, he asked if I had heard of Joseph Campbell and his book, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces," and I said I thought I had. I read it a few years later and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's well known that George Lucas based his Star Wars series on Joseph Campbell's book (some editions have Luke Skywalker on the cover).

On the flip side, myths can also have a bad effect. I hate stories that have the opposite message, of giving up or acquiesing. That was the big reason I was so disappointed in the movie,"The Devil Wears Prada." Up until the last ten minutes, I quite liked it, but I hated the ending. She gave up and settled for less than she could have been. That's why the movie "Chicago" bothers me. What message are we sending? There are racist myths and myths of religious intolerance. Look at what the Nazis did with their myths of the Aryan race; look at the Crusades.

So, ask youself: what myths am I feeding myself? It might surprise you what you discover.

I'm Back!

2007-10-10T16:57:00.000-07:00

No, I haven't been forgetting to post. I just haven't had the time nor energy to do so. I hope to be back posting shortly...

Forgiveness

2007-08-04T06:39:00.000-07:00

"...and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

Most of us probably recognize those word of Jesus from what is commonly known as the Lord's Prayer. One of my favourite parables of Jesus is the story of the man who begged a creditor for mercy when he couldn't pay his extremely large debt. The creditor listened to the man's pleas and forgave the debt. The debtor immediately went out and bullied a man that owed him a very small amount of money and demanded payment. It was so shocking that someone who had just been shown mercy and forgiveness to then turn around and be so ungracious and unforgiving. Obviously, he didn't learn his lesson, did he? When the creditor heard what the man he'd just forgiven had done, he threw him in debtor's prison.

It begs the question: how could that debtor have been so blind? How could anyone be so ungracious? Personally, when I've been shown grace and mercy by the world/universe I try to pass it on. In the last year and a half, I've had to ask for a lot of mercy and help. I've been overwhelmed sometimes at how things have been orchestrated. I'm so grateful that I simply have to pass it on, even if in small ways. I consider that it would be pretty hypocritical to ask for help/grace and mercy when I was acting ungracious or unmerciful towards those that have hurt me. It's fairly easy to forgive someone that hurts you if you know that they didn't mean it.

I've also had to wrestle with unforgiveness this last year and a half. I do consider myself a forgiving person; I try to forgive as I would wish to be forgiven but sometimes it's hard. I've been known to cut people out of my life because I just couldn't stand their backstabbing ways. Are there things and people I struggle to forgive? Yes, absolutely. Betrayal. Backstabbing. Those are things I really struggle with and, in my view, are almost unforgiveable. I consider myself a loyal person. I'm not sure where it comes from: perhaps its my Scottish clannishness; perhaps I have some Sicilian blood in me that I'm unaware of. The one thing I can't stand is someone betraying someone that loves them.

Wounds heal -both physical and emotional. Time, we're told, is a healer. We're all walking wounded, aren't we? No one gets out of life without some scar tissue. Isn't it better to help heal each other's wounds than adding new ones? Life's hard enough isn't it? Isn't it better to forgive and try to live graciously and try to help carry each other's burdens than add to them?

Perhaps the hardest person of all to forgive is one's self. It can be very humbling to take a long, hard, cold look in the mirror and sometimes what we see reflected back at us we don't like. It's not easy to admit when we're wrong. But if we are honest with ourselves and take responsibility for our choices and actions instead of casting blame and playing the role of the victim, perhaps that's when we can learn to forgive not only ourselves, but others, too.

My Favourite Novel

2007-08-02T08:06:00.001-07:00

It's easy for me to talk about my favourite novel and movie, Gone With the Wind. I first saw the move in early 1987 when I was 19. It was on tv on two parts: the first part on Sunday night; the second part on Tuesday. I was so enthralled with the story that three days later (Friday) I bought a copy of the novel. I read it VERY slowly over the next few months as I wanted to savour every moment.

