Poor Dante. Poor, poor Dante

h/t Mark Shea

First the Inferno video game, now this.

Dan Brown has turned his gaze upon the Inferno.

What is the point of being a screamin' genius, just to have some hack come along and do this to you?

Trads and Liberals (not one of whom predicted this new Pope) stand united...

 ...in rare brotherhood, to declare his papacy a failure.

(yeah, I am borrowing somewhat from Conrad Black.  What can I say? He got that part right.)

I would link to some, but there are so many declarations of his failure out there, that I can not link to them all, and it would be uncharitable and unfair to pick a few and hold them up as ridiculous.  My advice to them is this: if you want to accurately assess a papacy, wait a century or two.

Michael Voris has a pretty good statement on this.



What can I say?  When the man is right, he is right.

How to create a false impression

Before I begin, I just want to say that I did not vote for Rob Ford for mayor, and I would not vote to re-elect him.  I do not think he is a good mayor.  But, having said that, I am weary of the incessant attacks upon Ford, lead by the Toronto Star, which has taken to printing any complaint about Ford, no matter how trivial or unfounded, in the hope of getting something to stick.  Today, for instance, there was this:

Catholic school board investigating Rob Ford’s ‘inaccurate’ Sun News interview

That's the online title.  The print version has a more forceful title:  "Ford slammed for 'demeaning' school remarks."

“We’d be better off without him as the football coach if he continues to speak this way,” the co-chair of the Don Bosco parent council said.

That's the lead in and the thesis of this article.  What could all this be about?

Mayor Rob Ford has angered teachers and parents at the Etobicoke high school where he coaches football — and prompted an investigation by the Catholic school board — with comments the teachers say depicted the school in a “demeaning way that was filled with untruths.”

Oh no! Sounds bad.  What did he say?

The board’s review of Ford’s interview with Sun News last week comes in response to an anonymous letter sent to senior board officials by a “significant” number of teachers at Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School.

Um... is anyone else a little confused here?  Is the letter anonymous or was it sent by a significant number of teachers?  How can it be both?  What is significant?  Is one? or is ten a more significant number?  Why doesn't the article say?  If they are refuting someone's inaccuracies, should they not replace them with their own accuracies, as opposed to, say, innuendo?

In the letter, signed “The Don Bosco Staff,” the teachers said Ford’s words were “disgusting” and “no reflection of the real Don Bosco.”

So it was signed by the Don Bosco Staff, or someone claiming to be the Don Bosco Staff.  They have found Ford's words to be 'disgusting', which poses a bit of a problem.  Disgust is an emotion, not a thought.  One can argue and defend oneself against facts, or against logic.  There is no argument against an emotion.  So, Ford has failed to reflect the "real Don Bosco."  So what is the real Don Bosco?  Let's see what the next paragraph has to say.

The Don Bosco parent council was so perturbed by Ford’s comments that it is calling a special meeting to decide how to respond, said co-chair Teresa Bridport.

Nope.  No real Don Bosco here.  Just more feelings- 'perturbed"- to pile onto the disgust.  The impression- and I use that word advisedly, as the article so far has only given emotions and impressions, not facts- is that Ford must have done something heinous to have offended so many people.  But what was it?

Ford, Bridport said, conveyed the false impression that Don Bosco is an unsafe and gang-infested place whose only redeeming feature is football. In fact, she said, the school is a thriving and improving institution with a dedicated faculty, motivated students, and other attractive extracurriculars.

Back to impressions.  Ford has conveyed a false one.  But where are his actual words?  Did he actually in fact say any such thing?

“I still believe his heart is in the right place. And I’ve said that before. It’s just that he does not know how to speak. He does not know how to communicate in a positive light. The way that he’s talking makes it look like all the kids at Don Bosco would be in the gutter if it wasn’t for him and his football program. And that’s not true,” said Bridport, who has two children at the school.

I completely agree with the assessment of Ford in the third and fourth sentence.  I have often been embarrassed by his pronouncements.  I have the 'impression' that the book he read on public speaking contained the two instructions: "1: Open Mouth.  2: Insert Foot."  But that's my impression.  The impression of the person speaking here is that Ford has given a bad 'impression' of the school while trying to convey a good impression of himself, of Ford the saviour.  If he has done that, I would like to see it.  Why have they not quoted Ford yet?  All they are doing is piling up negative comments about something he said, so that by the time we actually get to a quotation, the reader will already have formed an opinion on what it says.

“

It’s such a negative thing, what he’s saying, and it’s so untrue. For him to say that unless they play football their life is shot is so untrue. So untrue. We appreciate that he volunteers at the school; we appreciate the time he puts in for the football program. But not if he’s going to speak the way he’s speaking. We’d be better off without him as the football coach if he continues to speak this way. . . This has to stop.”

Board spokesperson John Yan said the interview contained “a number of inaccuracies,” which he would not specifically identify. (emphasis mine) In general, Yan said, “the interview is an inaccurate portrayal of the community.”

"We share the same concerns expressed by the Don Bosco community,” Yan said. “We really don’t have any comment at this time. We’re taking all their concerns under advisement, and we’re seeing what appropriate actions, if any, we may take.”

If this statement is so inaccurate, why are they not addressing the inaccuracies instead of dealing with impressions?  When I think someone is wrong, I will state chapter and verse where I believe them to be wrong.  What these people are saying is that the big bad nasty Ford hurt all their feelings, and as I said before:  Ford may be able to argue against their facts or their logic or their interpretations, but he cannot defend himself against feelings.

Before he became the coach at Don Bosco, Ford was told he was no longer welcome as the coach at North York’s Newtonbrook Secondary after a 2001 confrontation with a player. His spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Fascinating, but what does it have to do with the case at hand?  Merely more mudslinging.  Another unspecific charge to be attached onto the other unspecified charges in order to create an impression.  Apparently for the Star, impressions are the only reality worth bothering about.

Ford made his contested statements in a conversation with Sun News early-morning host David Menzies, who lavished praise on Ford for his work with the Don Bosco team. Don Bosco, located at Islington Ave. and Dixon Rd., is home to many low-income students, and Ford has said frequently that football helps players avoid crime and keep their grades high.

Finally, with that, we get to the crux of the matter.  We actually start to get a few quotes from Ford himself, and possibly judge for ourselves whether or not what the Star said he said was in his actual  words.

Speaking to Menzies, Ford said members of the team “just wouldn’t go to school” and would have “no reason to go to school” if not for football.

“You can’t tell them to get an education. But I use the football as a carrot. I said: If you don’t go to school, and you’re (not) passing, you don’t play football. Oh, they’ll do backflips to play football,” Ford said.

Ford also called the football players “smart,” hard-working and financially prudent. But he said many players “come from gangs” and have “broken homes.”

He spoke of bailing players out of jail. He referred to Don Bosco as a “tough school” in a “tough area.” And he agreed with Menzies’ suggestion that some former or current members of the team would be in jail or dead if he had not launched the team.

"I truly believe that,” Ford said. “A lot of kids have said that to me. A lot of parents have said that to me.”

Since they have spent so much time and energy vilifying Ford, I would guess that they would also take the time to cherry pick their quotations to set Ford in the worst possible light. These few words here are what has caused that "impression".  This is the very worst of what Ford said. This is what the school is upset about.  A guy who runs a football program for a school in a tough neighbourhood says his program is working and helping the kids.  Now back to our regularly scheduled outrage.

The teachers’ letter said: “There is a sense of outrage in our school community in regards to his continued detrimental messages. Once again his comments depict our school in a very negative light. It is exasperating since we have been spending so much volunteer time and energy on community outreach to demonstrate the commitment, the excellent programs and the successes of our student body. Again, much of this good will and good work has been lost with his most recent media interview.”