As expected, the book was even better than the movie. The characters are more more rich and you understand where they are coming from so much more, especialy the two star-crossed lovers, Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler (played magnificently in the movie by Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable). I've never read or seen a more believeable love story. It's so obvious that Rhett loved her. As the book says, "no man did such things without loving a woman to distraction."

When DH and I were dating, I *forced* him to watch it with me one night and he liked it. He does like the movie, but he can't stand Scarlett O'Hara until she has her epiphany and grows up. I'm referrring to the scene at the end of Part I, where she's standing in the garden at Tara making her famous, "As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again" speech. It's at that moment that she steps up to the plate, grows up, and becomes in DH's words "the anointed one" who realizes that the survivial of her family is resting solely on her nineteen-year-old shoulders. If you look carefully, you'll even see the limb of the tree she's standing under pointing directly at her. From that point on, she is no longer a spoiled Southern Belle. She is now the head of her family. Her mother is dead; her father's mind destroyed by the grief. Most of the plantation slaves are gone. Her sisters and sister-in-law are invalids. As the book says, "...she had left girlhood behind her... She was a woman now and youth was gone."

One day, DH (who studied philosophy) and I were discussing Nietzsche. We were discussing his philosophy of when hard times hit, how those who are strong come through and some don't make it. I said, "Oh, the Gotterdamerung." He said, "WHAT? What's that? Where did you get that? I said, "It means 'Dusk of the Gods.' It's in 'Gone with the Wind.' Ashley tells Scarlett that when civilizations break up, those with courage and strength come through and the rest are winnowed out." He was impressed. It seemed obvious that Margaret Mitchell (the author of the book) was acquainted with Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols", which could easily be translated as "Dusk of the Gods." When you think about it, that is the theme of the book and the true meaning of the title, "Gone with the Wind." It's a story of survival; of what one young woman (who goes from ages 16-28 during the course of the story) will do to ensure her and her family's survival. DH then realized why, when he was at university, that he would see first year students carrying around a copy of the book.

Why do women love and identify with Scarlett O'Hara? In Vivien Leigh's words, "...she had courage and determination, and that, I think, is why women must secretly admire her-even though we can't feel too happy about her many shortcomings." Perhaps because most of us have wasted some time on a man who wasn't worthy of us. Scarlett pines after Ashley Wilkes for fourteen years before waking up to the realization that she'd "made a suit of armour and fell in love with it." She had to finally admit to herself that he wasn't what she had believed and wanted him to be all those years. Unfortunatley, by the time she realizes it, she's allowed the true love of her life to slip through her fingers.

I've read the book many times over the years, probably more than any other book I've owned. My original copy fell apart and had to be discarded, it was so well used. I've seen the movie so many times, I know most of the dialogue by heart. I refer to it often in many situations. As DH once said that I "interpret the world throught Gone With the Wind." I had to admit he was right. For example, if I'm reading or watching anything about the Civil War (one of my favourite time periods) I reference it back to what I've read in Gone With the Wind. I've often called DH my "Rhett Butler." He often uses the Socratic method, like Rhett, of popping people's baloons with his water-tight logic.

It's a story that's had a profound effect on me and has moulded my character. When times get rough, I recall Scarlett's words in the garden at Tara, "As God is my witness, they're not going to lick me. I'll live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk." Whenever I feel discouraged, I like to toss the movie into the dvd player. It never fails to remind me that no matter how bad things get, "tomorrow is another day."

Just Wild About Harry

2007-08-01T07:47:00.000-07:00

I guess I'm a little behind the times posting about Pottermania almost two weeks after the release of the final book in the Harry Potter series, but I'm going to do it anyways. Please be warned: there will be some spoilers - but not in regards to the seventh book - only the first six.

I fell in love with the Harry Potter series seven years ago, when the fourth book came out. I bought the first book "to see what all the fuss was about." I read it was hooked. I immediately bought books two, three and four and polished them off quickly. Then began the agonizing three year wait until book five came out.