More hurt feelings.  Perhaps Ford could have made a token gesture, saying that his program is one several designed to help the students, or put his laudable volunteer work in the context of one of many laudable volunteer groups in this school aimed at helping the students.  But that doesn't seem to be in Ford's makeup, and he was answering questions about his program, so I can't blame him for that.

However, not everyone is against him.

In a 2008 interview with Menzies for a National Post article, a former Don Bosco player who had received a NCAA scholarship, Jerome Miller, said “Rob Ford has been able to take a lot of kids off the street.” The mother of another player told the Globe and Mail last year that the media would be “reporting on the body on the street” without the football program.

So Ford's comments are therefore accurate.  He has said that some students and some parents have told him as much as is reported here.  But that doesn't seem to matter.

Some Don Bosco students, parents and staff, however, have bristled at Ford’s portrayal of students as would-be criminals. Some teachers were unhappy when Ford said, during a high-profile controversy about the team’s use of a private TTC bus, that “very few people can control these kids.” His brother, Councillor Doug Ford, drew private criticism for saying players “look up in the stands and they don’t see a father, they don’t see a mother, they see Rob Ford standing there and supporting them.”

Again, we are back to hurt feelings.  The article is arguing that Ford hurt some feelings by telling lies about the school, and what I am getting here is the possibility that he hurt even more feelings by saying some truths people did not want to hear.  If what he has said was a lie, where is the proof that he lied?

It is not clear how many teachers endorse the anonymous letter. Rene Jansen in de Wal, president of the Toronto secondary unit of the Catholic teachers’ union, said the letter “was broadly supported by the staff.”

Anonymous letters "broadly" supported.  How is a vagary supposed to refute an inaccuracy?

Don Bosco’s students and staff have made a concerted effort to repair the school’s reputation. In April, three busloads of supporters attended a board meeting to ask for trustees’ help in eliminating the spread of negative messages about the school, which they said has improved markedly in recent years under principal Ugo Rossi.

In October, students and teachers invited reporters to a “Give Your School a Hug Day” intended to bring attention to the Don Bosco’s positive attributes. Student Nicholas Thompson, 16, who gave a speech about stereotypes, said black students at the school are portrayed unfairly. “It’s just like, ‘We’re bad, we’re thieves, we’re criminals, we’re just sports stars,’” he told the Star.

Now race is in the mix?  Not that Ford said anything about black students, but not that it matters.  We are dealing with impressions and feelings.  If a black student feels the mayor is being unfair to black students, then that feeling must be aired, viewed, and recognized as concrete reality.

Said Bridport: “Many of the teachers spend many hours volunteering for the leadership program; taking the kids on trips; there’s a group of kids going to Europe on March break, my daughter’s going to Boston in April. So, lots of teachers that put in extra hours to help with things that are not football. And I think people forget that. Although football is wonderful for the people who play it, that’s not what our school is all about. We’re about a lot more.”

True, the school is about more than a football program, but what does that have to do with Ford's interview?  As I said, Ford could have put his program in the context of being one of many programs at the school, but he didn't. He was giving an interview about one of his passions, and mentioned little else. But that doesn't matter.  The false impressions created are not about what Ford said, seeing as, as near as we may tell from this article, his words were factually accurate, but over what he did not say. 

The Star is actively engaging in creating a false impression of its own.  Its report is factually accurate.  Ford did say some things, and people were offended at what he did and did not say, or seemed to say, or something.  The Star even reports briefly that accusers who believe Ford's statements were inaccurate cannot actually point out the inaccuracies, and furthermore that there are those who have confirmed Ford's remarks as accurate.  But the bulk of the piece is about hurt feelings, and top heavy with accusations of Ford's misleading statements, to the point that the over all impression is that Ford must have said and done something wrong, even though that wrongdoing is not stated and is nowhere to be found in the article.  What a filthy, deceitful rag this paper is.

As I said, I share a common purpose with this paper: I would prefer Ford to be out of office.  But I would prefer to do it it without lies, prevarications.,  and false impressions.  The job of the paper is to report truth and facts so that people may make an informed opinion, not skew the facts into the view the paper wants them to have. I did not vote for Ford, but many people did.  No one voted for the Star to be our representative and our voice, or our former of opinion.  If I am to be ruled, I prefer to be ruled by one who has been elected, not by one who has appointed themself the task of being my ruler for my own good, and who decides what I need to know, and how I should think about it.

Things I Just Don't Get.

Kopi Luwak, also known as Civet Coffee.  It is said to be the world's most expensive beverage.  From the Wikipedia article:

Kopi luwak (Indonesian pronunciation: [ˈkopi ˈlu.aʔ]), or civet coffee refers to the beans of coffee berries once they have been eaten and excreted by the Asian Palm Civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) and other civets.[1] The name is also used for marketing brewed coffee made from those beans.

Get that? Some cat like animal eats the beans, poops them out, then some enterprising person, who most likely gets paid a pittance, gathers them up so some rich dude may then sit down and have a drink of the very, very expensive coffee.

Me, I don't even drink normal coffee. To me, coffee tastes like crap even without being pre-excreted.  I've been told coffee is an acquired taste, which means it tastes like garbage, but you get used to it.  I cannot be bothered to force feed myself stuff that tastes bad until I like it, just so I can then pay Starbucks five bucks for a double decaf mocha chino with whipped cream and caramel swirl and chocolate sprinkles, much less... this stuff.

So this stuff must taste wonderful for people to be willing to fork out so much cash for it whilst ignoring the source, right?  Some say yes, others, not so much.

A coffee professional cited in the SCAA article was able to compare the same beans with and without the kopi luwak process using a rigorous coffee cupping evaluation. He concluded: "it was apparent that Luwak coffee sold for the story, not superior quality...Using the SCAA cupping scale, the Luwak scored two points below the lowest of the other three coffees. It would appear that the Luwak processing (Now there's a euphemism if I ever heard one) diminishes good acidity and flavor and adds smoothness to the body, which is what many people seem to note as a positive to the coffee.”

Hold on there:  doesn't saying "Luwak coffee sold for the story, not superior quality" mean that it is sold not despite the fact that it is made from excrement but because it is made from excrement? Are people really that stupid?  Here's another reviewer weighing in.

Tim Carman, food writer for the Washington Post reviewed kopi luwak available in the US and concluded "It tasted just like...Folgers. Stale. Lifeless. Petrified dinosaur droppings steeped in bathtub water. I couldn’t finish it."

So this reviewer has descended from the mountaintop to let us all know that a drink made from poop tastes like sh-t.   I hope they paid him extra for that review.


People forking out top dollar for the privilege of saying: "I drink poop."  I just don't get it.

Cenozoic Park, Here We Come!

First, scientist discuss the possibility of bringing mammoths back to life.  Now, Someone is discussing the possibility of bringing back Neanderthals.

To be fair, Professor Church was quoted in two interviews: one in which he is all gung ho about the possibility of cloning a Neanderthal, and another in which he says he was misquoted about being ebullient over the possibility of cloning a Neanderthal, and then proceeds to be ebullient over the possibility of cloning a Neanderthal, only not at this exact moment.  Got that? good.

Now what, you may ask, are the benefits to humanity that we should pursue this course of action?  Church lists several possibilities, each one qualified with "mights" and "may be" and "possible that".  He suspects that resurrecting their genome will create greater genetic diversity amongst humans (so now we would have to mate with Neanderthals) possibly preventing future plagues.  On the other hand, other scientists point out that Neanderthals have not been exposed to modern diseases, so maybe not so much.

Then there is this peculiar possibility:

He told German magazine Der Spiegel: ‘Neanderthals might think differently than we do. They could even be more intelligent than us.

‘When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet, it’s conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial.’

In between the "might", "could even be" and "it is conceivable", Prof. Church is putting forward the idea that Neanderthals could help us with the space program.   ummm...

Seriously?

I used to read about the Neanderthals, because, you've got to admit, they're kind of cool.  I checked up on some more recent sources before writing this little post, to see if our knowledge of them has radically changed.  Some ways, but not others.  What I read in the past, and what I read now, generally focuses on two aspects of the Neanderthals.  One, their brains were bigger than ours.  Two: so were their muscles.  These guys were immensely strong.  Now, given these two attributes, upon which did they depend for survival?  There is a lot of evidence that they depended on brute force over brains.  Their tools, for instance, barely changed over the entirety of their existence.  One tribe lived next to a river full of fish, but their garbage shows they did not touch the fish for food, but instead hunted large animals with weapons that meant they had to get up close and personal.  Not surprisingly, broken bones are very common among Neanderthal remains.  The long and the short of it is:  If you are hoping for Neanderthals to help  us off the planet, you'd better clone a lot of them, so they can toss us.

But let's say they really can use that big brain they have,  Is it really a good idea to bring back a people who are naturally far stronger than us, potentially smarter than us, teach them everything we know so they actually can be smarter than us, and then hope they love us? 

Once again, scientists are so busy wondering whether or not they can do something, they don't stop and think whether or not they should.

Only in Canada, revisited, with an assignment

I revisited the video I posted below- the one with the seniors barbershop choir singing in a Tim Horton's- on YouTube to see how many hits it has, and what people are saying about it.  A fairly large number of comments centred on the fact that there was one black man in the choir.  Some people are saying he must be the only black man in Canada, and other kinds of comments of that ilk.  One even called him a "token". 

The man deserves better than that.  Judging from what I can see of the man, and guessing his age, I would guess that he probably has faced a kind of racism that the young kids today- the ones calling him a token- could not imagine.  At this stage of life, if he wants to sing with a group of white guys and have coffee with them afterwards, more power and joy to him.

And now the assignment:  If you are one of those clowns, you are to go to this elderly gentleman, (they should be at that Tim's tonight) and inform him that he is a token.  And you are to film his response and post it on YouTube, because there are few things I like better than watching a senior citizen smack around some young punk who thinks they have it all figured out.

And by the way: to those commenters who thought he must be the only black guy in Canada, look at the photo of the original poster.  He's black too.  So we have two of them, and now you've seen them both.

Why Canadians Should Not Comment Out Loud On American Politics

Apart from the fact that Americans talk about their own politics enough for three USA's, and there is therefore no reason for us to add to the discourse/background noise,  there is also the problem of revealing our hopeless stupidity.  A case in point:  today, while discussing the Colorado shootings, one of my coworkers stated that the lack of any talk about gun control clearly displays that both Romney and Obama are owned by the NRA.  I repeat: according to him, Obama is owned by the NRA. 

Seriously.

You may now wipe your coffee or coke off your screen and keyboard.

For what it's worth, I told him he was delusional.

I suspected something like this would happen eventually...

...but, apparently, I was among the few.

Lifesite News has an interesting story up.  Planned Parenthood is actually celebrating Tom Tebow's story, and claim it exemplifies "the health care environment that Planned Parenthood promotes — a world in which women and families are supported in the medical decisions they make for themselves and their families without government interference,"

The reaction from the Pro-life side has been, generally, outrage.  Tebow has been their poster boy for prolife, and now he has been co-opted by the pro choice lobby to strike a blow against the pro life lobby.  For the Pro-choice lobby to claim Tebow is actually on their side has the pro-lifers crying foul.

The pro-life side has long accused the pro-choice side of of only approving the choice to abort.  The pro-choice side has now responded by saying they do respect a woman's right to choose life, and have claimed the current biggest symbol of the prolife side as their own.  If this was a game of chess, they have taken a pawn. 

I say a game rather than a debate.  A debate has rules.  One can challenge the honesty and veracity of a statement.  One uses rhetoric and logic to score points and sway the audience. There are almost no public debates any more, not in politics, not here. What is happening here is jargon, cant, euphemism and the repetition of slogans. In our world, slogans trump truth. One side shouts the other down.  A move is made, then countered. A game, perhaps, but one with no rules, no endgame, and huge stakes:  life itself on one side, billions of dollars on the other. 

I am not a good chess player, but I do understand a little of the strategy involved.  A weak player will make a move, and hope the other guy doesn't realize what is happening, and fails to respond.  A strong player will make their moves in such a way that the other player is forced to make the moves the stong player wants them to.  A fool makes a move and expects no response at all.

So Planned Parenthood has done what Pro-lifers has always said it didn't: pay honour to a woman's right to choose life.  They have countered a prolife move with one of their own.  To say:  "hey, that's not fair!" or start calling them liars and deceivers or otherwise calling them names for them doing exactly what we said they wouldn't do is not a really good move.  A better move may be to say: "'without government interference'? You mean, like getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the government sort of interference?"  Or some other move.  Make it a good one.  And do understand that, eventually, they will make a response.

Some Canadian Women Are Unhappy With The Way Brown Canadian Women Are Using Their Right to Choose.

Those of us who are old enough will remember the days when Judy Rebick was the leader of the Status of Women council, and how every time she ever stood in front of a microphone the words "And I speak for all Canadian women..." would come out of her mouth.  The quote would be printed in newspapers, and within days there would be dozens of letters to the Editor, either agreeing with her or saying, in essence, "I am a woman and she does not speak for me!"

Women being spoken for is, I believe, the issue at the heart of feminism, although I often find it skewed.  Their view of history and society and the structure of power is one of male domination of women.  I do not wholly agree or disagree with this view.  My own view is not so much male over female as much as it is the few dominating the many.  But yes, men in many cases did have rights over women, even the power to speak for them.  Women regaining their voice and speaking for themselves was one of the major achievements of feminism. Except it doesn't quite work out that way.

This was one of the things I was thinking about when I read this article.  I will reproduce it here, and save my comments for the end. 

Why are Canadians aborting female fetuses?

by Katharine Watts
 
If you think the practice of aborting unwanted girls only happens in Asia, think again.

Due to immigration to Canada from Asian countries where there is a preference for sons, thousands of unwanted girls are aborted each year in Canada, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Luckily, a new editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal suggests a viable way to put a stop to sex selection in Canada.

"The solution is to postpone the disclosure of medically irrelevant information to women until after about 30 weeks of pregnancy," wrote Doctor Rajendra Kale, CMJ's Interim Editor-in-Chief.

Parents are typically told their baby's gender as soon as the information is available—at about 20 weeks of pregnancy—which leaves time for an unquestioned abortion.

By making it mandatory to withhold the gender of a fetus until after 30 weeks of pregnancy, we would prevent gender from being a catalyst for abortion, because after 22 weeks, doctors only perform abortions in life-threatening situations.

While embracing culture and encouraging diversity is part of what it means to be Canadian—so too are equality and women's rights. This extreme form of sexism should not be tolerated. That being said, neither should racial discrimination—and that means the law would apply to all women, not just those of Asian descent.

"The execution of a "disclose sex only after 30 weeks" policy would require the understanding and willingness of women of all ethnicities to make a temporary compromise," wrote Kale. "Postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada."

I couldn't agree more. After all, who better to save the future generation of women than the current one? As women, we have a responsibility to stand up for our rights—and that means not abusing the ones we currently have (like the right to an abortion).

While it is a woman's right in Canada to continue only wanted pregnancies, exercising rights and abusing them are two very different things. Making an inherently sexist decision based on the fact that it's your right as a woman is definitely an abuse of that freedom.

Compared to China and India, where millions of female fetuses are aborted, and many girls who are born are told they are unwanted, the problem may seem small—but that doesn't make it less important.