DH and I went to see the first movie on opening night. While watching it, I had the vague feeling that Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) looked very familiar. With a gasp, I whispered to DH, "That's me! She looks like me!" He agreed. She looked very much like I looked like when I was her age. When my Mom saw the movie, even she had to agree. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), I was amazed to see, was the spitting image of my cousin. It was a reallly weird experience.

I still think that Book three is my favourite (Prisoner of Azkaban) just because of the red herrings she threw at us. I still get a tingle up my spine when I read the paragraph where Sirius and Lupin embrace in the Shrieking Shack. I still shake my head that I didn't figure out Lupin's identity; my (limited) knowledge of the French language should have told me what he was. (Lupin = wolf)

I was in shock at the ending of book six. I expected Dumbledore to die, but not until the seventh book. I was also in shock at how he died. I never expected it to be Severus Snape that did it. I sobbed and sobbed. I so wanted to believe that Snape was good. It was agonizing to wait for another two more years to find out which side his loyalties lay: Voldemort's or Dumbledore's.

A former friend once tried to pawn a book off on me called "Harry Potter and the Bible" which I declined to read. A cursory glance at the book told me enough. One of the issues was that the kids lie. Newsflash: kids do tell lies. I pointed out to her that if you were going to throw out Harry simply because the kids tell the occassional lie, then you're going to have to throw out "Les Miserables" because it was the Bishop of Digne's lie to the authorities that saved Jean Valjean from returning to prison. There was also another character, a nun known for her honesty, whose lie to Javert spared Valjean. She responded with, "Yeah, it's hard." I said, "No it's not. Be consistent."

Most people (Christians included) consider "Les Miserables" a wonderful story of grace and redemption. In fact, I've seen the book for sale in Christian bookstores. If you want the "Readers Digest" version of the story, watch the 10th anniversary concert of the wonderful Boubil and Shonberg musical set in London's Royal Albert Hall. It's available on dvd.

I know that some people consider the Harry Potter series an introduction to the occult for kids. They claim that J.K. Rowling can't possibly be a Christian (as she's claimed) and write this stuff. Yet, these same people are quite happy to claim J.R.R. Tolkien (author of Lord of the Rings) as a christian. Ha. I've yet to hear of anyone becoming involved in the occult because of Harry. Yet, I have heard of people getting involved in Dungeons and Dragons (which, of course, is based on Tolkien's creations) and doing some odd and bizarre things while under its "influence."

Tolkien's work has far more depth. His stories are based on ancient nordic myths and legends. For example, "Saga of the Volsungs - the Norse Epic of Sigurd the Dragon Slayer." There is also mention of a special ring that made the wearer invisible in Plato's "The Republic" which would date back to the Golden Age of Greece - 5th Century B.C. Yes, it's true. Bet you didn't know that, did you? I admit that my mouth fell open when I read that part. Tolkien *must* have known about that. There was no way it could be coincidence.

I've often wondered if there isn't something in the British education system that understands fantasy far better than we in North America. Think about it. Some of the best fantasty writers are from Britain: J.R.R.Tolkien (the father of the genre) C.S. Lewis and J.K. Rowling. I can't say I've heard any controversary about Harry coming from that side of the Atlantic. My parents, who are Scottish, have no issues. My Mom read the first book and liked it. My Dad has seen (at least) two of the movies. I once attended a Harvest Party at my parents' church as Professor McGonagall. At the party, I met a friend of my parents who was visiting from England. When I told him who I was dressed up as and he had no issues. He agreed that it was "just fantasy."

I admire any person, male or female, who struggles and fights and tries to make something of their life. If you don't know, J.K. Rowling was a struggling single mom. She couldn't afford to heat her flat (apartment) and wrote most of the first Harry Potter book in an Edinburgh coffee shop while her baby slept by her side. It would have been so easy for her to sit back and feel sorry for herself. I think she's an excellent role model for women and mothers everywhere. Look at her now: she's richer than the Queen of England.