Do you think a law delaying the disclosure of a fetuses' gender would help prevent female feticide? Would you be okay with waiting 30 weeks (instead of 20) to learn your baby's sex?

First, note the language.  On the one hand, they speak of the "fetus", the term used by pro choice advocates as opposed to "baby".  But whereas pro-choice advocates almost always refuse to note that the "fetus" was anything other than a bunch of cells, here the fetus has a sex.  The fetus is something.  It will become something.  They will be the future generation.  The pro choice women are stuck within their own wording and logic, and are finding it insufficient to the task at hand.  It isn't fully human, but it is fully female?  It's not an abortion, but feticide. When did pro-choice advocates begin to care about feticide?

Second, note that this is a Canadian woman speaking about limiting the ability to choose of women of colour, even though, judging by the name of the doctor quote for the majority of the article, the original suggestion comes from a woman of colour.  Let me take you back a few years, to what used to be called "The White Man's Burden"  The White Man's Burden was to carry all the other races, because they just didn't know as well as us.  It was our job to teach them and lead them into the future, even as we took their resources, turned them into second class citizens in their own lands, etc etc.  Here is the Woman's Burden:  stop women of other races who are insufficiently enlightened from making "sexist" choices.  They are imposing their beliefs upon another for no other reason than they deem themselves superior: they know better: exactly the same resaon why men justified dominating women politically, or the "white man" justified dominating, well, everyone else. They knew better.  The claim that making this policy extend to women of all races makes the policy not racist is bosh:  the article and proposal clearly state that the reason this proposal is being made is on account of the choices being made by women of Asian origin.

Yet, in all the long debate about abortion, I do not recall pro-choice advocates accepting any restrictions whatsoever on their power to choose.  They would accept absolutely nothing less than total freedom to accept or reject motherhood.  Anyone who argued against them was told, in no uncertain terms, that, no matter how involved they may be with the woman or her pregnancy, they had no part whatsoever in her choice.  It was her choice, and hers alone.  So why do they now seek to involve themselves in another woman's right to choose, the very choice they laboured so very long and so very hard to procure for all women?  Because their reasons aren't good enough?  Because the reasons aren't up to their standards?

Third, the author's statement that it a woman's right to continue only wanted pregnancies, what makes her believe that a woman will want this pregnancy?  The problem that girls will be told that they are unwanted that occurs in other countries will occur here as well, whether there is a mandatory deception or not during the pregnancy.  This point is null and void: the author is, at best, deceiving herself.

So, women do not have an absolute right to choose, however, instead of meeting the standards of men, they must meet the standards of other women.  It comes down to power,.  Who has it, and who doesn't. and who can speak, and who doesn't, and who gets to speak for whom, whether they like it or not.  The feminists used to have a slogan which they stated often, and painted on banners for all to see:  "Women Speaking For Women".  While not untrue, it would be more accurate, and more honest, to have said "Some women speaking for the rest."  In the end, we still have the few dominating the many, or, as The Who put it, "Meet the new Boss.  Same as the old Boss."  For many women, there is still someone out there who claims to speak for them, and when someone speaks for you, you are spoken for.

And yet, after panning this rank stupidity and hypocrisy, such is the state of Canadian law and abortion, I would welcome even this minimal protection for the unborn, for at its heart, and against pro choice will, this would recognize that a "fetus" is not just a collection of cells, but a human being, and further recognizes that there may be a legitimate reason to protect them from "choice."

How bazaar

I see by my church bulletin that it's bazaar time.   Across North America, church basements everywhere will soon be hosting the annual Christmas Bazaar.  Tables will groan under the weight of home baked goodies (some of them more like home baked baddies,  but for the most part alright), goods knitted by the parish grandmothers, and the white elephant table, filled with the sort of stuff that people could not sell at their garage sales.  And there will be the craft tables.

I used to try and sell my woodworking at bazaars in years gone by.  I was... less than successful.  It is a hard way to make money.  First, you spend a lot of time and effort making speculation items, which is a way of saying you make a ton of stuff in the hope that a pound of it will sell.  You have to pay for the wood and the finishes and tools that you need to make the stuff, plus the cost of the table, plus the cost of gas and so on.   I think, in the end, after crunching all the numbers, I was a little bit better than even, but not much.

I faced three major problems: Myself, competition, and other people.

My first failing was my inability to predict what people would buy any given year.  One year, I sold a bunch of spin tops.  The next year I came back loaded with tops, and didn't sell a single one.  I hauled the tops around for four years, then sold them all again.  I could make a lot of good quality products, but if no one wanted to buy them, they would not sell.

The second problem was my competition.  I did not- and still don't- want to admit that I was in competition with a large manufacturer of cheap wooden furniture (let's just call it "Nordic Surprise"), but that was the reality of the situation.  I would make small furniture items,  shelves and such, out of real wood with solid joinery, and people would come by and say things like "I can get something just like that at Nordic Surprise for a lot less."  I could try and point out that, as a matter of fact, Nordic surprise does not sell anything like this, as this will last and theirs will disintegrate shortly after purchase, but it never worked.  The saw the similarity in shape and the dissimilarity in price, and took their money elsewhere.  To be competitive with Nordic Surprise, I would have to pay myself roughly ten cents an hour.

The third problem was other people.  Sartre once famously noted that Hell is other people, and anyone who has ever worked retail knows the truth of that statement intimately.  In addition to people who thought my prices were outrageous, I faced a litany of other problems. all stemming from the attitudes and actions of the people to whom I was trying to sell my goods.  One year, I was at a bazaar at a church that was next to an old folks home, so much of our customers would be coming from the home.  I hoped to cash in on nostalgia and made a bunch of old style wooden toys.  It sort of worked, and sort of backfired.  The people that came by fell into roughly three categories:  nice old people, lonely old people, and bitter old people.  The conversations went like this:

Nice old person:  "I haven't seen one of those in years!  I used to have so much fun playing with it with my friends.  My grandchildren will love it.  I'll take two."  It goes without saying, these were my favourite of the three.

Lonely old person:  "I haven't seen one of those in years!  I used to have so much fun playing with it with my best friend.  We were such good friends, we did everything together.  I remember the time we went down to the creek and etc etc.  But then he moved away to Calgary, and I didn't hear much from him after that, but I did hear that his son got into trouble with the law, which is strange, because he was such a nice fellow.  It just goes to show you never can tell, can you?  I was saying just the other day that..."  I try to be polite, but while they are talking, other potential customers are walking up to my table, but unwilling to interrupt the conversation, walk away.  In the end, the lonely old person walks away making no purchase.

Bitter old person, almost always male, usually sounds like Homer Simpson's dad, and you can spot him quickly, because the first thing he will mention is price:  "I haven't seen one of those in fifty years! You used to be able to buy three of them for a nickle!  What are you charging?"  Me:  "That's ten dollars."  Him:  "Ten bucks?!  I wouldn't give you a quarter!  That's what's wrong with you punks these days!  You roll out of bed and think someone owes you a dollar!  See that?"  Points at his hand. "See it?  Know what that is?  It's a callous!  Know how I got it?  Hard work! That's something you punks don't know nothin' about!"  At this point, I am willing to pay him money to get away from my table. 

I could write a book about the rude and stupid things people walking past my table have said to me.  "Do you enjoy deliberately making ugly things?"  Answer:  "Yes.  care to pose?"  (I can do rude, too.) (I wonder if that was a mortal sin?  I am supposed to turn the other cheek, after all.)

Another, speaking about my carved walking sticks:  "I can get sticks like that on any walk through the forest."

"Really?  Pre-carved walking sticks just drop from the trees in your forest?"

"Oh, the carving is nothing."

At this point I had to resist the urge to leap over my table, grabbing a chisel as I did so, and plunge my chisel repeatedly into her forehead, seeking, in vain, for a brain.

A constant refrain from the people passing my table was:  "Oh, your stuff is just lovely, but it's too expensive for me."  Average price was ten to twenty dollars.  I thought my prices were ridiculously low for the work that went into them, but, as I said, I was up against Nordic Surprise and the local dollar store. To the would be customers, my prices were ridiculously high, though not as high as other, more successful vendors.

At the last Christmas bazaar/craft show I did, I was surprised to see a cousin across the hall from me.  She was selling angels and wise men, quite large, as well as a smaller items.  She had assembled parts bought from a craft store with a hot glue gun, then spray painted the whole thing gold.  I imagine the entire process took maybe five, maximum ten minutes per piece.  I noticed quite a few people carrying her stuff around.  During a lull in the crowd, I went over to her and spoke to her.  "How're you doing today?"  I asked.

"Not so good," she said.  "I've only sold about two thousand worth of stuff."

For me, a day when I sold five hundred was reason to pump my fist in the air and cheer out loud.  I looked at her table.  Her prices were huge.  The large angels were going for around seventy five bucks.  The wise men were going for around one fifty for the set.  People were buying them, one after another.  The people who passed my table and said "Fifteen dollars for (that thing you spent four hours building out of solid wood, which, with a little care, will last for years and may even become a family heirloom, passed down through the generations) seems a little steep," were going to her table and saying "A hundred and fifty for (something shiny you glued together in five minutes from plastic and paper parts bought at a store and which will probably not last out this Christmas season so I will have to replace it next year)?  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  I'll take two."  Don't get me wrong:  I actually respect her.  She did the one thing I never could do, and figured out what people were willing to buy at a price that made making and selling it worthwhile.  It still rankled.  I was a skilled craftsman.  She was a women with a glue gun and a Michael's credit card, and she kicked me to the curb.    It was what the people wanted: shiny crap that won't last a year, so they can go to another show next year, and buy something else. 

I could go on about bazaars and craft shows.  For any readers out there planning on going to one:  Browse as much as you please, but, if you don't plan on buying anything, don't waste the vendor's time.  Compliments are nice.  Cash is better.  Remember that while you may be comparing the stuff the vendors have made with their own hands with something available at the local stores which was made in some distant Crapistan by some five year old chained to a machine,  to them there is no comparison.  Never make that comparison out loud.  Remember this is an adult trying to get some cash, often to support or at least get a little extra for  themselves and their family. Treat them as such.  Some vendors are open to negotiations of price, but don't be insulting.  If you see something you sort of like, but would like something slightly different, feel free to ask the vendor if they could make one with adaptations.  They made the one you almost like; they can usually make another one more to your liking.   Usually they will ask for a deposit so they can buy the materials.  Don't expect the deposit back if you change your mind, as they will be stuck with the materials and no guaranteed sale.  Be friendly, and enjoy yourself.  As I said, be friendly to them, but remember, they are there for money.

Overhead at University.

A student, speaking to her Math professor.

Student:  You didn't mark my test fairly because I am Chinese.

Professor:  I marked it the same as everyone else.

Student:  You marked mine differently. 

Professor:  If you have proof of that, I'd love to see it.

Student:  You marked me down.

Professor:  It was a multiple choice exam.  If the answer was A, and you said B, C or D, then you were wrong.

Student:  You said I was wrong because I'm Chinese.  You saw my name and marked me down.

Professor:  It was Multiple Choice. 

The dialogue continued along those lines for a while.  Without knowing how this turned, or will turn out, I can tell you what is going to happen:  She will go to the department, and the department will order the professor to let her retake the test.

Yippee. Another election is coming.

Now a provincial election will soon be upon us, and the campaigns are out in force.  This election has come down to the character of one man: premier Dalton McGuinty.

In his own ads, McGuinty admits that he is not popular right now, and that perhaps some mistakes have been made, but he stands by his record and points out his accomplishments.  I can respect that.  He has dome some things I support.  He has also shafted his fellow Catholics badly by unconstitutionally threatening catholic schools with funding cuts if we did not accept Gay/Straight Alliances.   Because of that, a GSA came into my eldest daughter's school, and told the school that Catholicism was wrong and the Bible was all bunk.  Thank you ever so much, Dalton McGuinty.   

So, who else is running.  The NDP or New Democratic Party has somebody running, but they are more or less irrelevant to me.  They would be far worse than anyone else, because they are a party dedicated to a theoretical view of how the country should be run.  Plus, they also believe- sincerely, I am sorry to say- that they know what is best for everyone, and will shove down our throats if we are unwilling to accept it. I remember the old saying:  There is no tyranny so great as that of the man who believes he knows what is best for you. Their party also consistently forces its members to vote as a block even in open votes in both the federal and provincial parliaments.  In short, the NDP is the No Democratic Party,  No thanks, NDP, I prefer the old democracy.

Which leaves the Conservatives.  The provincial arm of the party has borrowed the playbook from the federal party, and is running a campaign that is one long attack on McGuinty, wherein they accuse him, among other things of being a liar.  That's right, folks, one politician calls another a liar.  Their ads have focused so totally on the premier that the leader of the party, Tim Hudak, may as well be called Tim Who 'Dat?, because he has been completely invisible in this election.  At this point, I normally break off into a rant and say things like: it is insufficient to tell me not to vote for the other guy, or why I should not vote for the other guy, because I know why I should not vote for the other guy, and what I want to know is why I should vote for you.  What are your policies?

But, in the end, I don't want to know what they will do.  What they will do is different from what I want them to do.  If they do anything, anything at all, it will be different from what I want them to do, because what I want them to do is... nothing.  I want them to do nothing.  I would vote for any politician who stands up and says: "If you vote for me, I will shakes hands and kiss babies.  I promise to cut ribbons at the opening of shopping malls and public monuments.  I solemnly swear to you that I will make pointless speeches on days of civic significance, that I will salute the flag whenever necessary, and sing the national anthem at any hockey game I may attend.  But most of all, I give you my most precious vow, my unbreakable oath, that I shall sit behind my desk and collect the greatest paycheque I have ever collected, whatever the cost may be, to the very best of my abilities, whatever the cost may be, and for as long as I hold this office."

Arghh! When will they listen?

I, Bear, have learned that someone is making a movie about whether or not Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.  But I have already addressed this question!  Twice! Ursa locuta est, causa finita est.  Why don't they listen?  Ever?

An answer to yet another of the most pressing questions of our time.

I freely admit that I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire do not often go out, but on the rare occasion I do, the question I am asked more often than any other is: "Can you explain your whereabouts on the night of X?"  To which I reply :  "Why yes I can, as a matter of fact O GOOD LORD, WHAT IS THAT THING COMING UP BEHIND YOU?" I then move to another country post haste and live under yet another identity.

The question I am asked next most often is: "How do you decide what movies to go and see?"  To which I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometime historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, reply: "Rarely."  If the questioner pushes for a more elaborate answer, I say I read the reviews, like this one from the Toronto Star, wherein the critic reviews the soon to be classic "Conan the Barbarian".  I will quote at some length in order to explain, my comments in blue.

Conan the Barbarian: He slices, he dices


One and a half stars rating 

The rating is actually a good thing to me.  Back in the days when I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire was just Bear, non world famous blogger (as blogs had not yet been invented) current academic, dabbler in things historical, bon vivant, and raconteur extraordinaire, I went to every art house and repertory film that ever made the rounds. I avoided anything that remotely smelt of Hollywood, as I thought Hollywood to be crass and commercial, and I wanted Depth and Art and all that jazz.  I saw many, many foreign movies, particularly French.  I saw some good movies, to be sure, O gentle reader, but I also saw a monumental pile of crap.  And here was the rub:  Many of the worst movies, movies so bad they should have left skid marks on the screen, I ever saw were given four stars by critics enamoured with the auteur director and his 'vision' his 'style', his iconoclasm, daring and audacity.  The phrase 'You must see this movie before you die!' became reversed for me.:  I hope I die before I see another Gallic meditation on dysfunctional families, the Pointlessness of Life and meaningless sex.