One of the qualities I admire in Harry and his friends is their loyalty to each other. Sure, they get angry and go without speaking to each other occasionally, but there is the underlying bond of friendship, and they stick up for each other. They know if they don't stick together there is no way they'll accomplish the tasks that are set before them. There is one character in particular (Neville Longbottom) that goes from being a bit of a spineless jellyfish to a very strong and independent young man. He becomes quite the leader. I just had to cheer him on as his character developed over the last three books. Aren't loyalty, independance, trust and friendship good lessons to be passing on to children? I think so.

Soapbox Du Jour

2007-07-31T08:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/

It was the above article that prompted me to start this blog. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a huge fan of abortion. I was raised a Christian and, as such, I have respect for life. We are not talking about removing a mole; it's a human life. Let me also point out that I have not ever been pregnant and, sadly, probably never will be (but that's another story).

Having said that I'm not a huge fan of abortion, I still don't think it should be illegal. Why? Because, regardless, women would still feel the need to seek one out. It would return us to the days of back alleys and quacks with coathangers. To me, that's a worse evil.

I once believed the abortion was a black and white issue: it was murder and it was wrong. As I've grown older, I've come to realize that it's anything but a black and white issue. Each woman's story is different and the choices she makes are as individual as she is. I can only hope that in this day and age with all sorts of information and options available, the woman makes her choice after she's weighed all the options available to her.

I was angry when I read that Justice Kennedy felt the need to "protect women from themselves." What is this? 1955? Yes, I'm sure many women come to regret the decsion they may have had to have an abortion, just like many women may live to regret giving up a baby for adoption. That doesn't mean to say that you need to criminalize it. That's ludicrous.

As a friend of mine once said, "we need to remove the stigma" and I agree. We need to get past this Victorian ideal that a woman's value is placed on her chasteness. Surely, by now, in the 21st Century, she is judged by her brains. How is it possible to make abortion illegal, yet not hold the woman accountable, as some of the people in the above article suggest? Either you make it legal and the woman will have to live with her decision, or it's illegal and she should be punished. If she comes to regret it later on, we all live with regrets in life. I live with the regret that I didn't get the few eggs I had frozen, so that I would one day have the chance to have a baby. I regret that the few I had went down the toilet (literally).

Why do some American lawmakers feel the need to make abortion illegal? Where is this push coming from? Is this the incresasingly militant religious right raising their ugly heads? This really concerns me. I'm not American so I'm not overly familiar with the whole story behind Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. case on abortion, but I am acquanted with the essentials of the facts behind it.

If the religious right's reasons are "the Bible says 'thou shalt not kill' "then they need to take a long, hard look at the hypocrites in their ranks that bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors who perform abortions, which in my opinion is far worse. We've come too far, and can't possibly go back to relying on the Bible (or any holy book) as the basis for making our laws. This would be setting back all the advances we've make back to the days of burning witches at stakes. What next after that? I live in fear of our civil liberties.

Welcome!

2007-07-30T07:30:00.000-07:00

Hello World. (You techie types will get the joke). :)

After vowing for years that I would never have a blog because my life wasn't interesting enough, I've finally bitten the bullet and joined the blogosphere. I'm not sure what I'm going to talk about, but I suspect I'll discuss events that are going on in our lives and in the world and issues that are near and dear to my heart. I chose the title "heather's mewsings" since I'm a cat lover and I liked the play on words.

My favourite hobbies include: reading, cross-stitching and watching movies. This year, so far, I've read 16 books. I try and read mostly non-fiction rather than fiction. That being said, I've just finished reading all seven Harry Potter books, but I'll discuss those another time. I'm currently reading, "The Civil War - A Narrative" by Shelby Foote. It's a three volume work on the (you guessed it) U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). As you may have gathered, I love history.

As mentioned above, I'm a stitcher. It's the only craft that I'm any good at. I'm sure I'll post some pictures of my works in progress (WIPS) and completed projects infrequently. I also expect to post movie reviews, since we have a pizza/movie night at least once a week.

So, here's to the first of many posts. I hope you'll check in frequently. I'm not sure how often I'll post, but I'll try and post regularly.

I welcome your comments and feedback. That way I know people are actually reading my posts.