“I live. I love. I slay. I am content.”

That line is great! I would pay money just to hear that line.  It may be the new "Crush your enemies.  See them driven before you.  Hear the lamentation of the women."

The character that made Arnold Schwarzenegger a star in the 1982 movie based on Robert E. Howard’s pulp fiction hero, Conan the Barbarian returns in the reboot that is the very definition of the dumb summer flick, designed to squeeze a few last bucks out of the kids before school starts up again.

So it’s puzzling why this version, starring Jason Momoa of TV’s Stargate: Atlantis and Game of Thrones as the title muscle-bound savage in the sword and sorcery fantasy, is so relentlessly bloody it nets an 18A rating. The very audience of young fellows who would enjoy this turkey can’t get in the door.

In her efforts to pour contempt on this cinematic masterpiece, the reviewer inadvertently uses several of the words that I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, take as prime indicators of a truly great movie.  Words like  "Muscle bound",  "savage", "sword and sorcery fantasy."  Clearly, this is not about a bunch of middle class nobodies who spend their lives annoying people, or whatever it is that passes for 'art' or entertainment these days, and I, bear, etc, deeply appreciate that fact.

Skipping over where the writer complains about a lack of plot, we get to:

Blood arcs up in great sprays thanks to 3-D trickery, as heads are smashed and limbs separated from bodies. Baby Conan is literally born in blood on the CGI-spawned battlefield, leading him to be a natural warrior as a kid. Why bring home good marks when a trio of hacked-off heads will please pops more?

Why hasn't this film been nominated for an Oscar?  George Carlin said in his Seven Words routine that he would rather see a movie with two people making love than two people trying to kill each other.  After years of seeing people fornicating on screen, I have decided against Carlin, and, as a matter of fact, I would rather watch two people trying to kill each other.

But, lest you think this is just a kill movie, there's more!

The gore gets a rest when the girls arrive. In fact, the credits list seven “topless wench” roles.

Ahem,  er, moving on...

Rachel Nichols, who is as exciting as a dish of rice pudding, plays monk-nun (are you kidding me?) Tamara, who has some kind of unique “pure” blood that will help Zym and Marique fulfill their evil destinies. She also makes a tasty diversion for Conan with some PG sexy time. “Woman, come here,” he growls. Who could resist?

So, here we have a movie where the men are men and the women are women, who are also hot.  I, Bear etc fail to see a downside to this.  The only complaint I see here is that the writer is unhappy that Conan the Barbarian is not a metrosexual. If he was, this movie would be called Conan the Metrosexual, it would have been shot in France, and it would have sucked.

It’s hard to figure out just who this movie is for. Its boneheaded earnestness and wretched script means it’s not going to achieve a so-bad-it’s-good fan following and the level of violence is disturbing. I’ve seen horror movies with less gore. Pick up your sword and go home, Conan, and don’t you dare think about a sequel.

Ah, to be damned by the devil is truly to be blessed!  Do think about a sequel. Conan, pick up thy sword and write it in the blood of your enemies and a few film critics. If I may be so bold as to make a request, do an adaptation of one of the original Robert E Howard stories.  It would be awesome.

And now, I, Bear, world famous blogger, former academic, sometimes historian, bon vivant and raconteur extraordinaire, am back in black.  To give a succinct answer to the question of how I choose a movie, I answer: If a trained academic professional reviewer pans it, it must be worth viewing.  If they praise it, save your money for a better movie.  Herein, gentle readers, endeth the lesson.

Professorial stupidity

I  saw an example of the old saying: "when they came for the blanks, I said nothing, for I wasn't a blank" at work yesterday.

A professor approached one of my co workers and said "How does it feel knowing that in five years this place will be gone, replaced with virtual textbooks, and you'll be out of work?"

My coworker replied with a shrug and asked "How does it feel, knowing that in ten years you'll be out of work?"

The professor was shocked.  "What do you mean?"

"Universities are offering virtual classrooms," my co worker explained.  "Why would anyone want to come here, when they could go to Harvard?"

The professor gaped like a fish out of water for a moment.  Then he said:  "Oh my God! I hadn't thought of that!  We have to do something!"

What a guy.  He was perfectly content to stand on the shore and wave as we were sent down the river, but when he realised he wasn't on the shore, only on a slower moving raft, he wants us to throw him a line.  The sad part is, if we are to survive, we will have to work together, even if it means holding our noses as we do so.

Celebrity says something stupid. Millions shocked.

Says the Bear in a voice dripping with sarcasm:  I can't wait for the saint blogs to start riffing on this one.

Elton John has g expressed his opinion about Jesus in an interview:
"The Rocket Man singer told US magazine Parade: “I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

My comment:  actually, I have no comment.  Why bother. I can't even be bothered to get angry about nonsense like this any more.  I'm sure some others will foam at the mouth and head for their blogs.  For me, time to just reach for the rosary, and pray some more.

The LIberal Party: Flogging Yesterday's Dead Horse Tomorrow

Check this out.  Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has resurrected the abortion issue, in the name of not resurrecting the abortion issue.  He's pulling this out despite the fact that the Conservative government has not made a single mention of the issue, shows no interest in raising the issue, and is completelly unwilling to mention this issue. Ignatieff wants to make sure no one raises the issue again, so he raises it himself. As the article quotes him saying:

"We've had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it," he declared, noting that he wants to "lay down a marker" to ensure the government doesn't try to raised this difficult and contentious issue.

The conclusion of the article is spot on:

Because stirring up emotions for no better reason than to gain a few votes would be a cheap and wholly irresponsible thing to do.

Women's groups are thrilled, despite the rather obvious fact that no one was threatening their rights, or that the laws in Canada could not possibly get any more prochoice.  Still, it's always nice to have another mouthpiece on one's side, isn't it?

Perhaps we owe Ignatieff a bit of thanks.  If he keeps this up, he will raise the issue again.

Someone should remind this academic genius of the old joke:  "Don't think of pink elephants."

Further adventures in first communion preparations.

We are continuing on through the deeply crappy "We Discover God's Paths" series of books for Younger's first communion/first confession, and I want my money back. So far the book is working to prepare younger for her first confession without once mentioning 'sin'. I would have thought some idea of sin would be kinda, sorta important for first confession, but those farther up the chain and wiser than me have decided it isn't necessary.

This week's lesson came close to mentioning sin, but not as sin, just as a Bad Thing To Do. And what was the sin they almost mentioned, you may ask? Why, failing to protect the environment.

Life is beautiful, but it is also fragile. And God has entrusted to us the care of the precious life that fills the universe. Are you doing your part to look after it? Write about or draw something you could do to care for the world around you.

Then the book goes into a mini biography of St Francis, focusing on his care for the animals. She asked me what she should draw. I told her to draw a picture of herself driving an SUV over an endangered species.

I'm not normally so anti environment. I have written in the past that I believe it is important for us to look after the planet God has entrusted to our care. We know from our own experience that there are tyrants and there are benevolent leaders (at least in theory there are benevolent leaders. I've never seen any but I'm willing to admit the possibility) and I don't believe we are meant to be creation's tyrants.

But what got me piqued about this passage in the book were a few things. Firstly, this is the first thing they mention that one should do. Failing to take care of the planet is the first, worst thing one can do.

Every era has its obsessions and failings. Every era seems to draw on one sin or another, and priests and preachers have thundered from their pulpits and street corners about one of the sins over all others at one time or another throughout history. One era condemns lust, while another condemns gluttony, and yet another time sees pride in every nook and cranny, and so it goes. In our time it has become the environment, as though the worst thing anyone could ever do, the most damaging thing one can to one's own soul, is to mix newspapers with pop bottles in the recycling.

Secondly, the writers of this book have just dumbed it down so far. They are trying to write at the level of children. But here's the problem: you can only dumb something down so much before you get to mere stupidity. Kids aren't stupid. People who try and write down to a child's level invariably fall below it. As a writer you don't try and lower yourself down to a child's level, you try and raise yourself up to it. Kids are capable of so much more than the officials in our era believe them to be, but they have to be asked, or required, or demanded to be. Dumbing things down just makes a bunch of idiots in the long run.

Lastly, the passage above expresses some fine sentiments, but it is mere sentiment. The book goes on about feelings and such, as though feelings are the most important reality there is. Feelings are important, but they are not the be all and end all of our existence. In time we must all learn to set aside our feelings to get the job on hand done. Part of maturing is to inure oneself against one's feelings, to develop a thick skin, as they used to say. Furthermore, this feeling nonsense is leading the kids to believe that God is some kind of warm and fuzzy bunny in the sky, ready to affirm all our feelings and sensibilities with a big, fluffy hug.

They tried something like this on me when I was getting catechised in school. I managed to avoid it through a few things. One was my mother, who used her old catechisms on me when she saw how bad the ones the school and church were using were, and the other were a few nuns who were still of the old school variety. But of my entire class, schooled and raised on this sort of nonsense, I know of only two or three who still occasionally go to church, including myself. That is the fruit of this sort of teaching.

I'm getting rid of these stupid books.

Another Happy Fun Omnibus Posting.

Once again, I haven't been blogging much, in spite of my good intentions to spew random thoughts at regular intervals out into the Internet ether. So here is another post rounding up various things that have struck me over the last little while.

I see dumb people. No, really dumb people. And they're in office.

My disgust with the Canadian government continues to grow. In recent weeks we have had various parties threatening to force another election (our last was less than a year ago) which of course creates silly season all around. On the one hand we had Conservative leader Harper accusing Liberal leader Ignatieff of political opportunism for trying to force an unnecessary election just because it looks as though the Liberals might win. Which is true, but it is also exactly what Harper did when he forced an unnecessary election last year. In Harper's case, it didn't work, and he came back into power with another minority government. And then, when Harper forms a loose alliance with the left wing party of the NDP, Ignatieff accused the conservatives of getting comfy with the socialists. Which is true, but it is also exactly what Ignatieff and the Liberals were doing when they were trying to force the election.

But, as odious as this rank hypocrisy may be, it is not the reason why my disgust has climbed past the stratosphere. No, it was the news that the Canadian Federal Government was suing the tobacco companies for fifty billion dollars to try and recover the costs to the medical insurance system for treating smokers.

Let me say this about smoking before I continue: I hate it. I hate the stench, I hate the feel of second hand smoke in my lungs and on my skin, I hate everything about it. Thirteen years ago I sat beside my father as died of lung cancer. That is actually a very clinical way to describe what happened. What I should say is that I sat beside him as he drowned in his own mucus- or I could say snot if I feel like being shocking. I loved my old man, (and I use that term with respect) but no one ever held a gun to his head and forced him to smoke a cigarette. He did that to himself, of his own free will, and he paid a heavy price. He barely got to see one of his grandchildren, and he waited a long time for us to give him grandkids. All his plans and hopes for the future were, literally, up in smoke. And we pay a heavy price without him, and he left a big hole. Smoking robbed me of a father and my children of a grandfather, but I do not blame the tobacco companies for that. I blame my father.

So why are the federal government going after tobacco companies? They are already very heavily taxed, also for the purpose of paying for the health insurance. Have they not collected enough in tax already? The government revenues from cigarettes are enormous. Are the people who start smoking unaware of the dangers of smoking? I can hardly see how that is possible. This move makes absolutely no sense. Smokers already have more restrictions put on them than the people who smoke pot. Can anyone explain the sense of that to me?

The government is suing companies for selling a product the government has deemed to be legal and is allowed to be sold in Canada. This case should be found to be absurd in its face and thrown out of court. In fact, there should be a class action counter suit filed by smokers- against the government. If smoking is so dangerous and so costly to the system, why isn't it banned? By allowing the sale of these products the government is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands every year. That makes as much sense as suing the companies.

The News From the Church in Canada.

A few different things gong on here. First, we have one of the most public faces of the church in Canada- Father Rosica, head of Salt and Light tv- accused bloggers and EWTN of doing the wrong thing when they all condemned the public funeral of Teddy Kennedy. Both the bloggers and EWTN were condemned by Rosica as "Satanic."

And then, just recently, the bishop of Antigonish in Nova Scotia was found to have child pornography on his laptop. The way the airport security found the pornography can only mean one thing: They had been tipped off by persons unknown. Father Rosica weighed in on this one, and the bishop got off lighter than the bloggers and EWTN. Was he Satanic? No. Was he evil? Bad? Naughty? No, no and no. He was misguided. Such a nice man, it is hard to believe how this happened, says Rosica.

And now there is going to be a general meeting of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and guess what is on the agenda, scheduled for a closed door meeting? Is it the issue of the continuing problems of paedophilia within the clergy? No, they're going to discuss bloggers. Bloggers are the threat, bloggers need to be brought under control, after showing they have opinions about Ted and about the Canadian bishops giving money to groups that support abortion.

Some bloggers are worried about what may come of this meeting. I am not very much concerned. I imagine one or two of the more sensible will point out the bishops have no way of controlling the bloggers, and what is most likely to come out of the meeting will be a set of recommendations, directives and guidelines for the bloggers. Bloggers should follow our shepherds' example and read the bishop's recommendations with the same care and obedience these self-same bishops regard the recommendations, directives and guidelines which come down from Rome.

Education Stamps Out Creativity

Hat tip to Roving Medievalist for this video.

I agree with much of what he says. I mean, isn't it obvious education is designed to stamp out creativity? Look at how we begin and how we end. We go into school with a box of brightly coloured crayons, and we draw, write and scribble on multicoloured papers. We graduate from that school system with a single pen (usually either blue or black) and write solely on white paper.

Quite frankly, I have no idea what we should do. Right now, the world is changing so rapidly we have no idea what to teach our children. What knowledge they will need in the future is impossible to say. When I went through school, no one had any idea that computers would be running everything in a short time. However, by the time I was in high school, it was clear that computers were going to be a Big Thing, and people started jumping into that field. For some reason, many also started taking business courses, perhaps believing that there would be an acute shortage of middle management bootlickers in the future. Because of this, many of our shops got closed. As a result, there is now a shortage of plumbers, electricians and bricklayers.

On the whole, I am wary of people who propose one over-arcing solution. My main problem with the school system is that it is a system- we take all these children, whom we apparently believe are all individuals, run them all through the same system and expect them all to turn out more or less the same. Where is the sense in that?

Of course, education is a government affair, brought to us by the same guys who want to sue tobacco companies. Sense is in very, very short supply.

McBrien: ignorance is bliss.

h/t LarryD

There has been some discussion among bloggers about Fr Richard McBrien's latest article, in which he discusses the apostolic visitation of women religious in the United States, mostly debating his theology and errors therein. I have discussed some of McBrien's articles in the past using my training in deconstruction and rhetoric to examine how he creates himself to be the one true point of view. I don't do so very often, because, quite frankly, fisking McBrien is like hunting cows. His bag of tricks is rather limited, as I have shown in the past, and he shows an unwillingness to discuss or even engage with his opponents, even as he condemns them for being unwilling to discuss or engage his point of view.

This new article has an interesting twist to it. This time McBrien's argument hinges on absolutely nothing at all. His article is in blue, my comments black.


In a letter written on Feb. 20, the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, informed the officers of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious that the Congregation would be conducting a "doctrinal assessment" of the organization.

The Leadership Conference is an association of the leaders of congregations of Catholic women religious in the United States, with more than 1,500 members representing about 95 percent of the 68,000 U.S. women religious.

As is typical with McBrien, he begins with a few truths. He is an observer, presenting simple facts. He continues in this line for the next few paragraphs.

In a statement released soon thereafter, the officers acknowledged receipt of the letter and pointed out that the conference "faces this process with confidence, believing that the conference has remained faithful to its mission of service to leaders of congregations of women religious as they seek to further the mission of Christ in today's world."

The Vatican assessment became necessary, according to Cardinal Levada, because the three issues that were surfaced at a 2001 meeting in Rome between the officers of the conference and the Congregation remain in his mind unresolved.

Still true, but the facts are being canted slightly in their presentation. "According to Cardinal Levada" and "in his mind" are phrases that begin to shift the presentation. McBrien is still presenting facts, but his facts are the facts of someone's opinion- they exist in that person's mind. Pay attention to the "mind" in this one.

Those three areas of doctrinal concern are the 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis on the ordination of women to the priesthood, the Congregation's 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus on the unique role of Christ in salvation, and "the problem of homosexuality."

Levada informed the officers of the conference that "Given the tenor and the doctrinal content of various addresses given at the annual assemblies of the conference in the intervening years, this dicastery can only conclude that the problems which had motivated its request in 2001 continue to be present."

Levada also acknowledged that his decision to conduct this "doctrinal assessment" was reached in concert with Cardinal Franc Rodé, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which had announced last December that it was initiating a "visitation" of communities of women religious in the United States, to examine the "quality of life" among their members and to determine why their numbers have declined in recent decades.

Still quoting, still citing facts, although the use of scare quotes- a common McBrien technique- begins to call to question and insert a kind of ironic observation on what are otherwise objective facts. McBrien is both establishing himself as a neutral observer- his favoured position- while at the same time setting up his perceived opponents for dismissal. And here it comes.

Not having at hand copies of the talks given at conference assemblies since 2001, I am not in a position to evaluate Levada's expressed concern about these addresses nor how the three issues (women's ordination, salvation, and homosexuality) were treated in these presentations.

Here's where people's jaws start dropping. This is the hinge point of the article. For the first time in this article, McBrien inserts himself. He moves from being an objective impersonal observer to a personal subjective one, and the first thing he does is admit a lack. The very thing he needs to address the concerns of Levada is something he lacks. As a former academic addressing an article written by someone who always, always touts their own academic credentials, this is a shocking omission. You always, always research the topic you address. If a potential academic were to sit before a board of examiners and admit they knew nothing of a critical piece of information, he would be flunked immediately with contempt. Yet McBrien flaunts his lack, and continues on. How then can he address the Cardinal's concerns?

However, I do know enough about the nature and history of the Leadership Conference to express amazement that there could be any "doctrinal" concerns about the organization and its leadership.

He addresses it by using his own personal experience. Once again, "trust me, for I know," is the unwritten underpinning of McBrien's article. Although, in conjunction with the last paragraph, he seems to be saying "Trust me, for I don't know." Also, note the return of the scare quotes. Irony and dismissal of Levada instead of addressing and dealing with Levada's concerns. After all, how can he address Levada's concerns when he doesn't even have the documents to which Levada referred? His ignorance becomes the enabling condition for McBrien's defence of the Leadership Conference. It reminds me of the old Matlock series: "Your honour, I don't know spit about law, but I remember when I was a boy catching crawdads up on crackleberry creek..." I believe the Latin phrase is "non sequitor."

Some of the finest women religious in the United States, and worldwide, have headed the Leadership Conference. By identifying only a sample, I do not mean to imply that those sisters who remain unmentioned are (or were) of lesser quality and achievement.

So he knows the women to be fine, and therefore the cardinal can have no objection.

The list of past national chairpersons and presidents of the Leadership Conference reads like a Hall of Fame of religious life: Mary Luke Tobin, Thomas Aquinas (Elizabeth) Carroll, Margaret Brennan, Francis Borgia Rothleubber, Joan Chittister, Mary Dooley, Theresa Kane, Nadine Foley, Doris Gottemoeller, Camille D'Arienzo, and so many others.

Moreover, the Leadership Conference's mission statement is as straightforward in its pastoral and doctrinal purposes as it could possibly be: "to promote a developing understanding and living of religious life by: assisting its members personally and communally to carry out more collabora-tively their service of leadership in order to accomplish further the mission of Christ in today's world; fostering dialogue and collaboration among religious congregations within the church and in the larger society; [and] developing models for initiating and strengthening relationships with groups concerned with the needs of society, thereby maximizing the potential of the conference for effecting change."

This is the only document from the Leadership conference which he cites, since he does not cite the documents to which Cardinal Levada referred in his letter. How, then, can this be a defence against the Cardinal's concerns? Because of the ethical proof upon which McBrien so often depends. "Trust me, for I know." He uses that proof to make two thrusts. First, note the positive terms with which he introduced the above quotation. Then look at the negative terms which frame the next paragraph, which is most emphatically not a quotation. But McBrien knows. McBrien even knows the Cardinal's "mind".

But there are certain key words and phrases, like "developing," "dialogue," "collaboration," "change," and "today's world," that are red flags for some church officials and a minority of women religious who are locked into the religious culture of the 1940s and 1950s, when nuns wore elaborate habits, remained for the most part confined to their convents and religious houses, took the names assigned to them, often those of male saints, and limited their apostolic activity principally to teaching children, and ministering to the sick, orphans, and unmarried pregnant girls.

After dismissing the concerns of the Cardinal, he now presents what he sees as the Cardinal's real motives. He has once again raised a straw man to be bashed about, even though there is no trace- none- of this in the first part of his article, nor is it to be found in Cardinal Levada's letter by McBrien's own admission. Had these concerns been presented in Levada's letter, it would have made sense for McBrien to have cited it rather than create this out of whole cloth. Again, McBrien is dismissive and contemptuous of those with whom he disagrees. McBrien now launches into his peroration, his final act of rhetoric to convince everyone of his truth, leading up to a final statement.

It was unthinkable in those pre-conciliar years for a nun to appear in secular clothes, however simple, to engage in apostolic activities outside the convent or religious house, to reclaim their baptismal names, and to become engaged in ministries of social justice, human rights, and peace.

It was even more unthinkable that these now highly educated women would begin to think for themselves and to speak and act accordingly.

That is what seems to bother their critics the most.

McBrien has dismissed everything he started with in the beginning of this article, a typical McBrien move, everything about the Cardinal's letter asking for an examination of certain specific doctrinal issues stemming from certain specific presentations at certain specific conferences, as being dishonest in order to present his own view of what this visitation is really about. Breathtakingly, he does this not despite the fact that he doesn't know what the Cardinal was speaking about in his concerns, but because he doesn't know what the Cardinal was speaking about. Not having those conference notes in front of him is not a hindrance to this article, it is the article's enabling condition. Ignorance is not only bliss, it is a virtue to be trumpeted. I don't know anything about that, says McBrien. But I do know something else. His entire article makes about as much sense as a conversation that runs like this:

1: How you feeling today?

2: Not so good.

1: That can't be true, because I feel fine.

"I have concerns," says Levada. "That can't be true," says McBrien, "because I don't know what you're talking about. It must be something else." Judging from this article, this is McBrien's idea of proof.